CAR_Public/180409.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Monday, April 9, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 71



                            Headlines


305 FITNESS: Faces "Kiler" Suit in E.D. New York
AM COMMUNICATION: Removes Watzlavik Suit to S.D. Western Virginia
ANN INC: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
ALLTRAN FIN'L: Court Stays "Aker" Pending Certification Bid
AP&SS RESTAURANT: "Monter" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages

APPLE INC: Hawes Sues Over Undisclosed iOS Upgrade Bug
ATTENDING HOMECARE: Court Denies Arbitration Bid in "Abdullayeva"
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Ct. Won't Review Out-Of-Time Claim Ruling
AXLEHIRE INC: Fails to Pay Drivers Overtime, "King" Suit Claims
BITCONNECT INT'L: Faces "Avalos" Suit Over Illegal Pyramid Scheme

BLUESTONE COAL: Court Certifies Class of Laid-off Employees
CAPREIT RESIDENTIAL: Holl Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing SMS
CARLIE OLIVANT: Faces "Bertone" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
CENTRAL BAR: Workers Sue Owners Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Jacobs" Suit Over Invasion of Privacy

CHAMPION PETFOODS: Pet Owners Claims Dog Food Contains Toxins
CITIBANK NA: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Nichols"
COCA-COLA CO: "Fradella" Suit Remains in Louisiana Dist. Court
COLLISION CENTERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Frost" Suit Says
CONNECTICUT: "Robles" Suit vs AG Moved to Federal District Court

CRITTENDEN, AR: Sued Over Failure to Pay Jail Workers Overtime
CROCS INC: Ct. Grants Initial Distribution in Securities Suit
CUMBERLAND, ME: Court Dismisses Suit Over Civil Process Monopoly
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Choukalas" Claims
DENKA PERFORMANCE: Taylor Appeals Denial of Class Certification

DESH BANGLA: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Alam" Action Claims
DOMETIC CORPORATION: "Zimmer" Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
E&M ASSOCIATES: Court Won't Dismiss Contrera, Lopez in FLSA Suit
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Removes "Mellon" Suit to S.D. New York
ENTERPRISE HEALTH: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Plaintiff Can Offer Rebuttal Expert
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Court Dismisses Suit Over $75 Processing Fee
FIVE BOROUGH: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Stepanov" Suit Says
FMFS OF VS: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Properly Pay Servers
FUNKO INC: Time to Answer "Baskin" Complaint Extended

FUNKO INC: Time to Answer "Linde" Complaint Extended
FUNKO INC: Time to Answer "Surratt" Complaint Extended
GARTEN SERVICES: Illegally Obtained Consumer Reports, Suit Claims
GAULT AUTO: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Malave" Class Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Brugaletta Sues over Sale of Defective Airbags

GOOGLE LLC: Class Allegations in Nexus 6P Suit Remains
GREYHOUND LINES: June 28 Hearing on Bid to Remand "Smith"
GRUBHUB INC: Lawson Appeals N.D. Calif. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
HIGHLINE RESIDENTIAL: Faces "Kiler" Suit in E.D. New York
HOTS INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, "Cross" Suit Claims

HSBC BANK: Vasquez & Garcia Sue over WCM777 Ponzi Scheme
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Faces "Hawkins" Suit in Oregon
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS: Made Unsolicited Calls, Armstrong Claims
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces "Fitzgerald" Suit over Talc Products
JRV SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, "Pereira" Claims

JUNIORS CHEESECAKE: Faces "Fischler" Suit in E.D. New York
KIIP INC: Court Dismisses Wiretap Act Claims in "Vasil"
KROGER CO: Kocoglu Sues over Labeling of Aloe Vera Products
LA COLOMBE: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
LASALLE COUNTY, IL: Court Dismisses "Larson" With Prejudice

LOS TRES MAGUEYES: "Pontones" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
MEDCAH INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Sloatman Says
MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION: Court Narrows Claims in Driver's Suit
MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Chambers Sues over Debt Collections
MICHIGAN: Ct. Won't Dismiss Jewish Inmates' Suit Over Kosher Food

MILDON BUS: 3rd Circuit Appeal Filed in Community Vocational Suit
MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces "Brickey" Suit Over Roundup(R) Products
MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces "Holstrom" Suit Over Roundup(R) Products
MYLIFE.COM INC: Cichowlas and Bonell Sue over Privacy Rights
NEW YORK, NY: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Grubbs" Class Suit

NEW YORK PIZZERIA: Faces "Peacock" Suit in California
NIAGARA FALLS WATER: Removes Salerno Suit to W.D. New York
NICOR ENERGY: Court Denies Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Plummer"
OHIO: Governor, Attorney General Face "Robinson" Class Suit
PACIFIC FERTILITY: Faces "Bauer" Suit in C.D. California

PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION: Faces "Anderson" Suit in E.D. Pa.
PENNYMAC LOAN: Faces "Malek" Suit in C.D. California
PETCO ANIMAL: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Lanning" Suit Says
PHEA: Hawkins Sues over Federal Student Loans
RC&D INC: "Hermenegildo" Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

ROAD MACHINERY: Faces "Ruiz" Suit in California
RUBY IV: "Kidwell" Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
SAS ANALYTICS: McMurtry Appeals Order in "Cahoo" Suit to 6th Cir.
SENTRY CREDIT: Riccio Appeals D.N.J. Ruling to Third Circuit
SOTTILE SECURITY: Fails to Pay Wages, Sokunbi-Jones Claims

SUPERIOR CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Rettinger" Suit Claims
SUTTON ASSOCIATES: "Flores" Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA
TD BANK: Appeals Ruling in Debit Card Overdraft MDL to 4th Cir.
TESORO REFINING: Court Issues Protective Order in "Valliere"
TSYS BUSINESS: Removes "Gardiner" Suit to C.D. California

TUTTO FRESCA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Joya" Suit Claims
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Reaffirms Arbitration Order in "Meyer"
UNITED CONSUMER: "Declue" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
UNITED CONTINENTAL: Wins Summary Ruling in Silver Wings Suit
UNITED PARCEL: Seeks 6th Cir. Review of Decision in "Solo" Suit

UNITED STATES: Damus et al. Sue Homeland Security in D.C.
VACASA LLC: Faces "Fisher" Suit in Oregon
VU FOOD SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Carrion" Suit Claims
WALMART DE MEXICO: Fogel Appeals S.D.N.Y. Rulings to 2nd Circuit
WAL-MART STORES: Abbey Spanier Appeals Order in Braun/Hummel Suit

WELLS FARGO: June 7 Case Management Conference in "Carroll"
WESTERN RANGE: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Castillo" Suit
WHITING PETROLEUM: "Schindler" Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
WHOLE FOODS: Balks at Allegations in "Rabb" Suit
WYNDHAM VACATION: Seeks 6th Cir. Review of Order in "Pierce" Suit







                            *********


305 FITNESS: Faces "Kiler" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 305 Fitness, Inc.
The case is styled as Marion Kiler, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. 305 Fitness, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01982
(E.D. N.Y., April 2, 2018).

305 Fitness, Inc. owns and operates dance cardio workout fitness
centers.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


AM COMMUNICATION: Removes Watzlavik Suit to S.D. Western Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of Jason Watzlavik, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AM
Communications, Ltd., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the
lawsuit from the Kanawha County Circuit Court (Case No. 17-C-
1735) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
West Virginia and assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-00378(S.D.W. Va.,
March 1, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Joseph R. Goodwin,
and Discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Tinsley.

As of October 9, 2003, AM Communications, Inc. was acquired by
NeSTronix, Inc.  AM Communications, Inc. develops and provides
products including hardware and software systems and services
including network engineering, network design and construction,
and subscriber installation to the broadband communications
market, primarily for cable television systems. The company
offers OmniStat family of network monitoring and management
systems. The company was formerly known as AM Cable TV
Industries, Inc. and changed its name to AM Communications, Inc.
in January 1987. The company was founded in 1974 and is based in
Quakertown, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff are represented by:

          D. Christopher Hedges, Esq.
          THE CALWELL PRACTICE
          Law and Arts Center West
          500 Randolph Street
          Charleston, WV 25302
          Telephone: (304) 343-4323
          Facsimile: (304) 344-3684
          E-mail: chedges@calwelllaw.com

               - and -

          D. Adrian Hoosier, II, Esq.
          LORD HOOSIER
          225 Hale Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-8030
          Facsimile: (304) 553-7227
          E-mail: adrian@lordhoosier.com

               - and -

          David H. Carriger, Esq.
          THE CALWELL PRACTICE
          Law and Arts Center West
          500 Randolph Street
          Charleston, WV 25302
          Telephone: (304) 343-4323
          Facsimile: (304) 344-3684
          E-mail: dcarriger@calwelllaw.com

               - and -

          W. Stuart Calwell, Esq.
          THE CALWELL PRACTICE
          P. O. Box 113
          Charleston, WV 25321-0113
          Telephone: (304) 343-4323
          Facsimile: (304) 344-3684
          E-mail: scalwell@calwelllaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian J. Moore, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL
          P. O. Box 11887
          Charleston, WV 25339-1887
          Telephone: (304) 357-9905
          Facsimile: (304) 357-0919
          E-mail: brian.moore@dinslaw.com

               - and -

          Katherine B. Capito, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL
          P. O. Box 11887
          Charleston, WV 25339-1887
          Telephone: (304) 357-0900
          Facsimile: (304) 357-0919
          E-mail: katherine.capito@dinsmore.com


ANN INC: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ann Inc. The case
is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ann Inc. doing
business as: Lou & Grey, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02899 (S.D.
N.Y., April 2, 2018).

Ann Inc. is an American group of specialty apparel retail chain
stores for women.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLTRAN FIN'L: Court Stays "Aker" Pending Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin granted Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Proceedings in the
case captioned ROBERT AKER, Plaintiff, v. ALLTRAN FINANCIAL LP,
Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-985 (E.D. Wis.), pending the
plaintiff's motion to certify a class.

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.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 5, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yd3ce3td from Leagle.com.

Robert Aker, Plaintiff, represented by Mark A. Eldridge --
meldridge@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, Shpetim Ademi --
sademi@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP & John D. Blythin,
Ademi & O'Reilly LLP.

Alltran Financial LP, Defendant, represented by Brent D. Nistler,
Nistler Law Office SC & Shauna D. Manion, Nistler Law Office SC.
7000 W. North Ave, Wauwatosa, WI 53213


AP&SS RESTAURANT: "Monter" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Monter, Johnny Rivas and Ivan Arcos, Plaintiff, v. AP&SS
Restaurant Group LLC, A&B Restaurant Group LLC, Benjamin
Steakhouse, SSAP LLC, B and B Restaurant Group LLC, Alban
Prelvukaj, Shaban Sinanaj and Abneshe Sinanaj, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-01859, (S.D. N.Y., March 1, 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 collectively own and operate multiple restaurants both
in the United States and abroad as the "Benjamin Restaurant
Group." They operate four of these restaurants in New York,
namely Sea Fire Grill and Benjamin Steakhouses. Plaintiffs worked
as restaurant employees and claim to have been denied overtime.
They further allege that all Hispanic employees employed by
Defendants were subject to discrimination. [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


APPLE INC: Hawes Sues Over Undisclosed iOS Upgrade Bug
------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Hawes, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-
01339, (N.D. Cal., March 1, 2018), seeks monetary damages,
including but not limited to, compensatory, incidental, and
consequential damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs
incurred by counsel for Plaintiffs in accordance with
California's Unfair Competition Law and California's False
Advertising Law and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

Apple allegedly failed to inform consumers that updating their
iPhone 6, 6S, SE or 7 to iOS 10.2.1 (and/or later to iOS 11.2)
would dramatically and artificially reduce the performance of
these devices. Apple also failed to inform consumers that phone
performance would be restored by simply replacing the phone's
lithium-ion battery, a much cheaper solution than buying a new
phone.

iPhone users reported sudden shutdowns of iPhones 5 and 6 running
versions of iOS 10 software. In February of 2017, Apple claimed
that it had almost entirely resolved the issue in its latest
10.2.1 iOS update, however users still complained of slow
devices.

Defendant is a manufacturer of smartphones under the trade name
"iPhone." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert R. Ahdoot, Esq.
      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      Theodore W. Maya, SBN 223242
      Bradley K. King, SBN 274399
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
      10728 Lindbrook Drive
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
             twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
             tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
             bking@ahdootwolfson.com


ATTENDING HOMECARE: Court Denies Arbitration Bid in "Abdullayeva"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York denied Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case
captioned TATYANA ABDULLAYEVA, Individually and on Behalf of
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ATTENDING HOMECARE
SERVICES, LLC., Defendant, No. 7-CV-595 (E.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff is a home health aide who has been working for
Defendant since October 2014. Frequently, she worked more that
forty hours per week. She was always paid $11.00 per hour.
Plaintiff alleges that she and the class were denied other
statutorily required pay; she was denied spread of hours pay
under 12 N.Y.C.R.R. Section 142-2:4, she did not receive an extra
hours pay on days where she worked more than 10 hours in a day or
had non-consecutive hours.  From March 1, 2014 through December
30, 2016, she was supposed to receive at least $14.09 per hour
under New York law, but only received $11.00.

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) provides that "[a] written
provision in any contract evidencing a transaction involving
commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter
arising out of such contract or transaction shall be valid,
irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at
law or in equity for the revocation of any contract."

Generally, as a matter of federal law, any doubts concerning the
scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of
arbitration. When an agreement is clear, it is the language of
the contract that defines the scope of disputes subject to
arbitration.

In order for a mandatory arbitration provision in a collective
bargaining agreement to encompass an employee's statutory claims,
the inclusion of such claims must be unmistakable, so that the
wording is not susceptible to a contrary reading. To satisfy this
exacting standard, the arbitration clause must specify either
that all federal causes of action are subject to mandatory
arbitration or name the specific statutory provisions that it
intends to cover.

Statutorily based claims under FLSA can be subject to mandatory
arbitration.

Defendant seeks to force Plaintiff to arbitrate her FLSA and
other labor law claims. It relies on and arbitration clause
contained in a collective bargaining agreement. The clause must
be clear and unmistakable and not susceptible to a contrary
reading for the court to compel arbitration.

The first three procedures apply to the parties. Plaintiff is not
a party to the Agreement; the only parties are the Union and
Defendant. The sixth provision specifically modifies the word
parties to include employees, but it does not compel arbitration
of this claim.

An individual employee's obligations are outlined in the fourth
clause of the provision. This clause only applies Pin the event
an Employee has requested, in writing, that the Union process a
grievance. Plaintiff has not made a written demand to the Union
to process her grievance so this provision does not apply to her
either.

Conspicuously absent from the fourth clause is a requirement that
an employee file a Union grievance. Absent this mandatory
prerequisite, arbitration is permissive, not mandatory. The
introductory clause tells the employee she must follow the
grievance procedures, but the grievance procedures do not direct
that she must follow a path to arbitration.

The permissive language in the fourth clause in the event and may
submit their individual claim contrasts with the mandatory
language must" and shall use both within this section of the
Agreement and in others sections. The arbitration clause is
susceptible to a contrary reading namely, that the employee can
choose whether to arbitrate.

The arbitrators are preselected so the employee has no part in
the selection of the arbitrator.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 5, 2018 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7w2tggh from
Leagle.com.

Tatyana Abdullayeva, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by James Burkett
McInturff, III -- jbm@wittelslaw.com -- Law Offices of Steven L.
Wittels, Tiasha Palikovic -- tpalikovic@wittelslaw.com -- Wittels
Law, P.C., Daniel Hymowitz -- daniel@hymowitzlaw.com -- Hymowitz
Law Group, PLLC & Steven L. Wittels -- slw@wittelslaw.com -- Law
Offices of Steven L. Wittels.

Attending Homecare Services LLC, doing business as, Defendant,
represented by Lisa Marie Griffith -- lgriffith@littler.com,-
Littler Mendelson P.C., Daniel Sergio Gomez-Sanchez --
dsgomez@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Ira D. Wincott --
iwincott@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & Leslie M.
DiBenedetto- ldibenedetto@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson P.C.


AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Ct. Won't Review Out-Of-Time Claim Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
denied Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration in the case
captioned AARON NELSON, ASHLEY NELSON, AAYDIN NELSON, BY HIS
GUARDIAN AD LITEM AARON NELSON. AND NTELISENG NKHELA, Plaintiffs,
v. AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC., ABC CORPORATIONS 1-10 AND JOHN
DOES 1-20, Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-0778 (JLL) (D.N.J.).

Defendant AvalonBay Communities, Inc., filed a Motion for
Reconsideration asking the Court to reconsider its decision in
that December 13, 2017 Opinion, in which it denied Plaintiffs the
opportunity to opt out of the class action, but permitted them
leave to file an out-of-time claim as part of the class through
the class action settlement claims process.

To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the movant must show
at least one of the following: (1) an intervening change in
controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the
need to correct clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.
Nevertheless, Defendant argues that reconsideration is proper for
four reasons:

   (1) In In re Orthopedic Bone Screw Products Liability
Litigation (Bone Screw), 246 F.3d 315, 322-23 (3d Cir. 2001), the
Court permitted the filing of a late claim of a class member who
actually sought participation in the class, whereas here,
Plaintiffs requested to opt out of the class;

   (2) the prejudice to the defendant in Bone Screw was
substantially less because liability under the settlement
agreement was capped;

   (3) the Court erred in basing its decision on Plaintiffs'
attorney's assertion that Plaintiffs are frequently away from
their homes due to their jobs; and

   (4) AvalonBay should not be prejudiced by adhering to the
notice program approved by this Court.

Whether the facts in Bone Screw Are Sufficiently Distinguishable
to Warrant Reconsideration

While it is true, as Defendant points out, that the Court and
AvalonBay do not yet know the precise amount of the claims to be
filed by Plaintiffs, (ECF No. 23-1 at 9), Plaintiffs have lost
their homes and all of their belongings in a catastrophic fire at
Defendant's property. In light of the parameters limiting the
recovery of class members under the settlement claims process,
the Court does not believe that such claims will unfairly
prejudice Defendant under the circumstances.

As such, the Court does not believe that it improperly applied
Bone Screw to the facts of this case so as to warrant granting
Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration.

Whether the Court's Reliance on Plaintiffs' Attorney's Assertions
and Its Decision to Allow Plaintiffs to File a Late Claim in
Spite of Defendant's Adherence to the Notice Procedure in the
Settlement Agreement Warrant Reconsideration.

While Plaintiffs' failure to check their email for notice of the
final settlement weighs against a finding of excusable neglect,
this factor alone is not dispositive.   It is not necessarily the
case that Plaintiffs missed the relevant notices due to their
carelessness, as those emails could have gone to their spam or
trash folders. Nor is Defendant being penalized for complying
with the Court approved notice procedure.

In light of the fact that this Court found that the other three
pioneer factors weighed in favor of excusable neglect in its
December 13, 2017 Opinion, and given the aforementioned case law
showing that excusable neglect may still be appropriate despite a
claimant having received notice through a Court approved notice
program, the Court determines that the fact that it overlooked
Plaintiffs receipt of the relevant notices via email is not
enough to grant Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 5, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8ohg5ju from Leagle.com.

AARON NELSON, ASHLEY NELSON, AAYDIN NELSON, by his guardian ad
litem Aaron Nelson & NTELISENG NKHELA, Plaintiffs, represented by
RAYMOND ANDREW GRIMES -- ray@grimes4law.com

AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC., Defendant, represented by DANIEL
JASON DIMURO -- ddimuro@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP & RONALD A.
GILLER -- griller@grsm.com -- GORDON & REES LLP.


AXLEHIRE INC: Fails to Pay Drivers Overtime, "King" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES KING; KRISIA BARRERA; SHEMICKA JOHNSON, individually and on
behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AXLEHIRE, INC.
d/b/a as AXLEHIRE; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 3:18-cv-01621-JCS (N.D. Cal., March 14, 2018), is an
action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

Plaintiffs are former delivery drivers the Defendants in
California. Plaintiff King was employed since April 2017.
Plaintiff Barrera was employed from March 2017 to December 2017.
Plaintiff Johnson was employed from October 2015 to November
2016.

AxleHire provides same-day delivery services for e-commerce, and
brick and mortar retailers. The company was incorporated in 2015
and is based in Berkeley, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony J. Nunes, Esq.
          NUNES WORKER RIGHTS LAW, APC
          15260 Ventura Blvd, Suite 1200
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: 530-848-1515
          Facsimile: 424-252-4301
          E-mail: tony@nunesworkerrightslaw.com


BITCONNECT INT'L: Faces "Avalos" Suit Over Illegal Pyramid Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Baltazar Avalos, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Bitconnect International PLC, Bitconnect
Ltd., Bitconnect Trading Ltd., Joshua Jeppesen, Glenn Arcaro,
Trevon Brown A/K/A Trevon James, Ryan Hildreth, Craig Grant, John
Doe 1 A/K/A Nicholas Trovato A/K/A Cryptonick, and Ryan Maasen,
Case No. 4:18-cv-01165-JSW (N.D. Cal., February 22, 2018), is an
action for violations of the Securities Exchange Act and
California's Unfair Competition law, and for breach of contract,
actual fraud, constructive fraud, and unjust enrichment against
Defendants for their offer and sale of investment contract
securities in violation of the federal securities laws'
registration requirements and participation in effectuating the
fraudulent Ponzi/pyramid schemes in the form of the BitConnect
Lending Program and the BitConnect Staking Program.

The Defendants operate a foreign technology organization that
describes itself as "an opensource all in one [sic] bitcoin and
crypto community platform designed to provide multiple investment
opportunities with cryptocurrency education where it is entirely
possible to find the independence we all desire, in a community
of like-minded, freedom loving individuals who, like you, are
seeking the possibility of income stability in a very unstable
world."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 291-2420
      Facsimile: (415) 484-1294
      E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com

         - and -

      Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (212) 636-7171
      E-mail: ek@zlk.com

         - and -

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      John A. Carriel, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      1101 30th St., NW, Ste. 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4292
      Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
      E-mail: denright@zlk.com
              jcarriel@zlk.com


BLUESTONE COAL: Court Certifies Class of Laid-off Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
West Virginia, Beckley Division, granted Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification in the case captioned FRANK G. TREADWAY, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. BLUESTONE COAL CORP., et al., Defendants,
Civil Action No. 5:16-cv-12149 (S.D. W.Va.).

The Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a Complaint on
December 14, 2016, alleging that the Defendants violated the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act by
failing to provide a sixty-day notice to employees of a pending
layoff.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (Rule 23) governs class action
certification. Rule 23(a) states that: one or more members of a
class may sue as representative parties if (1) the class is so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there
are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims
or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the
claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative party
will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
However, a plaintiff seeking class certification must also
satisfy one of the subsections of Rule 23(b).

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

The WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 2102 et seq.

In this case, the alleged common question of law or fact raised
by the Plaintiffs arises under the WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. Section
2102 et seq. The WARN Act requires employers to provide sixty
(60) days written notice of a mass layoff to affected employees
or their collective bargaining representative. Under 29 U.S.C.
Section 2101(a)(3), a mass layoff is a reduction in force which
(A) is not the result of a plant closing; and (B) results in an
employment loss at the single site of employment during any 30-
day period for (I) at least 33 percent of the employees and (II)
at least 50 employees.

Part-time employees are not considered in determining whether a
mass layoff has occurred.

WARN Act Standing

In order to determine whether the Plaintiffs have a valid
statutory cause of action under the WARN Act, and before applying
Rule 23(a) and (b) to the Plaintiffs' proposed class, the Court
must next determine whether the Plaintiffs can bring a WARN Act
class claim on behalf of all of the miners laid off at the Burke
Mountain Strip Mine.

This includes determining whether the Defendants constitute a
single employer under the Act, and whether the Burke Mountain
Strip Mine constitutes a single site of employment.

Single Employer

The Department of Labor regulations set forth five factors for
determining whether a parent corporation and its subsidiaries
constitute an employer under the WARN Act: (i) common ownership,
(ii) common directors and/or officers, (iii) de facto exercise of
control, (iv) unity of personnel policies emanating from a common
source, and (v) the dependency of operations.

Here, the Defendants do not contest that they are a single
employer of the employees at the Burke Mountain Strip Mine.
Further, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have provided
sufficient evidence to satisfy these factors.

Single Site of Employment

Second, the Court must determine whether the area encapsulating
the Burke Mountain Strip Mine constitutes a single site of
employment under the WARN Act. Whether or not a job site
constitutes a single site of employment is determined by whether
(1) the work areas are in a reasonable geographic proximity, (2)
they share the same operational purpose, and (3) they share the
same staff and equipment.

The Defendants again do not contest that the Burke Mountain Strip
Mine was a single site of employment, and the Burke Mountain site
satisfies all of the previously listed elements. Thus, the Court
finds that Burke Mountain is a single mine and therefore
constitutes a single site of employment for purposes of the WARN
Act.

Rule 23

The Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs' class definition is
fatally flawed for several reasons. The Defendants assert that
the definition fails to account for miners who were not let go in
violation of the WARN Act, who were not employed long enough for
the WARN Act to apply, and because it spans a three-month period
as opposed to a 30-day window as prescribed by the WARN Act.
The Court finds that the Defendants' arguments are without merit.
The Plaintiffs' class definition is not overly broad and only
includes those putative class members who were laid off from the
Burke Mountain Strip Mine within an aggregated ninety-day period
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 2102(d) and does not use legal
terms of art that amount to a fail-safe class definition.

The Court finds that the class definition is not flawed.

Numerosity

Here, the Plaintiffs argue that their proposed class of miners is
sufficiently numerous to make joinder impractical because the
Defendants collectively laid off approximately 105 miners. The
Plaintiffs further assert that because the WARN act only permits
minimal damages, akin to a liquidated damages payment, denying
class certification would impede judicial economy by forcing
workers to bring identical claims in separate suits.

Joinder of 105 cases for all of the separate miners would clearly
be impractical, and the Court therefore finds that the Plaintiffs
have satisfied the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a).

Common Questions of Law and Fact

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have shown that the proposed
class members share common questions of law and fact. As alleged,
all proposed class members were laid off from the same mine
within the same time frame and all complain that the termination
did not comply with the WARN Act. Further, as the Court
previously determined, the Burke Mountain Strip Mine constitutes
a single site of employment. Therefore, a determination of which
particular part of the Burke Mountain mine the putative class
members worked is irrelevant to the commonality question.

Typicality

Here, to establish a prima facie case under the WARN Act, the
Plaintiffs must establish (1) that a mass layoff occurred and (2)
that Bluestone failed to provide sixty days written notice of the
layoff either to the Plaintiffs, or to the Plaintiffs' collective
bargaining representative.   The Plaintiffs contend that because
all of the class members worked for Bluestone and suffered a
common employment loss, the Plaintiffs' claims satisfy the
typicality requirement.

The heart of this case is whether Bluestone unlawfully discharged
the Plaintiffs and other putative class members in violation of
the WARN Act, and the Court finds that the Plaintiffs satisfy the
typicality requirement of Rule 23(a).

Adequacy of Representation

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs will adequately represent the
proposed class members, as they share a common claim, and have a
significant financial stake in this litigation.  The Court
further finds that Plaintiff's counsel is adequate and satisfies
the test described above. There is no evidence of a conflict of
interest, and the Plaintiffs have proffered that their counsel
has served as class counsel in more than a dozen cases both in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
West Virginia and West Virginia state courts.

The Defendants repeat the same objections previously argued
regarding the other elements of class certification in which the
Court has previously found no merit. Therefore, the Court finds
that Plaintiffs have satisfied the adequacy of representation
requirement of Rule 23(a)(4).

Rule 23(b)

Here, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs' proposed class is
sufficiently cohesive to satisfy the predominance requirement. As
the Plaintiffs have shown, the central question regarding all of
the Plaintiffs and putative class members is simply the
Defendants' liability pursuant to the WARN Act, and that question
is common to all class members. Any individual questions of fact
which may emerge for particular plaintiffs after certification
are clearly subordinate to this central question.

The Court also finds that it is desirable to concentrate this
litigation in the Southern District of West Virginia, where the
relevant mine is located and the layoff at issue occurred. The
Court has accepted the Plaintiff's proffer that there is no other
pending litigation regarding the proposed class. The Court finds
that the Plaintiff has satisfied Rule 23(b)(3).

Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class is granted.

The class certified is defined as follows, subject to any later
modification pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C):

     All persons who were terminated from full-time employment,
or were subject to a reduction in force as full-time employees,
at the Burke Mountain Strip Mine by the Bluestone Coal
Corporation, Bluestone Industries, Inc., or Mechel Bluestone,
Inc., from December 27, 2011 through March 26, 2012.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 5, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yd5mnxm2
from Leagle.com.

Frank G. Treadway, Joey Clark Hatfield & Charles W. Hensley,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Bren J. Pomponio -- bren@msjlaw.org --
MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, INC. & Samuel Brown Petsonk --
sam@msjlaw.org -- MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, INC.

Bluestone Coal Corp., Bluestone Industries, Inc. & Mechel
Bluestone, Inc., Defendants, represented by Andrew L. Ellis,
WOOTON WOOTON & DAVIS, John D. Wooton, Jr., THE WOOTON LAW FIRM &
John F. Hussell, IV, WOOTON WOOTON & DAVIS, 300 Summers St.,
Suite 1230, Charleston, WV 25301


CAPREIT RESIDENTIAL: Holl Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing SMS
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anna R. Holl, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Capreit Residential Management, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00590 (D. Minn., March 1, 2018) seeks
an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unsolicited text
messaging advertisements, and an award of statutory damages
together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant is a real estate operating company that owns and
manages apartment communities. Holl received unwanted text
messages promoting their Minneapolis Grand Apartment Complex.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq.
      Katelyn R. Cartier, Esq.
      CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER, P.A.
      367 Commerce Court
      Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
      Telephone: (651) 770-9707
      Facsimile: (651) 704-0907
      Emails: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com
              kcartier@consumerjusticecenter.com


CARLIE OLIVANT: Faces "Bertone" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carlie Olivant. The
case is styled as Omar Vargas, Robert Bertone, Michelle Harris
and Sharon Heberling, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs/Respondents v. Carlie
Olivant, Brenda Lott and Gail Slomine, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-
mc-00069-PD (E.D. Penn., April 2, 2018).[BN]

The Defendants/Movants are represented by:

   DAVID J. GORBERG, Esq.
   GORBERG AND ZUBER
   1234 MARKET STREET, SUITE 2040
   PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
   Tel: (215) 563-7210
   Fax: (215) 563-8738


CENTRAL BAR: Workers Sue Owners Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Pena Hernandez and Fernando Gonzalez Librado, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Jim
Giles Corp., James Tuohy and Giles Cooper, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-01874 (S.D. N.Y., March 1, 2018), seeks to recover, unpaid
"spread-of-hours" and overtime wages, unpaid minimum wages,
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law.

Defendants owned, operated, or controlled an Irish bar located at
109 E. 9th Street, New York, NY 10003 under the name "Central
Bar" where Pena was employed as a dishwasher and night cook from
approximately 2009 until on or about February 25, 2018 while
Librado worked as a salad preparer from approximately November
2016 until on or about December 27, 2016. Both claims to have
been denied overtime pay, worked through breaks and denied wage
statements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Jacobs" Suit Over Invasion of Privacy
------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Jacobs, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Central Credit Services, LLC and Does 1-10,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00145-MRB (S.D. Ohio, February 27, 2018), is an
action for damages resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendant, in negligently, knowingly and willfully placing,
through its agents, sales, solicitation and other automated
telephone calls to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone, thereby
invading the Plaintiff's privacy.

Central Credit Services, LLC operates as an accounts receivable
management company that specializes in the collection of primary,
auto, mortgage, commercial, credit card, installment loan, and
retail debt. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Jacobs, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      333 Skokie Blvd. Suite 103
      Northbrook, IL 60062
      Telephone: (888) 595-9111
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: dlevin@toddflaw.com


CHAMPION PETFOODS: Pet Owners Claims Dog Food Contains Toxins
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Reitman, Jennifer Song and Richard Clapp individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. Champion Petfoods USA, Inc. and Champion Petfoods
LP, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01736 (C.D. Cal., February 28,
2018), seeks damages plus interest, including reasonable
attorneys' fees and such other and further relief resulting from
unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud by omission,
negligent misrepresentation and violation of the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California False Advertising Law,
California Unfair Competition Law, Minnesota Commercial Feed Law,
Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, Minnesota Uniform
Deceptive Trades Act, Minnesota False Statement in Advertising
Act, Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Defendants manufacture, market, advertise, label, distribute and
sell pet food under the brand names "Acana" and "Orijen." They
allegedly failed to fully disclose the presence of arsenic,
mercury, lead, cadmium and/or Bisphenol A in their pet food sold
throughout the United States.

Plaintiffs are dog owners who claim to have purchased
contaminated pet food containing heavy metals and toxin. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
       Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
       LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
       100 Washington Ave S Ste 2200
       Mpls, MN 55401-2179
       Tel: (612) 339-6900
       Fax: (612) 339-0981
       Email: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
              rapeterson@locklaw.com


CITIBANK NA: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Nichols"
----------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed the
order of the District Court granting Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment in the case captioned SHIRLEY NICHOLS,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITIBANK, N.A., et al., Defendants-
Appellees, No. 16-56042 (9th Cir.).

Plaintiff-Appellant appeals the district court's order granting
summary judgment on her class action claims in favor of
Defendants-Appellees Citibank, N.A., Citigroup, Inc., and
Citimortgage, Inc. (Citibank).  Nichols argues that the district
court erred in determining that the class action settlement
release in Raniere v. Citigroup Ins.,No. 1:11-cv-2448-RWS
(S.D.N.Y.), barred Nichols's present claims.

The Ninth Circuit pointed out that its precedent states: "A
settlement agreement may preclude a party from bringing a related
claim in the future even though the claim was not presented and
might not have been presentable in the class action, but only
where the released claim is based on the identical factual
predicate as that underlying the claims in the settled class
action."

Nichols fails to distinguish the factual predicates of her
present claims from the factual predicate of Raniere even though
she focuses her present claims narrowly on a specific method
whereby Citibank miscalculated the base wages used to compute the
overtime wages owed to non-exempt employees.

The operative complaint for the class action in the Raniere
settlement was predicated on allegations of (1) unpaid wages due
to the misclassification of non-exempt employees, (2) inaccurate
overtime calculations, once employees were properly classified as
non-exempt, that routinely fell short of what is required under
the FLSA and applicable state laws, and (3) inaccurate wage
statements that did not accurately reflect all hours worked,
including overtime.

While Raniere covered a broader range of alleged misconduct that
included the misclassification of employees as exempt from
overtime, both the settlement in Raniere and Nichols's present
claims are predicated on allegations that Citibank failed to pay
and accurately disclose or compute wages for the purpose of
calculating overtime payments to employees properly classified as
non-exempt.

The Raniere settlement release and Nichols's present claims are
based on the same factual predicate.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's March 5, 2018 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y83ar8al from Leagle.com


COCA-COLA CO: "Fradella" Suit Remains in Louisiana Dist. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana issued Order and Reasons denying Plaintiff's Motion to
Remand the case captioned PAM FRADELLA, Plaintiff, v. COCA-COLA
COMPANY, ET AL., SECTION: "E", Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-
9622 (E.D. La.).

Plaintiff brings this prospective class action on behalf of all
Louisiana residents who purchased and/or purchased and ingested
Gold Peak Tea of any flavor sold in a package that contained mold
or some other deleterious substance. According to Plaintiff,
there are thousands of Louisiana residents who have purchased
Gold Peak Tea and been adversely effected by this unwholesome
product.
Because diversity had been destroyed, the Court ordered the Coca-
Cola Defendants to file an amended notice of removal establishing
this Court's jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness
Act (CAFA).

CAFA expands the jurisdiction of federal courts to preside over
class actions in which: (1) the aggregate value of the claims
exceeds $5,000,000; (2) there are at least 100 class members; and
(3) there is minimal diversity. The removing party bears the
burden of proving CAFA's jurisdictional prerequisites apply.

Defendants' burden

Amount in Controversy Requirement

Summary judgment-type evidence can include (1) the plaintiff's
estimate of the proposed class's size and estimates of (2)
compensatory damages, (3) exemplary damages, and (4) attorneys'
fees.

During the February 23, 2018 evidentiary hearing and through
subsequent supplemental submissions, the parties provided the
Court with evidence that:

   1. Pam Fradella purchased eight bottles of Gold Peak Tea from
Rouses on September 21, 2016 for $2.00/bottle;

   2. Coca-Cola Bottling Company United, Inc. distributed and/or
sold approximately 1,244,555 cases of shelf-stable Gold Peak Tea
products in Louisiana from September 1, 2016 through February 20,
2018; and

   3. Between September 1, 2016 and February 1, 2018, 26.7
million bottles of Gold Peak Tea were distributed in the State of
Louisiana by The Coca-Cola Company/CocaCola Refreshments USA,
Inc.

Also during the hearing, Plaintiff's counsel candidly admitted
that $4,000 in damages for a class member who purchased a tainted
Gold Peak Tea, but did not drink it or become ill, was excessive.
More likely, a class member in that situation would only be
entitled to rescission of the purchase price.

Given the sheer number of Gold Peak Teas distributed throughout
the State of Louisiana since September 1, 2016, the Court finds
the amount in controversy is met in this case and Defendants have
borne their burden of establishing CAFA's prima facie elements by
a preponderance of the evidence.

Local Controversy Exception

Pursuant to CAFA's local controversy exception, a district court
shall decline to exercise jurisdiction if, inter alia, the
alleged conduct of at least one local defendant from whom
significant relief is sought forms a significant basis for the
claims asserted by the proposed plaintiff class.

In this case, Plaintiff's state court petition was filed as a
class action pursuant to article 591, et seq., of the Louisiana
Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, although Defendants cited 42
U.S.C. Section 1332(a) as their original basis for removal, CAFA
jurisdiction existed at the time of removal, and post-removal
amendments to Plaintiff's complaint do not affect this Court's
jurisdictional analysis. Accordingly, Plaintiff's contention in
this case that the inclusion of Rouses as a defendant requires
remand pursuant to the local controversy exception is expressly
foreclosed by the Fifth Circuit's holding in Cedar Lodge.

The Court will not grant Plaintiff's motion to remand on this
basis.

Least 100 Class Members

Although Plaintiff does not dispute that the proposed class
consists of at least 100 members in this case, the Court has an
independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter
jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any
party.

Based on the evidence submitted during the Court's evidentiary
hearing and on the proposed class definition, the Court finds
CAFA's requirement that there be at least 100 members of the
potential class is met in this case.

Plaintiff's motion to remand is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 5, 2018 Order and
Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9rurum6 from
Leagle.com.

Pam Fradella, Plaintiff, represented by John D. Sileo  --
jack@johnsileolaw.com -- John D. Sileo, Attorney at Law, Casey
William Moll  -- casey@johnsileolaw.com -- Law Office of John D.
Sileo, LLC, Craig Stephen Sossaman -- sossamanlaw@bellsouth.net -
- Law Offices of Craig S. Sossaman, John Paul Massicot, Law
Office of John Paul Massicot, LLC,  3914 Canal St; New Orleans,
Louisiana 70119.& Michael W. Collins --
michael.collins@sossamanlaw.net -- Law Offices of Craig S.
Sossaman.

Coca-Cola Company & Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Quentin F. Urquhart, Jr.- qurquhart@irwinllc.com -
- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC & Elizabeth R.R. Showalter
-- esholwalter@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore,
LLC.


COLLISION CENTERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Frost" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
PETER A. FROST, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE COLLISION CENTERS OF NEW
YORK, INC.; and JOSEPH AMODEI, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-
01579-JFB-GRB (E.D.N.Y., March 14, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Frost was employed by the Defendants as an auto body
technician from August 2013 until February 2015, and from
December 2015 April 12, 2017.

The Collision Centers of New York, Inc. is a domestic corporation
authorized to do business in the State of New York, with its
principal place of business located at 225 Route 112, Patchogue,
New York. The Company was formerly known as The Collision Centers
of Patchogue Inc. and 112 Automotive Center Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yale Pollack, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF YALE POLLACK, P.C.
          66 Split Rock Road
          Syosset, New York 11791
          Telephone: (516) 634-6340
          E-mail: (516) 634-6341
          E-mail: ypollack@yalepollacklaw.com


CONNECTICUT: "Robles" Suit vs AG Moved to Federal District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of Rolando Robles, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. United
States Attorney District of Connecticut; Attorney General of the
United States; Ndidi N. Moses; Attorney General of the State of
Connecticut; Daniel Malloy; Michael Lawlor; Carol Patrick; City
Clerk/Town Clerk; Julia Dewey; J. Robina; Jane Doe; Carl E.
Taylor; David Gold; Joan K. Alexander; Kevin T. Kane; David
Zajaja; Gail Hardy; Palocey; Susan Storey; Brian Carlow; Burce
Lorenzen; Robert Meredith; Stephen F. Cashman; C.J. Dipentima;
Kevin Lawrence; Petler Guysbler; Jeff Coffey; Gaberial Caminerio;
Tom Narcwitz; Brandon Doolittle; Carol Chapdelaine; John Doe;
Jane Doe; Scott Semple; Rene L. Robertson, filed a notice to
remove the lawsuit from the Connecticut Superior Court (Case No.
UWY-CV17-5021362-S) to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut and assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00370-VLB (D. Conn.,
March 1, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Vanessa L. Bryant.

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Connecticut acts
on behalf of the United States in litigation in federal court.
The Office conducts criminal prosecutions and represents the
government in civil matters. [BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          John W. Larson, Esq.
          U.S. Attorney's Office-HFD
          450 Main St. Room 328
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 947-1101
          Facsimile: (860) 760-7979
          E-mail: john.larson@usdoj.gov

                - and -

          Lori A. Mizerak, Esq.
          550 Main St.
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 757-9700
          Facsimile: (860) 722-8085
          E-mail: mizel001@hartford.gov


CRITTENDEN, AR: Sued Over Failure to Pay Jail Workers Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Bradley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Crittenden County, Arkansas, Case No. 3:18-cv-00029-
DPM (E.D. Ark., February 22, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay non-patrol deputy sheriff jail
workers' overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Crittenden County, Arkansas operates the Crittenden County
Sheriff's Department.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CROCS INC: Ct. Grants Initial Distribution in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
granted Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Approving the Initial
Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund in the case captioned In
re Crocs, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 07-cv-
02351-PAB-KLM, Consolidated with Nos. 07-cv-02412; 07-cv-02454;
07-cv-02465; and 07-cv-02469 (D. Colo.).

On May 14, 2012, the class action was settled on behalf of all
persons who purchased or acquired publicly-traded securities of
Crocs, Inc. between April 2, 2007 and April 14, 2008, inclusive
(Settlement Class).

Plaintiffs filed the instant motion on August 28, 2017 requesting
an Order Directing Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.  The
Court-appointed claims administrator, Garden City Group, LLC
(GCG) has completed all steps in the administrative process and
is prepared to distribute the Net Settlement Fund to members of
the Settlement Class who have properly completed Proof of Claim
forms and have valid claims under the Plan of Allocation.

As of July 20, 2017, the Net Settlement Fund contained
$6,368,182.13, including accrued interest.

GCG received a total of 29,761 Proofs of Claim through April 15,
2016.

Having reviewed the motion and determined that good cause exists
for the relief requested, the Court ordered that the Timely
Authorized Claimants and Late Postmarked But Otherwise Authorized
Claimants are approved, and the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund to the Authorized Claimants is authorized.

The wholly ineligible or deficient claims, including the Disputed
Claim, are rejected.

GCG will be paid the sum of $955,898.15 for fees and expenses
incurred in connection with services performed and to be
performed with respect to the administration of the Settlement
Fund.

The Settlement Fund, after deduction of payments previously
allowed and set forth herein, will be distributed to the
Authorized Claimants.

The payments distributed to the accepted claimants will bear the
notation CASH PROMPTLY, VOID AND SUBJECT TO RE-DISTRIBUTION IF
NOT CASHED WITHIN [90] DAYS AFTER ISSUE DATE. Lead Counsel and
the Claims Administrator are authorized to take appropriate
action to locate and/or contact any eligible claimant who has not
cashed his/her/its distribution within said time.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 5, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9je8jf3 from Leagle.com.

Antonio Pedrera Sanchez & Fernando Pedrera Sanchez, Plaintiffs,
represented by Albert B. Wolf, Wolf Slatkin & Madison, P.C.,  44
Cook Street. Suite 701. Denver, CO 80206-5822. Charles J. Piven -
- priven@browerpiven.com -- Brower Piven, PC & Cyril V. Smith --
csmith@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP.

Harvey Babbitt & Daniel J Lundberg, Plaintiffs, represented by
Charles J. Piven, Brower Piven, PC & Cyril V. Smith, Zuckerman
Spaeder, LLP.

Crocs, Inc., Ron Snyder, Peter Case, Russ Hammer & Scott
Crutchfield, Defendants, represented by Erik Jeffrey Olson
ejolson@mofo.com, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Ian J. Kellogg, U.S.
Attorney's Office, Nicole K. Serfoss -- nserfoss@mofo.com --
Morrison & Foerster, LLP & Paul T. Friedman -- pfriedman@mofo.com
--  Morrison & Foerster, LLP.


CUMBERLAND, ME: Court Dismisses Suit Over Civil Process Monopoly
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of  Maine
issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the
case captioned CAREY & ASSOCIATES, P.A., GEORGE SHAW, both as
class representatives, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SHERIFFS and COUNTIES OF
CUMBERLAND, et al., Defendants. No. 2:17-cv-144-NT. (D. Me.)
Defendants have moved to dismiss all the claims in the
Plaintiffs' Complaint.

The Complaint generally alleges that the Defendants have a
monopoly in the service of civil process and are price-gouging
for their services.

The Complaint includes claims for violations of, inter alia: the
Maine Freedom of Access Act (Count I); the Maine Unfair Trade
Practices Act (Count II); the duty of good faith and fair dealing
(Count III); the Maine antitrust statute (Count IV); and the
Sherman Antitrust Act (restraint of trade) (Count V).

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a party may
seek dismissal of a claim for relief in any pleading if that
party believes that the pleading fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.

State Action Immunity

The Defendants have asserted state action immunity as a basis to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' antitrust claims.  The Supreme Court,
relying on principles of federalism and state sovereignty, has
held in Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 352 (1943), that the
Sherman Act did not apply to anticompetitive restraints imposed
by states as an act of government.  Parker immunity does not
apply to substate entities, such as municipalities and other
political subdivisions, but substate governmental entities do
receive immunity from antitrust scrutiny when they act 'pursuant
to state policy to displace competition with regulation or
monopoly public service.

The Maine Statutory Scheme

Rule 4(c) of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the
requirements for service of a complaint and summons. It provides:

"(c) Service. Service of the summons and complaint may be made as
follows:

(1) By mailing a copy of the summons and of the complaint (by
first-class mail, postage prepaid) to the person to be served,
together with two copies of a notice and acknowledgment form and
a return envelope, postage prepaid addressed to the sender. If no
acknowledgment of service under this paragraph is received by the
sender within 20 days after the date of mailing, service of the
summons and complaint shall be made under paragraph (2) or (3) of
this subdivision.

(2) By a sheriff or a deputy within the sheriff's county, or
other person authorized by law, or by some person specially
appointed by the court for that purpose. Special appointments to
serve process shall be made freely when substantial savings in
travel fees will result.

(3) By any other method permitted or required by this rule of by
statute."

Anticompetitive Effects are a Foreseeable Result

Although Maine law does not grant county sheriffs exclusive
authority to serve civil process, the statutory scheme
demonstrates that the legislature intended county sheriffs and
their deputies to play the primary role in completing personal
service of civil process in Maine. The legislature's grant of
broad authority to sheriffs and deputies as process servers
displaces some competition. In order to have process served
personally by someone other than the sheriff or his deputies, one
would have to obtain a special appointment from the court or use
one of a narrow class of individuals otherwise authorized by law
to effectuate service.

The Plaintiffs' Abandoned Claims

The Defendants raised numerous additional arguments to support
the dismissal of the remaining counts of the Complaint. The
Plaintiffs focused their response on state action immunity.
Despite filing a 23-page brief in one-and-one-half line spacing,
the Plaintiffs failed to respond meaningfully to any of the
Defendants' arguments concerning the remaining counts.

The Court found that the Plaintiffs have abandoned the remaining
counts in their Complaint and have waived the right to challenge
a judgment in favor of the Defendants on those claims.

The Court grant the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 5, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yczpyrqa from Leagle.com.

CAREY & ASSOCIATES PA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated & GEORGE SHAW, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by  SETH
T. CAREY, CAREY & ASSOCIATES, 114 Congress St., Rumford, ME,
04276

OXFORD COUNTY, OXFORD COUNTY SHERIFF, CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFF, AROOSTOOK COUNTY, AROOSTOOK COUNTY
SHERIFF, HANCOCK COUNTY, HANCOCK COUNTY SHERIFF, KENNEBEC COUNTY,
KENNEBEC COUNTY SHERIFF, KNOX COUNTY, KNOX COUNTY SHERIFF,
LINCOLN COUNTY, LINCOLN COUNTY SHERIFF, PENOBSCOT COUNTY,
PENOBSCOT COUNTY SHERIFF, SAGADAHOC COUNTY, SAGADAHOC COUNTY
SHERIFF, SOMERSET COUNTY, SOMERSET COUNTY SHERIFF, WALDO COUNTY,
WALDO COUNTY SHERIFF, YORK COUNTY, YORK COUNTY SHERIFF,
ANDROSCOGGIN COUNTY, ANDROSCOGGIN COUNTY SHERIFF, FRANKLIN
COUNTY, FRANKLIN COUNTY SHERIFF, PISCATAQUIS COUNTY, PISCATAQUIS
COUNTY SHERIFF, WASHINGTON COUNTY & WASHINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF,
Defendants, represented by CASSANDRA S. SHAFFER --
cshaffer@wheelerlegal.com -- WHEELER & AREY, P.A. & PETER T.
MARCHESI -- pbear@wheelerlegal.com -- WHEELER & AREY, P.A..


CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Choukalas" Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
TED CHOUKALAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-
cv-00588-JG (N.D. Ohio, March 14, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, and unlawful deductions, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Choukalas was employed by the Defendant as an hourly
non-exempt employee in Cuyahoga County.

Cuyahoga is a county in Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DENKA PERFORMANCE: Taylor Appeals Denial of Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Robert Taylor, Jr., et al., filed an appeal from a
District Court order denying their motion for class certification
on February 22, 2018, in the lawsuit entitled Robert Taylor, Jr.,
et al. v. Denka Performance Elastomer L.L.C., et al., Case No.
2:17-CV-7668, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana, New Orleans.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are Kershell Bailey, Shondrell P.
Campbell, Gloria Dumas, Janell Emery, George Handy, Annette
Houston, Rogers Jackson, Michael Perkins, Allen Schnyder, Jr.,
Larry Sorapuru, Sr., Kellie Tabb, Robert Taylor, III, and Robert
Taylor, Jr.

The appellate case is captioned as Robert Taylor, Jr., et al. v.
Denka Performance Elastomer L.L.C., et al., Case No. 18-90011, in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 16, 2018, the
Hon. Martin L. C. Feldman entered an order and reasons:

   -- denying the Plaintiffs' Rule 54(b) motion to reconsider the
      Court's order denying motion for extension of time to file
      for a motion for class certification;

   -- granting DuPont's motion to strike the Plaintiffs' motion
      for class certification and appointment of class counsel,
      which is construed as a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
      class allegations;

   -- dismissing the Plaintiffs' class allegations; and

   -- denying as untimely the plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification.

The litigation arises from the Defendants' production of neoprene
at their St. John the Baptist Parish facility, which allegedly
exposes those living in the vicinity to concentrated levels of
chloroprene well above the upper limit of acceptable risk,
resulting in a risk of cancer more than 800 times the national
average.

The Pontchartrain Works facility (PWF), located in LaPlace,
Louisiana, is the only facility in the United States that
continues to manufacture a synthetic rubber known as neoprene.
The neoprene production works at PWF were owned and operated from
1969 through November 2015 by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company.  DuPont still owns the land, but the production works
are now owned and operated by Denka Performance Elastomer LLC.
As part of the neoprene production process, chloroprene is
manufactured; since 2010, chloroprene has been classified by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a likely human
carcinogen.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Harvey Sylvanous Bartlett, III, Esq.
          JONES, SWANSON, HUDDELL & GARRISON, L.L.C.
          601 Poydras Street
          Pan American Life Center
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 523-2500
          E-mail: tbartlett@jonesswanson.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Bruno, Esq.
          BRUNO & BRUNO, L.L.P.
          855 Baronne Street
          New Orleans, LA 70113-0000
          Telephone: (504) 525-1335
          E-mail: josephjr@brunobrunolaw.com

               - and -

          John J. Cummings, III, Esq.
          CUMMINGS, CUMMINGS & DUDENHEFER
          416 Gravier Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130-0000
          Telephone: (504) 586-0000

               - and -

          Cayce Christian Peterson, Esq.
          LAMBERT FIRM, P.L.C.
          701 Magazine Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130-0000
          Telephone: (504) 581-1750
          Facsimile: (504) 529-2931
          E-mail: cpeterson@thelambertfirm.com

Defendant-Respondent DENKA PERFORMANCE ELASTOMER L.L.C. is
represented by:

          Michael Andrew Chernekoff, Esq.
          Brett S. Venn, Esq.
          JONES WALKER, L.L.P.
          201 Saint Charles Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70170-5100
          Telephone: (504) 582-8264
          E-mail: mchernekoff@joneswalker.com
                  bvenn@joneswalker.com

               - and -

          James Connor Percy, Esq.
          JONES WALKER, L.L.P.
          8555 United Plaza Boulevard
          4 United Plaza
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 248-2130
          E-mail: jpercy@joneswalker.com

Defendant-Respondent E I DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY is
represented by:

          Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Esq.
          KUCHLER POLK WEINER, L.L.C.
          1615 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 592-0691
          E-mail: dkuchler@kuchlerpolk.com

               - and -

          Kevin T. Van Wart, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS, L.L.P.
          300 N. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 86-2130
          E-mail: kevin.vanwart@kirkland.com


DESH BANGLA: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Alam" Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MD Nurul Alam, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly
situated v. Desh Bangla Inc., The Bangla Times Inc., and
Choudhury S. Hasan, Case No. 717196/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., February
23, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wage and overtime wage as mandated by the New York Labor
Law.

The Defendants own and operate a local community newspaper
company located at 97-12 63rd Drive, Rego Park, NY 11374. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
      27005 79th Avenue
      New Hyde Park, NY 11040-1546
      Telephone: (718) 669-0714
      Facsimile: (646) 556-6113
      E-mail: mgangat107@gmail.com

DOMETIC CORPORATION: "Zimmer" Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on September 19, 2017, captioned
James Zimmer, Melvin Rich, Ernie Arnold, Sandra Greene, James
Mitchell, Kurt Shoemaker, Sr., Randall Ortego, Steven Horner,
Sr., James Jackson, Debra Sadler, and Richard Haisch,
individually and as representative of a class of similarly
situated persons v. Dometic Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-06913
was transferred on February 27, 2018, from the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida. The District Court
Clerk assigned 1:18-cv-20746-KMM to the proceeding.

The case arises from the deceptive, misleading, unfair, and
unlawful business practices of Dometic Corporation in connection
with its active concealment and failure to disclose a dangerous
safety defect inherent in gas absorption refrigerators designed,
manufactured, marketed, and sold by the Defendant to the
Plaintiffs and members of the Class for use in recreational
vehicles and boats.

Dometic Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells cooling and
refrigeration products for recreation vehicle (RV), marine,
hotel, automotive, agriculture, and trucking industries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Caleb Marker, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
      2381 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 328
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
      Telephone: (877) 500-8780
      Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
      E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com

         - and -

      Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
      14646 North Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
      Scottsdale, AR 85254
      Telephone: (480) 348-6400
      Facsimile: (480) 348-6415
      E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Corey K. Brady, Esq.
      Edward Soto, Esq.
      Pravin Rajesh Patel, Esq.
      WEIL GOTSHAL MANGES LLP
      1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1200
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 577-3225
      Facsimile: (305) 374-7159
      E-mail: corey.brady@weil.com
              edward.soto@weil.com
              pravin.patel@weil.com

         - and -

      Erica W. Rutner, Esq.
      LASH & GOLDBERG LLP
      Miami Tower
      100 Southeast 2nd Street, Suite 1200
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 347-4040
      Facsimile: (305) 347-4050
      E-mail: erutner@lashgoldberg.com


E&M ASSOCIATES: Court Won't Dismiss Contrera, Lopez in FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a
Report and Recommendation denying Defendant's Motion to Partially
Dismiss the Amended Complaint in the case captioned USVALDO
CONTRERA et al., Plaintiffs, v. IRVING LANGER et al., Defendants,
No. 16 Civ. 3851 (LTS) (GWG) (S.D.N.Y.), as the Plaintiffs
Contrera and Lopez.

Plaintiffs are superintendents, handymen, and a porter at
residential buildings in Upper Manhattan and the Bronx filed this
action against various individuals and entities that plaintiffs
collectively refer to as the E&M Enterprise alleging that this
enterprise employed plaintiffs. Plaintiffs make claims against
the E&M Enterprise under the Fair Labor Standards  (FLSA), and
several provisions of the New York Labor Law (NYLL).

LEGAL STANDARD GOVERNING A MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER 12(b)(6)

A defendant may move to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) where the plaintiff fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. To survive such a motion, a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.

JANITORIAL EXEMPTION

Defendants argue that neither Lopez nor Contrera were entitled to
overtime compensation under the NYLL due to the janitorial
exemption found in N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 12, Second
141-3.4.

First, Contrera and Lopez cannot be deemed to be janitors on the
ground that they were the only employees who worked in their
buildings, as this assertion is not made in the amended
complaint.

Second, while the amended complaint states that Contrera lived in
the building in which he performed services, the complaint makes
no such allegation as to Lopez, and in any event does not allege
that each plaintiff was the sole resident janitor in their
buildings. Defendants attempt to get around this fact by
asserting that nowhere in their Memorandum (or via affidavit of
Plaintiffs Contrera or Lopez) do they dispute the simple fact
that Plaintiffs Contrera and Lopez were the sole live-in janitors
who performed janitorial duties at their respective buildings.

The problem with this argument is that it is contrary to the
standards that govern a motion to dismiss for failure to state
claim. Case law does not require that a party opposing a motion
to dismiss deny factual contentions asserted by a defendant
seeking to interpose an affirmative defense.

In sum, the defendants' motion fails because the allegations in
the amended complaint do not show that the janitorial exemption
applies to Contrera and Lopez.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

Defendants argue that Lopez's FLSA claims must be dismissed as
time-barred because Lopez failed to consent to become a
plaintiff, as required by 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), until after
the applicable statute of limitations had run.

Defendants cite to a string of cases to support the proposition
that even for named plaintiffs in an FLSA collective action,
until a consent to join' or opt-in' form, is filed with the
court, the statute of limitations continues to run. But this
proposition is undisputed. What is important is that none of the
cases cited by defendants hold that a sworn statement of the kind
Lopez filed in this action fails to qualify as a written consent
under Section 256. Indeed, none of the cited cases require that a
written consent to join an FLSA collective action take any
specific form, other than being written and filed with the court.
Accordingly, these cases do not address the question of whether
Lopez's declaration constitutes sufficient written consent to
join this action, let alone counsel against so finding.

In sum, Lopez's declaration qualifies as written consent within
the meaning of 29 U.S.C. Section 256(a) and therefore Lopez's
FLSA claim was timely filed.

Accordingly, the magistrate recommends that the motion to dismiss
should be denied.

A full-text copy of the Magistrate's March 5, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb777mo9
from Leagle.com.

Usvaldo Contrera, Francisco Lopez, Ramon Medina, Anibal Ruiz,
Carlos Zambrano, Jose Castillo & Doyle Gross, Plaintiffs,
represented by Peter David Winebrake  --
pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com -- The Winebrake Law Firm, LLC,
Meredith Reade Miller -- mmiller@tourolaw.edu -, Miller Law, PLLC
& Marc Andrew Rapaport, Rapaport Law Firm, PLLC,  One Penn Plaza,
Suite 2430, New York, NY 10119

Pedro Batista, Fabian Herrera & Antonio Reyes, Plaintiffs,
represented by Peter David Winebrake, The Winebrake Law Firm, LLC
& Meredith Reade Miller, Miller Law, PLLC.

Irving Langer, Leibel Lederman, Aryeh Z. Ginzberg, Meyer Brecher,
E&M Bronx Associates LLC, also known as, E&M Associates LLC, E&M
Harlem Holdings LLC, E&M Harlem Equities LLC, E&M Lafayette
Portfolio LLC, E&M Lafayette Owner LLC, Rainbow Estates LLC,
Manhattanville Holdings LLC, Galil Realty LLC, Galil Management
LLC, 105-109 West 113 LLC, 107 West 113 LLC, 1070 Ogden LLC, 109
West 113 LLC, 11 West 172 Street Owner LLC, 110 West 116th LLC,
113-115 West 113 LLC, 115 West 113 LLC, 117-129 West 116 LLC,
120-129 West 112 LLC, 124 West 112 Street LLC, 126 West 112 LLC,
131-133 West 112 LLC, 133 West 112 Street LLC, 133-135 West 116
LLC, 141 West 116 LLC, 141-143 West 113 LLC, 143 West 111 Street
LLC, 145-153 Edgecombe Holdings LLC, 146 West 111 Street LLC, 151
West 228 St Owner LLC, 159 W 228 St Owner LLC, 161-171
Morningside LLC, 1631 Grand Ave Owner LLC, 164-172 West 141
Holdings LLC, 17-25 St Nicholas LLC, 1728-1730 Amsterdamn Avenue
LLC, 1786 Topping Ave Owner LLC, 1829-1835 7 LLC, 2006 ACP Blvd
Portfolio LLC, 2059 8 LLC, 2076-78 Creston Ave Owner LLC, 2238
Morris Ave Owner LLC, 226 W Tremont Ave Owner LLC, 2291
University Ave Owner LLC, 230 West 116 LLC, 2322 Grand Ave Owner
LLC, 239 West 116 LLC, 241 West 113 LLC, 243 West 116 LLC, 247-
253 West 116 LLC, 255 West 116 LLC, 2755-61 Sedgwick Ave Owner
LLC, 2925 Grand Concourse Owner LLC, 2933 Grand Concourse Owner
LLC, 2968 Perry Ave Owner LLC, 301 West 111-2051 8 LLC, 302 West
112 Street LLC, 303 West 111 LLC, 303-309 West 113 LLC, 305 West
111 LLC, 305-309 West 113 LLC, 306-310 West 112 LLC, 307 West 113
LLC, 310 West 112th Street LLC, 311 West 111 Street LLC, 337 West
138 Holdings LLC, 345 Manhattan Holdings LLC, 35 Morningside
Holdings LLC, 350 West 115 LLC, 370-372 West 127 LLC, 373 West
126 LLC, 376 West 127 LLC, 41 W 184 St Owner LLC, 510 West 146
LLC, 521-523 W 156 St Owners LLC, 557-561 West 149 Holdings LLC,
6 Morningside LLC, 609-619 West 135 Street Owner LLC, 610-620
West 141 Holdings LLC, 617 West 143 Holdings LLC, 638 West 160
Holdings LLC, 655 West 160 Holdings LLC, 65-67 Lenox LLC, 67
Lenox LLC, 707 St Nicholas LLC, ACP Blvd Portfolio LLC, Audobon
550 W 171 Portfolio LLC, Avenue W Equities LLC, DDEH 319 E 115
LLC, E&M Associates I, LLC, Neighborhood Stabilization Associates
I, L.P., Neighborhood Stabilization Associates II. L.P., NSA
Associates I, NSA Associates II, Sarasota Gold LLC, Sixth Avenue
I Associates, Sixth Avenue Rehab I Associates, Sunset Park
Housing Associates, Sunset Park NSA I, Sunset Park N S A II,
Sunset Park NSA 11, Sunset Park NSA 2, Sunset Park NSA II, 11-15
Broadway Owner LLC, 30-50 21 St Street Owner LLC, 271 E 197 St
Owner LLC, 750-760 Pelham Pkwy Owner LLC, 124 E 177 ST Owner LLC,
3472 Knox Place Owner LLC, 2320 Aqueduct Ave Owner LLC, 1160
Cromwell Ave Owner LLC, 3940 Bronx Blvd Owner LLC, 1881 Grand
Concourse Realty LLC, 3136 Perry Ave Owner LLC, 155 W 162 Street
LLC, 1014 Gerard Ave Owner LLC, 1475 Sheridan Ave Owner LLC, 320
E 197 St Owner LLC, 131 W Kingsbridge Owner LLC, 2701 Webb Ave
Owner LLC, 751 Gerard Ave Owner LLC, 2055 Anthony Ave Owner LLC,
975 Walton Ave Owner LLC, 1212 Grand Concourse Owner LLC, 1530
Sheridan Ave Owner LLC, 323 E Mosholu Pkwy Owner LLC, 161-165 E
179 St Owner LLC, 2215 Properties LLC, DDEH 103 E 102 LLC, DDEH
112 E 103 LLC, DDEH 102 E 103 LLC, DDEH 122 E 103ST LLC, DDEH 124
E117 LLC, DDEH 126 E 103ST LLC, 124 E. 117 LLC, DDEH 137 E. 110
LLC, DDEH 154 E. 106 LLC, DDEH 1567 Lexington LLC, DDEH 238 E 111
LLC, DDEH 215 E 117 LLC, DDEH 2156 Second LLC, DDEH 216 E 118
LLC, DDEH 2171 Third LLC, DDEH 291 Pleasant LLC, DDEH 231 E 117
LLC, DDEH 233 E 111 Street LLC, DDEH 234 E 116ST LLC, DDEH 235 E
111ST LLC, DDEH 234 E116 LLC, DDEH 2371 Second LLC, DDEH 244 E
117 LLC, DDEH 311 E. 109 LLC, DDEH 312 E 106 LLC, DDEH 411 E 114
LLC, DDEH 411 E118LLC, DDEH 417E 114ST LLC, DDEH 421 East 114th
ST LLC, 131-133 West 112 Street LLC, 3030 Valentine Ave Owner
LLC, 138-140 West 112 LLC, 3600 Broadway Owner LLC, Dunbar Owner
LLC, E&M Harlem Portfolio Owner LLC, SG2-E&M Harlem Portfolio
Owner LLC, 3621 Broadway Owner LLC, 414-102 Convent Owner LLC,
153-157 Lenox Holdings LLC & Manhattanville Mezz LLC, Defendants,
represented by Larry Rafael Martinez --
lmartinez@meltzerlippe.com -- Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein &
Breitstone, LLP, Christopher Paul Hampton -- champton@meltzer.com
-- Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP, Gerald Charles
Waters -- gwaters@meltzerlippe.com -- Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein &
Breitstone, LLP, Jonathan D. Farrell -- jfarrell@meltzerlippe.com
-- Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP & Loretta Mae
Gastwirth -- lgastwirth@meltzerlippe.com -- Meltzer, Lippe,
Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP.


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Removes "Mellon" Suit to S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of Kathleen Mellon, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Enhanced
Recovery Company, LLC, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the
lawsuit from the New York State Supreme Court, County of Suffolk
(Case No. 620170-2017) to the U.S District Court for the Southern
District of New York and assigned Case No.1:18-cv-02285-AJN
(S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Alison
J. Nathan.

Enhanced Recovery Company LLC provides business process
outsourcing services that include recovery, outsourcing, and
market research primarily for Fortune 500 companies in the United
States and internationally. Enhanced Recovery Company was
formerly known as Enhanced Recovery Corporation. The company was
founded in 1999 and is based in Jacksonville, Florida with
locations in the United States, the Dominican Republic, Belize,
and India. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Nicole Haff, Esq.
          BALBER PICKARD BATTISTONI
             MALDONADO & VAN DER TUIN
          1370 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 246-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 765-4241
          E-mail: nhaff@sgrlaw.com


ENTERPRISE HEALTH: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Deidra Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Enterprise Health Services, Inc. d/b/a
Enterprise Home Care, Patrick Bell, and Allona Peoples, Case No.
5:18-cv-00465-JRA (N.D. Ohio, February 27, 2018), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a home health agency in Akron,
Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephan I. Voudris, Esq.
      Christopher M. Sams, Esq.
      VOUDRIS LAW LLC
      8401 Chagrin Road, Suite 8
      Chagrin Falls, OH 44023
      Telephone: (440) 543-0670
      Facsimile: (440) 543-0721
      E-mail: svoudris@voudrislaw.com
              csams@voudrislaw.com


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Plaintiff Can Offer Rebuttal Expert
---------------------------------------------------------
In re DAVID CAMARATA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
INC., Defendant, No. 16 Civ. 132 (AT) (HBP)(S.D.N.Y.), is a
putative class action brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Ac
(FCRA) and New York's Fair Credit Reporting Act, N.Y. Gen. Bus.
L. Sections 380 et seq., alleging that the defendant
systematically misrepresents to consumers the source of public
record information, such as civil judgments, tax liens and
bankruptcies, that it places on their consumer reports.
Plaintiff contends that this alleged practice deprived him of
information to which he is entitled and has made it more
difficult for him to correct errors in his credit reports.

The present dispute arises out of the schedule set for expert
disclosures.  On May 26, 2017, the United States District Court
for Southern District of New York granted the parties' joint
application to extend the discovery schedule.  The Court's
endorsed order provided that the Deadline for Plaintiff's Expert
Disclosures was September 11, 2017, and that the Deadline for
Experian's Expert Disclosures was November 1, 2017.  The Order
also set a deadline of December 15, 2017 for the completion of
expert discovery and further provided that there would be NO
FURTHER EXTENSIONS.

The Defendant seeks to preclude plaintiff from offering expert
testimony in this matter.

The total preclusion of a plaintiff from serving a response to a
defendant's expert disclosure is disproportionate. The fact that
plaintiff has decided to forego reliance on an expert as part of
his direct case should not preclude him from challenging
defendant's expert evidence.

The Court concludes that the appropriate resolution of the
present dispute is to permit plaintiff to do what the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure permit, namely offer an expert to rebut
defendant's expert, but no more. Assuming that plaintiff's expert
witness satisfies the requirements of the Federal Rules of
Evidence, plaintiff may make expert disclosures and offer an
expert witness to show that any opinions offered by Experian's
experts are flawed or incorrect.

Plaintiff's expert may not, however, offer different or new
opinions that should have been disclosed in an opening expert
report nor may plaintiff's expert opine as to matters that are
not addressed by defendant's experts; plaintiff's failure to make
expert disclosures in accordance with the schedule plaintiff
agreed to and that was ordered by the undersigned precludes him
from doing so.

Finally, if defendant elects not to call an expert at trial,
plaintiff may not call an expert. If defendant does not offer any
expert opinions, there is no expert testimony for plaintiff to
rebut.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 5, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb45smgy from
Leagle.com.

David Camarata, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by David A. Searles --
dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis & Mailman, P.C., James A.
Francis -- jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis & Mailman,
P.C., John Soumilas -- jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS &
MAILMAN, P.C., Lauren K.W. Brennan --
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis & Mailman, P.C., pro hac
vice & Kevin Christopher Mallon, Fishman & Mallon, LLP, 305
Broadway, Suite 900, New York, NY 10007

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Adam W. Wiers -- awwiers@jonesday.com  -, Jones Day, Daniel J.
McLoon -- djmcloon@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, John Alexander Vogt
-- javogt@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Chris J. Lopata --
cjlopata@jonesday.com,-  Jones Day & Hayley Ann Haldeman --
hhaldeman@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Court Dismisses Suit Over $75 Processing Fee
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
the case captioned  ERICK BURTON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. EXPRESS SCRIPTS,
INC., et al., Defendants, No. 4:17-cv-02279-AGF (E.D. Mo.).

Plaintiff asserted a variety of state-law claims against Express
Scripts, Inc. (ESI), arising out of ESI's alleged practice of
imposing a $75 non-refundable processing fee on requests for
copies of prescription records maintained by ESI, allegedly in
violation of a Missouri statute.

Plaintiff asserts state law claims for violation of Section
191.227 (Count I), violation of Missouri's Merchandising
Practices Act (MMPA) (Count II), negligent misrepresentation
(Count III), conversion (Count IV), money had and received (Count
V), unjust enrichment (Count VI), and breach of contract (Count
VII).

First, Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to allege any facts
to link the ESI Affiliates with the $75 processing fee.
Defendants argue that the amended complaint makes clear that
Plaintiff requested records from and paid the processing fee to
ESI, and Plaintiff was aware that he was dealing only with ESI.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claims against the ESI
Affiliates should therefore be dismissed.

Defendants also argue that Plaintiff fails to allege that ESI is
a provider subject to Section 191.227, as the statute limits the
definition of provider to physicians, chiropractors, hospitals,
dentists, and other duly licensed practitioners in the state of
Missouri.

In response, Plaintiff argues that the amended complaint alleges
sufficient facts to demonstrate that Defendants are licensed
providers within the meaning of Section 191.227.  Plaintiff also
argues that Defendants violated the express requirements of
Section 191.227 by charging a fee in excess of that allowed by
the statute, and Plaintiff and others similarly situated are
entitled to enforce the statute by bringing this civil action.
Plaintiff further argues that he alleges facts sufficient to
state a claim for conversion because Defendants requested payment
by check or money order, and it can be inferred that Plaintiff
paid the processing fee using one of those forms of payment.

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

ESI Affiliates

The Court agrees that the amended complaint fails to plausibly
plead any cause of action against the ESI Affiliates. The only
entity plausibly responsible for the allegedly unauthorized
demand for payment was ESI. Plaintiff fails to plead any non-
conclusory facts suggesting that any of the ESI Affiliates was
responsible for charging Plaintiff the $75 fee; nor has Plaintiff
demonstrated that the Court should pierce the corporate veil or
otherwise disregard the separate corporate form of each
Defendant.

Therefore, the Court will grant the motion to dismiss Plaintiff's
claims against the ESI Affiliates.

ESI's Provider Status Under Section 191.227

Plaintiff has also failed to plausibly allege that ESI is a
licensed provider. Again, Section 191.227 defines provider as
physicians, chiropractors, hospitals, dentists, and other duly
licensed practitioners in this state. Assuming that a pharmacy
licensed in Missouri constitutes a duly licensed practitioner
under the statute, Plaintiff admitted at oral argument that ESI
is not in fact licensed as a pharmacy in Missouri, and the Court
also takes judicial notice of public records reflecting that
fact.

Plaintiff has not alleged that he requested records from a
specific provider, or that ESI had an agency relationship with
such a provider to fulfill such a request. Indeed, the amended
complaint does not identify any principal providers on whose
behalf ESI acted. There are no allegations in the amended
complaint regarding how many such principal providers are at
issue, whether these are in fact licensed practitioners in
Missouri or any other state, or which records of each provider
were requested.

Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure
to state a cause of action is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 5, 2018 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y72a3vnb from
Leagle.com.

Erick Burton, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Craig R. Heidemann, DOUGLAS
AND HAUN & Nathan A. Duncan, DOUGLAS AND HAUN, 901 E Saint Louis
St. Ste 1200. Springfield, MO 65806

Express Scripts, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dan H. Ball --
dhball@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP, James P. Emanuel, Jr. --
james.emanuel@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP, Jonathan R. Chally
-- jchally@kslaw.com -- KING AND SPALDING, LLP, pro hac vice &
Philip E. Holladay -- pholladay@kslaw.com -- KING AND SPALDING,
LLP, pro hac vice.

Express Scripts Pharmacy, Inc., Express Scripts Holding Company &
Express Scripts Specialty Distribution Services, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Dan H. Ball, BRYAN CAVE LLP, Jonathan
R. Chally, KING AND SPALDING, LLP, pro hac vice & Philip E.
Holladay, KING AND SPALDING, LLP, pro hac vice.


FIVE BOROUGH: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Stepanov" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zulfiya Stepanov, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Five Borough Home Care, Inc., Case No.
161196/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 1, 2018), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours.

Five Borough Home Care, Inc. is primarily engaged in providing
nursing and home health aide services at the residences of its
clients. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
      LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
      Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
      E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com

FMFS OF VS: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Properly Pay Servers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shanice Willis and DaAna Queen, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. FMFS of VS LLC d/b/a Buffalo Wild
Wings, Case No. 703029/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., February 28, 2018),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay Servers at
the proper minimum wage rate for all hours worked, failure to pay
at all for the hours worked, and for failure to provide accurate
wage states in violation of the New York Labor Law.

FMFS of VS LLC own and operate a restaurant located at 6 Green
Acres Rd W, Valley Stream, New York 11582. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
      THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
      1613 Northern Boulevard
      Roslyn, NY 11576
      Telephone: (516) 625-0105


FUNKO INC: Time to Answer "Baskin" Complaint Extended
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, extended the time for the Defendant to
Answer, Move, or Otherwise Respond Pending Remand Proceedings in
the case captioned ERNEST BASKIN, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FUNKO, INC.; BRIAN
MARIOTTI; RUSSELL NICKEL; KEN BROTMAN; GINO DELLOMO; CHARLES
DENSON; DIANE IRVINE; ADAM KRIGER; RICHARD MCNALLY; GOLDMAN,
SACHS & CO.; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE,
FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED; PIPER JAFFRAY & CO.; JEFFERIES LLC;
STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED; BMO CAPITAL MARKETS
CORP.; and SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC., Defendants, No.
2:18-cv-00281-RSM (W.D. Wash.).

The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of
the federal Securities Act of 1933. The Funko Defendants removed
the action to the District Court, along with two additional cases
arising out of the same allegations and asserting substantially
the same causes of action as this case.

The parties agreed that the Defendants' time within which to
answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint is extended
pending the Court's resolution of any motion to remand that
Plaintiff may file, except as otherwise ordered by the Court.

The Court approved the stipulation.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 5, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ya4jy4ju from Leagle.com.

Ernest Baskin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Roger M. Townsend --
rtownsend@bjtlegal.com -- BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC,
Shannon L. Hopkins -- shopkins@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP,
pro hac vice & Stephanie A. Bartone -- sbartone@zlk.com -- LEVI &
KORSINSKY, LLP, pro hac vice.

Funko, Inc., Brian Mariotti, Ken Brotman, Gino Dellomo, Charles
Denson, Diane Irvine, Adam Kriger & Richard McNally, Defendants,
represented by Duffy J. Graham -- dgraham@sbwllp.com -- SAVITT
BRUCE & WILLEY LLP & Stephen C. Willey -- swilley@sbwllp.com --
SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP.

Russell Nickel, Defendant, represented by Duffy Graham, Savitt
Bruce & Willey LLP & Stephen C. Willey, SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY
LLP.


FUNKO INC: Time to Answer "Linde" Complaint Extended
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, extended the time for Defendant to Answer,
Move or Otherwise Respond Remand Proceedings in the case
captioned THE RONALD AND MAXINE LINDE FOUNDATION, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.
FUNKO, INC.; BRIAN MARIOTTI; RUSSELL NICKEL; KEN BROTMAN; GINO
DELLOMO; ADAM KRIGER; RICHARD MCNALLY; CHARLES DENSON; DIANE
IRVINE; GOLDMAN SACHS & CO.; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; MERRILL
LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED; ACON INVESTMENTS,
L.L.C.; and FUNDAMENTAL CAPITAL, LLC, Defendants, No. 2:18-cv-
00282-RSM (W.D. Wash.).

The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of
the federal Securities Act of 1933.

The Funko Defendants removed the action to the District Court,
along with two additional cases arising out of the same
allegations and asserting substantially the same causes of action
as this case.

Plaintiff intends to file a motion to remand the action to the
Superior Court of Washington in and for King County.

There have been no prior extensions of time for Defendants to
answer, move or otherwise respond to the Complaint in the
District Court.

In a Court-approved stipulation, the parties agreed that the
Defendants' time within which to answer, move, or otherwise
respond to the Complaint is extended pending the Court's
resolution of any motion to remand that Plaintiff may file,
except as otherwise ordered by the Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 5, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7efzfpp from Leagle.com.

The Ronald and Maxine Linde Foundation, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented
by Brian Edward Cochran -- bcochran@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER
RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, pro hac vice, Dawn D. Cornelius --
dawn@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, James I.
Jaconette -- jamesj@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD
LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS
BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP & Karl Phillip Barth --
karlb@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP.

Funko, Inc., Brian Mariotti, Ken Brotman, Gino Dellomo, Charles
Denson, Diane Irvine, Adam Kriger & Richard McNally, Defendants,
represented by Duffy J. Graham -- dgraham@sbwllp.com -- SAVITT
BRUCE & WILLEY LLP & Stephen C. Willey  -- swilley@sbwllp.com --
SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP.


FUNKO INC: Time to Answer "Surratt" Complaint Extended
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District
Washington, Seattle, extended the time for Defendant to Answer,
Move or Otherwise Respond Remand Proceedings in the case
captioned MICHAEL SURRATT, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FUNKO, INC.; BRIAN
MARIOTTI; RUSSELL NICKEL; KEN BROTMAN; GINO DELLOMO; CHARLES
DENSON; DIANE IRVINE; ADAM KRIGER; RICHARD MCNALLY; GOLDMAN,
SACHS & CO.; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE,
FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED; PIPER JAFFRAY & CO.; JEFFERIES LLC;
STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED; BMO CAPITAL MARKETS
CORP.; and SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC., Defendants, No.
2:18-cv-00283-RSM (W.D. Wash.).

The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
federal Securities Act of 1933.

The Funko Defendants removed the action to the District Court,
along with two additional cases arising out of the same
allegations and asserting substantially the same causes of action
as this case.

The parties stipulated, and the Court approves, that the
Defendants' time within which to answer, move, or otherwise
respond to the Complaint is extended pending the Court's
resolution of any motion to remand that Plaintiff may file,
except as otherwise ordered by the Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 5, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycw39z76 from Leagle.com.

Michael Surratt, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Roger M. Townsend ,
BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC, Shannon L. Hopkins , LEVI &
KORSINSKY, LLP, pro hac vice & Stephanie A. Bartone , LEVI &
KORSINSKY, LLP, pro hac vice.

Funko, Inc., Brian Mariotti, Ken Brotman, Gino Dellomo, Charles
Denson, Diane Irvine, Adam Kriger & Richard McNally, Defendants,
represented by Duffy J. Graham -- dgraham@sbwllp.com -- SAVITT
BRUCE & WILLEY LLP & Stephen C. Willey  -- swilley@sbwllp.com --
SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP.


GARTEN SERVICES: Illegally Obtained Consumer Reports, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Boe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Garten Services, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-00327-YY (D.
Ore., February 22, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, specifically by using
consumer reports to take adverse employment actions without,
beforehand, providing the person who is the subject of the report
with timely notification, a copy of the report and a summary of
rights under the FCRA, leaving the person who is the subject of
the report without any meaningful opportunity to address any
issues or correct any errors on the report.

Garten Services, Inc. offers job placements, park outings, events
management, skills development, and youth employment programs to
support people with disabilities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Fuller, Esq.
      OLSEN DAINES PC
      US Bancorp Tower
      111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150
      Portland, OR 97204
      Telephone: (503) 201-4570
      E-mail: michael@underdoglawyer.com


GAULT AUTO: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Malave" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ivelisse Malave filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in her lawsuit entitled Malave v. Gault Auto Mall, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 17-cv-816, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York (Syracuse).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, Ms. Malave seeks to certify a class
of:

     all current and former employees of the Defendants who
     are/were employed as Service Advisors, Toyota Service
     Managers, Team Service Managers and/or work or worked in
     positions that involve greeting customers and assisting them
     with their automotive service needs, and who were not paid
     at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate for
     hours worked in excess of forty in one workweek, during the
     period commencing July 25, 2014 through the present.

The appellate case is captioned as Malave v. Gault Auto Mall,
Inc., et al., Case No. 18-725, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Ivelisse Malave, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Robert Mullin, Jr., Esq.
          FERR & MULLIN, P.C.
          7635 Main Street
          P.O. Box 440
          Fishers, NY 14453
          Telephone: (585) 869-0210
          E-mail: rlmullin@FerrMullinLaw.com

Defendants-Appellees Gault Auto Mall, Inc.; Gault Chevrolet,
Inc.; Robert Gault, individually and in his capacity as owner
and/ or officer of Gault Autho Mall, Inc. and/ or Gault
Chevrolet, Inc.; and Connie Gault, individually and in his
capacity as owner and/ or officer of Gault Auto Mall, Inc. and/
or Gault Chevrolet, Inc., are represented by:

          Nolan Klein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
          1 East Broward Boulevard
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 745-0588
          E-mail: klein@nklegal.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Brugaletta Sues over Sale of Defective Airbags
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN BRUGALETTA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY; GENERAL
MOTORS HOLDINGS LLC; and GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-10852-PDB-DRG (E.D. Mich., March 14, 2018), is an action
against the Defendants concerning defective airbags manufactured
by Takata Corporation and its related entities.

According to the complaint, the airbags contain inflators using
the notoriously volatile and unstable compound, ammonium nitrate.
Those airbags were equipped in vehicles that Defendants and their
related entities manufactured, sold or leased, or knowingly
misrepresented as safe, when in fact they could explode and maim
or kill drivers and passengers.

General Motors Company, together with its subsidiaries, designs,
builds, and sells cars, trucks, crossovers, and automobile parts
worldwide. The company operates through GM North America, GM
International, and GM Financial segments. It markets its vehicles
primarily under the Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, Holden,
Baojun, Jiefang, and Wuling brand names. The company also sells
cars, trucks, and crossovers to dealers for consumer retail
sales, as well as to fleet customers, including daily rental car
companies, commercial fleet customers, leasing companies, and
governments. In addition, it offers connected safety, security,
and mobility solutions, as well as information technology
services. Further, the company provides automotive financing
services. General Motors Company was founded in 1897 and is based
in Detroit, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel J. Geman, Esq.
          David Stellings, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10012
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 335-9592
          E-mail: rgeman@lchb.com
                  dstellings@lchb.com

               - and -

          Nimish R. Desai, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery St., 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: ndesai@lchb.com


GOOGLE LLC: Class Allegations in Nexus 6P Suit Remains
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, denies defendants Huawei Device
USA, Inc., and Google LLC's motions to strike Plaintiffs' class
allegations in the case captioned  IN RE NEXUS 6P PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. 17-cv-02185-BLF (N.D. Cal.).

Presently before the Court are Huawei's Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint and to Strike Class Allegations.

Plaintiffs allege severe defects in their Nexus 6P smartphones.
Plaintiffs sued the companies that developed the phone Huawei
Device USA, Inc. (Huawei) for breach of warranty, fraud, and
unjust enrichment. Their twenty-three causes of action span a
litany of state laws and one federal statute.

Here, the Court dives into the merits of Huawei's Motions to
Dismiss, which assert that Plaintiffs have failed to state a
claim on which relief can be granted and that Plaintiffs' class
allegations should be stricken.

A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted 'tests the legal sufficiency of a claim. When determining
whether a claim has been stated, the Court accepts as true all
well-pled factual allegations and construes them in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff.

Rule 12(f)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits a court to strike
from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. The function of a
motion made under this rule is to avoid the expenditure of time
and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by
dispensing with those issues prior to trial.

Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

Huawei's Knowledge of Defects at the Time of Sale

At multiple points in the CAC, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants
knew (or exercising due diligence should have known) that the
Phones were defective at the time of sale. However, that
statement is conclusory, and the CAC does not contain sufficient
factual matter to make that inference plausible.

Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that Huawei (or reasonably
should have known) of the defects when Plaintiffs purchased their
phones. This factual gap is not filled by allegations that some
Plaintiffs contacted Huawei and Google about the defects, as most
of those conversations took place after October 2016 or are not
alleged to have taken place on a specific date.  The two
Plaintiffs who contacted Huawei and Google before September 2016
are not enough because a handful of complaints do not, by
themselves, plausibly show that Huawei or Google had knowledge of
the defects and concealed the defects from customers.

Perhaps sensing this deficiency, Plaintiffs shift gears in their
opposition, positing that "[t]he Nexus 6P phones contain core
component flaws that basic product testing would have disclosed
at or near the time of manufacture."  Whatever the viability of
that theory, it finds no basis in the CAC. Contrary to
Plaintiffs' suggestion, the allegation that "Defendants had
superior knowledge and access to the relevant facts," does not
equate to an allegation that straightforward testing would have
revealed the defects.

Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that Huawei or Google had
knowledge of the defects at the time that Plaintiffs purchased
their phones. Plaintiffs may amend the CAC to allege further
facts in support of knowledge.

Claims Asserted Against Huawei

Warranty Claims

Breach of Express Warranty

Huawei moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' express warranty claims.
Huawei first contends that, for a handful of Plaintiffs, there
are insufficient allegations to establish that Huawei breached
the Limited Warranty. Huawei then asserts a number of
inadequacies applicable to different groupings of Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs and Huawei address the unconscionability issue under
California law and identify no material differences in other
state laws, the Court uses California law as the basis for its
analysis. Under California law, a contract provision is
unconscionable, and therefore unenforceable, only if it is both
procedurally and substantively unconscionable.

Plaintiffs' allegations do not show that the one-year duration
creates overly harsh or one-sided results as to shock the
conscience," and thus Plaintiffs have not established substantive
unconscionability.

Huawei's one-year Limited Warranty is not unconscionable, and the
Limited Warranty is enforceable. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have not
stated a claim for breach of express warranty for Plaintiffs
Gorbatchev, Christensen, and Tran whose phone defect manifested
after the one-year Limited Warranty expired or for Plaintiffs
Berry, Jones, and Leone who did not notify Huawei of a defect
within the one-year Limited Warranty period.

Accordingly, the Court grants Huawei's Motion to Dismiss the
express warranty claim of Plaintiffs Gorbatchev, Christensen,
Tran, Berry, Jones, and Leone with leave to amend to allege
further facts in support of Plaintiffs' unconscionability
argument.

Notice and Opportunity to Cure

Plaintiffs, Huawei relatedly argues, that the failure to give
Huawei notice or an opportunity to cure is fatal to their claims.
In particular, Plaintiffs Gorbatchev, Tran, Berry, and Leone do
not allege that they contacted Huawei to seek repairs. Id. at 12.
Additionally, Plaintiff Beheler does not allege that he allowed
Huawei to act on its offer to repair or replace his phone.
Due to the variations in state law on this issue, the Court
proceeds through each Plaintiff's state-law claim individually.

California

Beyond California Plaintiff Gorbatchev's falling outside the
terms of Huawei's Limited Warranty, California law does not
supply an independent notice-related bar to his express warranty
claim.
The allegations in the CAC support that Huawei is a manufacturer
with whom Plaintiff Gorbatchev has never dealt. Plaintiff
Gorbatchev did not purchase his Nexus 6P phone from Huawei;
instead, he purchased his phone through the Google Store. After
his phone began exhibiting the Bootloop Defect, he interacted
solely with Google in an unsuccessful attempt to secure a new
phone under the warranty.

Because Plaintiff Gorbatchev is not required to provide notice to
manufacturer Huawei, his claim cannot be dismissed on this
ground.

Illinois

Under Illinois law, notice is an essential element" of a breach
of warranty claim. Thus, failure to allege sufficient notice may
be a fatal defect in a complaint alleging breach of warranty.

The allegations of Illinois Plaintiff Tran do not withstand
scrutiny under these standards. As noted above, Plaintiff Tran is
not alleged to have informed Huawei of the Bootloop Defect in his
phone. Indeed, there is no allegation that he contacted Huawei at
all. Nor can Plaintiff Tran rely on the first notice exception
because the CAC does not aver that other circumstances put Huawei
on notice that there was an issue with Plaintiff Tran's phone.

Accordingly, the Court grants Huawei's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff Tran's express warranty claim with leave to amend to
allege further facts about Huawei's awareness of the defects in
Plaintiff Tran's phone, either through direct notice from
Plaintiff Tran or other circumstances.

Indiana

Indiana law, too, requires that the buyer give notice to the
seller before bringing suit for breach of warranty.

Here, the allegations demonstrate that Huawei knew that Indiana
Plaintiff Beheler's Nexus 6P phone manifested the Battery Drain
Defect and that he was dissatisfied with the phone.  That Huawei
offered to repair or replace the phone and Plaintiff Beheler
apparently never responded, does not change the analysis, as the
Limited Warranty does not explicitly require Plaintiff Beheler to
give Huawei a reasonable opportunity to cure. Accordingly,
Plaintiff Beheler's express warranty claim cannot be dismissed
for failure to allege notice and an opportunity to cure.

Michigan

Under Michigan law, it appears that the buyer must provide
reasonable notice in order to recover for a breach of warranty.
Plaintiffs do not cite any contrary authority. The CAC does not
allege that Michigan Plaintiff Berry provided any notice to
Huawei.  Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Huawei's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff Berry's express warranty claim with leave to amend to
allege further facts about Plaintiff Berry's notice to Huawei.

Pennsylvania

The Court rejects Huawei's notice argument as to Pennsylvania
Plaintiff Leone. The Pennsylvania statute says that the buyer
must within a reasonable time after he discovers or should have
discovered any breach notify the seller of breach.  However,
while many states require pre-suit notice, Pennsylvania appears
not to have the same limitation. Pennsylvania state courts have
held that the filing of a complaint may satisfy the notice
requirement for a breach of warranty claim. While the timeliness
of the notice is a factual issue better resolved at a later stage
of the litigation, the filing of this action is sufficient to
preclude dismissal of Plaintiff Leone's express warranty claim
for failure to provide notice.

In sum, the Court grants with leave to amend Huawei's Motion to
Dismiss the express warranty claim of Plaintiffs Tran and Berry
but not Plaintiffs Gorbatchev, Beheler, or Leone for failure to
adequately plead notice and an opportunity to cure.

Basis of the Bargain and Reliance

Huawei next contends that the Court should dismiss the express
warranty claims of certain Plaintiffs who do not plead that they
saw or relied on Huawei's warranty.

California

In adopting the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC"), California has
shifted its view of whether a plaintiff must allege reliance on
specific promises to sustain express warranty claims.

Although two out of three California Plaintiffs did not purchase
directly from Huawei, there is no dispute that Huawei treated the
Limited Warranty as extending to Plaintiffs upon their purchase.
In these circumstances, a privity requirement would have little
meaning and would serve only to allow Huawei to evade the
promises it made in writing about the Nexus 6P phones.
Accordingly, failure to adequately plead reliance is not an
appropriate basis on which to dismiss the express warranty claims
of Plaintiffs Makcharoenwoodhi, Gorbatchev, and Christensen.

Florida

Under Florida law, an express warranty is generally considered to
arise only where the seller asserts a fact of which the buyer is
ignorant prior to the beginning of the transaction and on which
the buyer justifiably relies as part of the 'basis of the
bargain. Plaintiffs do not cite any contrary authority. Because
the sole Florida Plaintiff, Martorello, does not allege facts to
support the necessary element of reliance, the Court grants
Huawei's motion to dismiss this claim with leave to amend to
allege relevant facts.

Illinois

Under Illinois law, then, it appears that a plaintiff must plead
reliance if he does not adequately allege privity with the
defendant.

Illinois Plaintiff Tran does not sufficiently plead that he is in
privity with Huawei or that an exception applies. Without an
adequate allegation of privity, Plaintiff Tran's claim must be
dismissed for failure to plead reliance. Accordingly, the Court
grants Huawei's motion to dismiss Plaintiff Tran's express
warranty claim with leave to amend to allege relevant facts.

New York

Under New York law, the buyer may bring an action for breach of
express warranty against a manufacturer only if the buyer relied
on the manufacturer's statements when contracting with his
immediate seller. Plaintiffs do not identify any contrary
authority. Because the sole New York Plaintiff, Davydov, does not
allege facts to support the necessary element of reliance, the
Court grants Huawei's motion to dismiss this claim with leave to
amend to allege relevant facts.

New York

Under New York law, the buyer may bring an action for breach of
express warranty against a manufacturer only if the buyer relied
[on the manufacturer's statements] when contracting with his
immediate seller. Plaintiffs do not identify any contrary
authority. Because the sole New York Plaintiff, Davydov, does not
allege facts to support the necessary element of reliance, the
Court GRANTS Huawei's motion to dismiss this claim with leave to
amend to allege relevant facts.

North Carolina

The same result obtains under North Carolina law. As Plaintiffs'
own authority provides, a plaintiff must have relied upon the
warrantor's statement in order to establish an express warranty
and its breach.

North Carolina Plaintiffs Harrison and Himes do not argue or
allege that the natural tendency of Huawei's representation that
the Nexus 6P phones are "free from material defects" in normal
operation was to induce them to purchase the phone. No similar
circumstances or facts are alleged in this case. Accordingly, the
Court GRANTS Huawei's motion to dismiss the express warranty
claims of Plaintiffs Harrison and Himes with leave to amend to
allege relevant facts.

Ohio

No similar circumstances or facts are alleged in this case.
Accordingly, the Court grants Huawei's motion to dismiss the
express warranty claims of Plaintiffs Harrison and Himes with
leave to amend to allege relevant facts. In Norcold, Inc. v.
Gateway Supply Co., the Ohio Court of Appeals rested on comment 3
of UCC Section 2-313 and followed the decisive majority of courts
that have held that "reliance is not an element in a claim for
breach of an express written warranty."

Because the instant case involves an express written warranty,
the Court concludes that Norcold is controlling and Ohio
Plaintiff Servodio's need not plead reliance to state a claim for
express warranty under Ohio law. Accordingly, this is not an
appropriate basis on which to dismiss Plaintiff Servodio's
express warranty claim.

Pennsylvania

Under Pennsylvania law, there is a rebuttable presumption of
reliance. Specifically, Pennsylvania law follows the approach
that all statements of the seller become part of the basis of the
bargain unless clear affirmative proof is shown to the contrary.
Accordingly, reliance is not an appropriate basis on which to
dismiss Pennsylvania Plaintiff Leone's express warranty claim.

Texas

Texas courts have interpreted Texas's express warranty law to
incorporate a reliance requirement. Although Plaintiffs identify
a Texas Court of Appeals case stating in a footnote that it is
error to include reliance as a necessary element of proof for
breach of express warranty, other divisions of the Texas Court of
Appeals have reached a different conclusion.

Accordingly, the Court grants Huawei's motion to dismiss the
express warranty claim of Texas Plaintiff Poore with leave to
amend to allege relevant facts.

Washington

Washington courts sometimes require a form of reliance. However,
the Court does not read those cases to require a showing of
awareness when the plaintiffs base their claims on an express
written warranty, rather than other representations (such as
advertising statements), to form the basis of the bargain.
Huawei's authority is to the same effect, as Huawei's identified
case involved advertising statements and cited a Washington
Supreme Court case for the proposition that before recovering on
a claim of breach of an express warranty contained in an
advertisement, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she
justifiably relied on a statement contained in the advertisement.

Accordingly, reliance is not an appropriate basis on which to
dismiss Washington Plaintiff Johnston's express warranty claim.

In sum, the Court grants with leave to amend Huawei's Motion to
Dismiss the express warranty claim of Plaintiffs Martorello,
Tran, Davydov, Harrison, Himes, and Poore but not Plaintiffs
Makcharoenwoodhi, Gorbatchev, Christensen, Servodio, Leone, or
Johnston for failure to adequately plead reliance.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 5, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yb2e48qm from Leagle.com.

Jonathan Makcharoenwoodhi & Edward Beheler, Plaintiffs,
represented by Adam E. Polk -- aep@girardgibbs.com -- Girard
Gibbs LLP, Andrew William Ferich -- awf@chimicles.com --
Chimicles and Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice, Benjamin F. Johns --
bfj@chimicles.com -- Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice,
Jessica Linn Titler -- jt@chimicles.com -- Chimicles and Tikellis
LLP, pro hac vice, Jordan S. Elias --  je@girardgibbs.com --
Girard Gibbs LLP & Cory Steven Fein  -- cory@coryfeinlaw.com -,
Attorney at Law.

Colton Winfield, Plaintiff, represented by Adam E. Polk, Girard
Gibbs LLP, Andrew William Ferich, Chimicles and Tikellis LLP,
Benjamin F. Johns, Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice,
Jessica Linn Titler, Chimicles and Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice,
Jordan S. Elias, Girard Gibbs LLP & Cory Steven Fein, Attorney at
Law.

Huawei Device USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Simon J.
Frankel -- sfrankel@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP & Lindsey
Catherine Barnhart -- lbarnhart@cov.com -- Covington Burling LLP.

Google LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua H. Lerner --
jlerner@durietangri.com -- Durie Tangri LLP, Catherine Y. Kim --
ckim@durietangri.com -- Durie Tangri LLP, Eugene Novikov --
enovikov@durietangri.com -- Durie Tangri LLP & Ragesh K. Tangri -
-  rtangri@durietangri.com -- Durie Tangri LLP.


GREYHOUND LINES: June 28 Hearing on Bid to Remand "Smith"
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California will continue on June 28, 2018, the hearing to
consider approval of the Motion to Remand and Motion to Stay the
case captioned JUSTIN SMITH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC.,
a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-CV-02238-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal.).

The Court entered an order on December 18, 2017 extending the
hearing date for Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and Defendant's
Motion to Stay per the Parties' stipulation until March 22, 2018.

The Court will continue Plaintiff's Motion to Remand Hearing
currently set for 2:00 p.m. on March 22, 2018 to 2:00 p.m. on
June 28, 2018.

The Court will continue Defendant's Motion to Stay Hearing
currently set for 2:00 p.m. on March 22, 2018 to 2:00 p.m. on
June 28, 2018.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 5, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7cohgya from Leagle.com.

Justin Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Galen T. Shimoda --
attorney@shimodalaw.com -- Shimoda Law Corp. & Justin Paul
Rodriguez -- jrodriguez@shimodalaw.com -- Shimoda Law Corp.

Greyhound Lines, Inc., Defendant, represented by David J. Dow --
ddow@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Pc & Kelsey Elizabeth
Papst -- kpapst@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson.


GRUBHUB INC: Lawson Appeals N.D. Calif. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Raef Lawson filed an appeal from a court ruling in his
lawsuit titled RAEF LAWSON, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated individuals, and in his capacity as
Private Attorney General Representative v. GRUBHUB, INC.; GRUBHUB
HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 3:15-cv-05128-JSC, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Raef Lawson,
an aspiring actor from Los Angeles, claims Grubhub misclassified
him as an independent contractor and denied him minimum wage,
overtime pay and reimbursement of expenses.

The appellate case is captioned as RAEF LAWSON, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, and in his
capacity as Private Attorney General Representative, Plaintiff-
Appellant v. GRUBHUB, INC.; GRUBHUB HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants-
Appellees, Case No. 18-15386, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- April 6, 2018 -- Transcript shall be ordered;

   -- May 7, 2018 -- Transcript shall be filed by court reporter;

   -- June 15, 2018 -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of
      record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and
      9th Cir. R. 32-1;

   -- July 16, 2018 -- Appellee's answering brief and excerpts of
      record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and
      9th Cir. R. 32-1; and

   -- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and
      served within 21 days of service of the appellee's brief,
      pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1.[BN]


HIGHLINE RESIDENTIAL: Faces "Kiler" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Highline
Residential, LLC. The case is styled as Marion Kiler,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. Highline Residential, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01981 (E.D. N.Y., April 2, 2018).

Highline Residential, LLC is engaged in the real estate
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11217
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


HOTS INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, "Cross" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
JAQUELLA CROSS; ISABELLA DESTEFANO; and KAITLYN STEFLER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. HOTS INC. d/b/a VEGAS STRIP GENTLEMAN'S CLUB; and
STEPHEN J. TITUS, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00276 (W.D. Mich.,
March 14, 2018), seeks damages, back pay, restitution, liquidated
damages, attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The complaint alleges that Defendants misclassify dancers as
independent contractors, as opposed to employees; require dancers
to share tips with the Defendants; require dancers to share their
tip with the Defendants' managers, doormen, floor walkers, DJs
and other employees who do not usually receive tips by paying
tip-outs.

Plaintiff Cross was employed by the Defendants as exotic dancer
from 2009 to July 2017.

Plaintiff DeStefano was employed by the Defendants as exotic
dancer from 2014.

Plaintiff Steffler was employed by the Defendants as exotic
dancer from 2014 to 2017.

Hots Inc. d/b/a Vegas Strip Gentleman's Club is a Michigan
corporation doing business as night club in Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Anthony Alvarez, Esq.
          AVANTI LAW GROUP, P.C.
          600 28th St., SW
          Wyoming, MI 49509
          Telephone: (616) 257-6807


HSBC BANK: Vasquez & Garcia Sue over WCM777 Ponzi Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------
Rigoberto Vasquez and Eva Garcia on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hong Kong and Shanghai
Banking Corporation Ltd.; HSBC Bank USA, N.A.; and Does 1 through
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01876-PAE (S.D.N.Y.,
March 1, 2018), is an action against the Defendants alleging that
WCM777, an internet-based scheme that falsely claimed to be a
successful global merchant bank into which one could invest
and/or receive cloud computing services, is a Ponzi Scheme.

The Plaintiffs alleged that they were victims of the WCM777 Ponzi
scheme, who lost approximately $45 million, which they invested
in the Ponzi Scheme from 2013 to 2014 by sending money to HSBC
Hong Kong.

The Defendants with prior knowledge of illegal activity
substantially assisted the scheme to avoid United States
regulatory actions, knew that investor deposits originated from
high risk geographic areas and laundered those proceeds into
United States Dollars, covered payments via direct communication
between Bank employees and WCM777's employees, blocked and
obstructed attempts by California regulators to access WCM777's
transaction information, credited the Ponzi scheme with over $45
million despite possessing clear and convincing evidence of no
legitimate business purpose, and routed over $12 million in
distributions to investors back into the United States.

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, together
with its subsidiaries, provides a range of banking and related
financial services in Hong Kong and rest of Asia-Pacific. The
company was founded in 1865 and is headquartered in Central, Hong
Kong.  HSBC Corp. Limited is a subsidiary of HSBC Asia Holdings
B.V. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Julio J. Ramos, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JULIO J. RAMOS
          35 Grove Street, Suite 107
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 948-3015
          Facsimile: (415) 469-9787

               - and -

          Steven M. Nunez, Esq.
          WARD & HAGEN, LLP
          440 Stevens Avenue, Suite 350
          Solana Beach, CA 92075
          Telephone: (858) 847-0505
          Facsimile: (858) 847-0105

               - and -

          Michaele Adams, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAELE ADAMS
          2702 Marshall Street, Suite 300
          Redwood City, CA 94063
          Telephone: (650) 599-9463
          Facsimile: (650) 599-9785


IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Faces "Hawkins" Suit in Oregon
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, d/b/a Tinder. The case is captioned as Ariel
Hawkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, d/b/a Tinder,
Defendant, Case No. 18CV09778 (Or. Cir., Umatilla Cty., March 14,
2018).

Tinder, Inc. develops an online dating application that enables
users to meet new people for dating, friendship, or relationships
on iOS and Android devices. The company was founded in 2012 and
is based in Dallas, Texas. Tinder, Inc. operates as a subsidiary
of IAC/InterActiveCorp. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Michael Fuller, Esq.


INVESTOR'S BUSINESS: Made Unsolicited Calls, Armstrong Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
CLIFFORD ARMSTRONG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY,
INC.; MARKETSMITH, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02134-MWF-
JPR (C.D. Cal., March 14, 2018), alleges that Defendant has made
unsolicited calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Investor's Business Daily, Inc. publishes newspapers. The Company
offers news on stock market, mutual fund performance, market
analysis, economic and financial, and national issues. Investor's
Business Daily operates in the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan Theis, Esq.
          THEIS LAW GROUP, P.C.
          533 Second Street, Suite 400
          Encinitas, CA 92024
          Telephone: (213) 261-4240
          Facsimile: (833) 276-7001
          E-mail: bryan@theislaw.com

               - and -

          Ross Howard Schmierer, Esq.
          DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE PC
          315 Madison Avenue, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 646-979-3642
          Facsimile: 856-797-9978
          E-mail: rschmierer@denittislaw.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces "Fitzgerald" Suit over Talc Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER FITZGERALD and SEAN FITZGERALD, Plaintiffs v. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 18CV324262 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., March 5,
2018), seeks to recover damages as a result of the Plaintiffs'
ovarian and fallopian tube cancer, which was directly and
proximately caused by the wrongful conduct of the Defendants, the
false and fraudulent representations, omissions, and concealments
of the defective nature of talcum powder, the main ingredient of
the Defendants' product.

Plaintiffs alleged that they developed ovarian cancer, and
suffered effects and sequelae therefrom, as a direct and
proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective
nature of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the Defendants'
products. The Defendants also committed wrongful and negligent
conduct in the research, development, testing, manufacture,
production, formulation, processing, packaging, promotion,
distribution, marketing, and sale of the their products and the
talcum powder that comprises the products.

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. Johnson & Johnson was founded in 1885 and
is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: 949-720-1288
          Facsimile: 949-720-1292
          E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com

               - and -

          Michelle Parfitt, Esq.
          Patrick Lyons, Esq.
          ASHCRAFT & GEREL, LLP
          4900 Seminary Road, Suite 650
          Alexandria, VA 22311
          Telephone: 703-931-5500
          Facsimile: 703-820-1656
          E-mail: mparfitt@ashcraftlaw.com
                  plyons@ashcraftlaw.com


JRV SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, "Pereira" Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
ROLANDO PEREIRA, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JRV SERVICES LLC; PRA-SE
CONSTRUCTION, LP; and JUANA VARGAS, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-
02720-EEF-DEK (E.D. La., March 14, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, declaratory relief, and other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a general
construction labor from March 2014 to March 2018.

JRV Services LLC is a limited liability company organized under
the laws of Louisiana with its principal place of business in
Baton Rouge, Louisiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff was represented by:

          Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 534-5005
          E-mail: rlc@beaumontcostales.com
                  whb@beaumontcostales.com
                  eaw@beaumontcostales.com


JUNIORS CHEESECAKE: Faces "Fischler" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Juniors Cheesecake
Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Juniors Cheesecake Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01964 (E.D.
N.Y., April 2, 2018).

Founded by Harry Rosen in 1950, Junior's landmark restaurant is
known as the home of New York's best cheesecake.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KIIP INC: Court Dismisses Wiretap Act Claims in "Vasil"
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss the Wiretap Act claims and granted in part and denied in
part Plaintiffs' State Law Claims in the case captioned JESSICA
VASIL and CHRISTINE FARAG, individually and on behalf of a class
of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. KIIP, INC.,
Defendant, No. 16-CV-09937 (N.D. Ill.).

The plaintiffs allege that defendant violated federal and state
law by exploiting a popular fitness app, Runkeeper, to collect
data from users even when they were not using the app or their
phones. Kiip says the allegations do not plausibly establish a
violation of federal or state law and moves to dismiss the
complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).

Wiretap Act

Kiip moves to dismiss plaintiffs' Wiretap Act claims, arguing
that it did not receive the content of any communications while
plaintiffs' phones were not in use, and that even if it did, it
was a party to those communications and therefore is not liable
under the Act. The Wiretap Act creates a cause of action against
any entity who intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept,
or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to
intercept, any wire, oral or electronic communication.

For practical purposes, the court will divide the allegedly
intercepted communications into two categories: (1) current geo-
locational data and device identifiers captured while plaintiffs
were not using the Runkeeper app; and (2) geo-location and other
personal data (including health and fitness information)
plaintiffs provided to Runkeeper as part of their use of the app,
which was later captured by Kiip during periods when the
plaintiffs were not using the app.

Current Geo-Locational Data and Device Identifiers

Plaintiffs contend that Kiip violated the Wiretap Act by
collecting, without consent, their current GPS coordinates and
cell phone device identifiers while they were not using the
Runkeeper Act.

Kiip responds by arguing that geo-locational data and device
identifiers do not qualify as contents of a communication, and
that even if they could, the specific locational and device
identification data at issue here are not content because the
plaintiffs never intended to communicate that information to
anyone. Kiip has the better of the argument.

While these complaint excerpts indicate that plaintiffs never
intended to communicate their geo-locational information or
device identifiers to Kiip while they were not using their
phones, the complaint also fails to identify to whom the
plaintiffs actually intended to communicate such information. It
is possible that the plaintiffs intended to communicate their
location to Runkeeper whenever their phones were on by selecting
settings that allowed Runkeeper to use the phone's location
services even when the phone was not in use.

It is also possible that the plaintiffs intended to communicate
such data to their cell phone service provider by selecting phone
settings that would accomplish that goal. But the complaint
contains no allegations concerning who was supposed to receive,
or actually did receive, plaintiffs' geo-locational data and
device identifiers while plaintiffs were not using their phones
or not using the Runkeeper app, or how they received such
information. While the complaint repeatedly asserts that Kiip
intercepted plaintiffs' communications, it does not contain facts
sufficient to conclude that the allegedly intercepted data were
the content of a communication.

Personal Information and Prior Geo-Locational Data

Here, to the extent that plaintiffs have adequately pled that
Kiip captured, while plaintiffs were not using their phones, (1)
health information and other personal information that they had
intentionally provided to Runkeeper, and (2) geo-locational
information they provided to Runkeeper while using the app, their
interception claims are foreclosed by the Wiretap Act's
contemporaneousness requirement. There are no allegations that
Kiip unlawfully collected such data at the time it was
communicated to Runkeeper; to the extent plaintiffs have pled
that such data were unlawfully extracted, they have alleged only
that the information taken without consent while it was stored in
the Runkeeper app, after the communications were completed.

This is not necessarily to say that plaintiffs have no federal
remedy for Kiip's extraction of data. Statutes like the Stored
Communications Act, which creates a cause of action against an
entity that intentionally accesses without authorization a
facility through which an electronic communication service is
provided and thereby obtains access to a wire or electronic
communication while it is in electronic storage, and the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act, which prohibits intentionally accessing a
computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access,
and thereby obtaining information from any protected computer,
might provide recourse. But as presently pled that is, without
contemporaneous interception the Wiretap Act does not.

Kiip's motion to dismiss is granted as to plaintiffs' Wiretap Act
claims, and granted in part and denied in part as to plaintiffs'
state law claims.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 5, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9sutf9v
from Leagle.com.

Jessica Vasil & Christine Farag, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, represented
by Paul T. Geske, McGuire Law, P.C., 55 West Wacker Drive, 9th
Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60601

Kiip, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
Jonathan M. Cyrluk -- cyrluk@carpenterlipps.com -- Carpenter
Lipps & Leland LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Gratz, Durie Tangri LLP,
pro hac vice, Josh Goldberg -- goldberg@carpenterlipps.com  --
Carpenter Lipps & Leland LLP & Steven Christopher Moeller --
moeller@carpenterlipps.com -- Carpenter Lipps & Leland LLP.


KROGER CO: Kocoglu Sues over Labeling of Aloe Vera Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALEX KOCOGLU, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE KROGER CO.; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02132-VAP-PLA (C.D. Cal.,
March 14, 2018), alleges that the Defendants advertise, market,
sell, and distribute the "Aloe Vera After Sun Gel" with the label
declaring it to be made of "with Aloe", implying that aloe vera
is present in its product. According to the product's ingredient
label, it contains "Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Juice." In reality,
according to independent laboratory tests, the Defendants'
Product contains no actual Aloe Vera at all.

The Defendants violate the California Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, the California False Advertising Act, and the California
Unlawful, and Fraudulent Business Practices Act, the lawsuit
says.

The Kroger Co., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
retailer in the United States. It also manufactures and processes
food for sale in its supermarkets. The company operates retail
food and drug stores, multi-department stores, jewelry stores,
and convenience stores. The Kroger Co. was founded in 1883 and is
headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald B. Malanga, Esq.
          LATTIE MALANGA LIBERTINO, LLP
          3731 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 860
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (323) 938-3102
          Facsimile: (323) 938-0110
          E-mail: gmalanga@lmllaw.com

               - and -

          Alice A. Curry, esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALICE A. CURRY
          P.O. Box 2861
          Malibu, CA 90265
          Telephone: (917) 921-4768
          E-mail: currybte@gmail.com


LA COLOMBE: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against La Colombe
Torrefaction, Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. La Colombe Torrefaction, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-02887 (S.D. N.Y., April 2, 2018).

La Colombe Coffee Roasters is a US coffee roaster and retailer
headquartered in Philadelphia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LASALLE COUNTY, IL: Court Dismisses "Larson" With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
the case captioned ALYSSA B. LARSON, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LASALLE COUNTY,
BRIAN TOWNE, KAREN DONNELLY, and JOHN DOES, State's Attorney
Felony Enforcement Officers, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-04210
(N.D. Ill.).

Defendants LaSalle County, Brian Towne, and Karen Donnelly have
moved jointly to dismiss Plaintiff Alyssa B. Larson's First
Amended Class Action Complaint (Complaint) under Rule 12(b)(6).

This case concerns LaSalle County's now-disbanded vigilante
police force, as the Complaint calls it.  In 2011, former State's
Attorney Brian Towne established the State's Attorney Felony
Enforcement unit, or SAFE, to patrol roads and target drug
traffickers.  Towne staffed SAFE with civilians mostly former law
enforcement and equipped them with police powers.

The Complaint claims that at the time of the stop despite the
officer's explanation as to what SAFE was doing, and despite her
own experience Larson did not know and could not have known that
SAFE: (1) was not authorized to conduct traffic stops; (2)
"targeted out-of-state motorists;" or (3) initiated her stop and
search not based upon reasonable suspicion or probable cause, but
pursuant to a prearranged and unlawful plan.

People v. Ringland

In Ringland, issued on June 3, 2015, the Appellate Court of
Illinois, Third District, considered the legality of Browne's
SAFE program.  A defendant, on a consolidated appeal from a trial
court's grant of motions to suppress, argued that SAFE's traffic
stop exceeded the scope of section 3-9005(b) rendering the
traffic stops and arrests unlawful.  The appellate court agreed.
It first cited trial-court testimony showing that Towne
established SAFE as a drug interdiction team" to patrol I-80,
that by prearrangement, the canine unit is automatically brought
to any traffic stop called in by a SAFE officer, and that SAFE
officers wrote warnings, made arrests, and confiscated money and
drugs.

Count I asserts an unreasonable seizure, in violation of the
Fourth Amendment, because Defendants fabricated and/or
exaggerated traffic violations, and without reasonable suspicion
or legal justification seized Larson and the class.  Count II
alleges an unreasonable search, also in violation of the Fourth
Amendment, because Defendants searched Larson's and the class's
vehicles without probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or any
other legal justification. Count III claims interference with the
right to travel and free movement, in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment's due process protections, because Defendants policy to
target vehicles with out-of-state license plates penalized out-
of-state motorist for exercising their right to travel or right
to free movement. Count IV asserts a Monell claim, alleging that
SAFE carried out de facto policies that resulted in the illegal
stops, seizures, and searches, all to the county's profit.

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) challenges the viability of a complaint by arguing that
it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Defendants argue, among other things, that Larson's Section 1983
claims are untimely.

To avoid that straightforward conclusion, Larson contends that
she did not know and could not have known of her claims until
June 2015, when the appellate court issued Ringland. Larson
submits that Ringland revealed SAFE's lack of statutory
authorization, but her Complaint does not allege that SAFE's lack
of statutory authorization is her constitutional injury. Instead,
the Complaint alleges that SAFE officers (and by extension,
Defendants) violated Larson's and the class's Fourth Amendment
rights by fabricating and/or exaggerating traffic violations,
executing seizures without reasonable suspicion or legal
justification, and executing searches without probable cause.

The Complaint also alleges that SAFE officers (again, by
extension, Defendants) violated Larson's and the class's
Fourteenth Amendment rights by enforcing a policy to target
vehicles with out-of-state license plates and thus penalizing
out-of-state motorists for exercising their right to travel.

To the contrary, the Seventh Circuit instructs that an officer's
violation of state law alone does not imply a violation of the
Constitution. Accordingly, although officers may have exceeded
their authority in conducting a particular search or seizure, as
here, that does not mean they violated the Constitution.

Ultimately, the Court finds that Larson's contention that not
until Ringland could she have known of her claims, because she
was unaware that SAFE: (1) was not authorized to conduct traffic
stops; (2) targeted out-of-state motorists; or (3) lacked
"reasonable suspicion or probable cause" to search her car --
does not hold up.  Ringland does not address the second or third
topics, and in any case, the Complaint's factual allegations
affirmatively plead that Larson knew SAFE targeted out-of-staters
and that her stop and search lacked suspicion or cause at the
time the officers pulled her over.

As to the first point, even if Ringland was Larson's first
indication that SAFE was not authorized to conduct traffic stops,
the Complaint does not allege that such illegitimate
authorization gives rise to a constitutional injury.

The Court therefore dismisses Larson's Section 1983 claims,
Counts I through IV, with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 5, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybduqzc9
from Leagle.com.

Alyssa B. Larson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jack E. Boehm --
jboehm@proptax.com -- Tania Yusaf -- tey@wexlerwallace.com --
Wexler Wallace Llp & Edward A. Wallace -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -
- Wexler Wallace LLP.

LaSalle County & Karen Donnelly, Defendants, represented by Kevin
Mark Casey, Peterson, Johnson & Murray Chicago LLC, Paul A.
O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and Murray Chicago LLC &Shantel Iris
Perez, Peterson, Johnson & Murray-Chicago, LLC, 200 West Adams
St., Suite 2125.Chicago, IL 60606

Brian Towne, Defendant, represented by Troy S. Radunsky, DeVore
Radunsky LLC & Jason Edward DeVore, DeVore Radunsky LLC, 53 W.
Jackson Blvd, Suite 1305, Chicago, Illinois


LOS TRES MAGUEYES: "Pontones" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Pontones, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Los Tres Magueyes, Inc., Ayotlan, Inc.,
Tequila Inc., Eliborio Navarro, Ignacio Navarro, Adriana Navarro,
Francisco Sanchez and Jorge Meza, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-
00087, (E.D. N.C., March 1, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
straight-time compensation, unpaid overtime premiums for all
overtime work required, suffered, or permitted by Defendants,
reimbursement of unlawful deductions, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment interest and other damages
permitted by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina
Wage and Hour Act.

Defendants operate at least eight Mexican restaurant locations in
North Carolina and Virginia where Pontones worked as a server,
rendering approximately fifty-seven hours per week 5-6 days a
week without overtime pay with her tips illegally withheld. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MEDCAH INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Sloatman Says
-----------------------------------------------------
JOHN SLOATMAN III, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDCAH, INC.; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. EC068263 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., March 14, 2018), seeks to stops the Defendant's
practice of contacting the Plaintiff's telephones without his
prior express written consent.

MEDCAH, Inc. is a Hawaii owned and operated collection agency
doing business in Hawaii since 1974. MEDCAH has been an active
member with ACA International and Hawaiian Collectors Association
since 1975. In addition, MEDCAH has been a member in good
standing with Better Business Bureau of Hawaii since 1992. [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


MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION: Court Narrows Claims in Driver's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia
granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
the case captioned ISAAC HARRIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MEDICAL
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-
01371(APM) (D.D.C.).

This case concerns drivers who claim that they have not been paid
in accordance with federal and local wage laws for transporting
Medicaid patients in the District of Columbia. Defendant Medical
Transportation Management, Inc., is a private company that
contracts with the District of Columbia to manage and administer
non-emergency transportation services for Medicaid recipients.
Defendant does not itself supply these transportation services;
rather, it contracts with various companies that own vehicles and
employ drivers for that purpose.

Defendant considers itself a broker of transportation services.
Plaintiffs Isaac Harris, Darnell Frye, and Leo Franklin work as
drivers for companies that contract with Defendant to provide
transportation services.

In its Motion to Dismiss, Defendant argues that:

   (1) it cannot be held liable for the alleged wage violations
because it is neither a joint employer nor general contractor
under the relevant wage laws;

   (2) Plaintiffs' line of work is exempted from the D.C. Living
Wage Act; and

   (3) Plaintiffs are not third-party beneficiaries of the
contract between Defendant and the District of Columbia and,
therefore, do not have standing to enforce it.

Fair Labor Standards Act Count

There is no allegation in this case that any Plaintiff was
employed directly by Defendant. Rather, Plaintiffs' contention is
that, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Defendant is a
joint employer equally responsible for the payment of legally
compliant wages.

At this early stage of the litigation, the court declines to
choose a test or conduct a factor-by-factor analysis. That is
because the ultimate determination of whether an entity is a
joint employer must be based upon the circumstances of the whole
activity. Put another way, the question of joint employer status
is essentially a fact issue. The very cases cited in the parties'
briefings make the point, as most are decisions made at the
summary judgment stage.

In the rare instances where courts have dismissed an FLSA claim
premised on joint employment on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss, they do so when the plaintiff failed to allege any facts
that would support the inference that the defendant had any
control over the employment relationship.

But here, Plaintiffs' claim of joint employment is neither
conclusory nor lacking in "operative details. Plaintiffs allege
an array of facts concerning Defendant's involvement in their
work, all of which the court accepts as true at this stage of the
litigation.  Specifically, they charge that Defendant directed
and controlled how they conducted their work by imposing
transportation standards, client protocols and procedures,
dispute resolution procedures, accident/investigation procedures,
and other regulations contained in Defendant's Transportation
Provider Handbook.

And there is more. Defendant required drivers' vehicles to be
inspected daily, and it reserved the right to take out of service
any vehicles that did not meet its standards. As for work
schedules, Plaintiffs allege Defendant indirectly controlled them
by dictating which trips were assigned to which transportation
providers within its network and by requiring those providers to
complete all trips assigned to it. Finally, the Complaint
contains multiple allegations that Defendant possesses both
hiring and firing power, including the right to prohibit
providers from using drivers who have not been fully credentialed
and approved" by Defendant, to mandate drivers complete and pass
Defendant's training, to require drivers possess certain minimum
qualifications, and to disapprove of the hiring of, or suspend,
any driver for good cause at Defendant's discretion.

These allegations, individually and collectively, belie
Defendant's position that Plaintiffs' allegations as to
Defendant's control over their work  relate entirely to matters
of quality control and minimum qualifications. Rather, Plaintiffs
have alleged Defendant exercised sufficient control over their
work at all stages of their employment, from hiring, to
performance, to termination, to qualify as a joint employer.

Plaintiffs may proceed to discovery on their FLSA claim.

D.C. Minimum Wage Revision Act Count

In Count Two, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant violated the D.C.
Minimum Wage Revision Act by failing to pay them a sufficient
hourly wage and a premium overtime wage. The D.C. Minimum Wage
Revision Act sets the minimum wage to be paid by any employer in
the District of Columbia, at either the greater of the applicable
rate set in the statute or the minimum wage set under the FLSA,
plus $1, whichever is greater.

Defendant asserts that it is not a general contractor relative to
the transportation providers because those companies perform a
function the actual transporting of Medicaid recipients that is
different than that for which Defendant was contracted by the
District, and one which Defendant is contractually prohibited
from performing. That argument, however, misses the mark. The
fact that Defendant performs a different function than the
transportation companies does not disqualify it from being a
general contractor. Indeed, the opposite is often true.

In the construction industry, for example, the primary obligation
of a general contractor for a large scale project is to develop a
budget for the project and coordinate the construction schedule,
not to do the construction itself. The tasks involved in actually
erecting the building are performed by subcontractors, such as
electricians, plumbers, and the like. Thus, subcontractors
routinely do different work than general contractors. Second,
Defendant construes its duties under the Contract too narrowly.
Its responsibility, broadly speaking, and per the language of the
Contract, is to provide non-emergency transportation services,
not just broker them.

Thus, while Defendant may not directly transport Medicaid
recipients, the scope of its work can plausibly be read to
encompass the purposes for which Plaintiffs' companies are hired.

Plaintiffs have alleged facts that give rise to a plausible
inference that Defendant is a general contractor under the
Minimum Wage Act and therefore may be held liable for Plaintiffs'
employers' alleged wage law violations.

D.C. Living Wage Act Count

The D.C. Living Wage Act requires recipients of government
contracts of $100,000 or more to pay their affiliated employees
the living wage, which is an hourly rate set by the District of
Columbia.

The court thinks Plaintiffs have the better of the argument.
Ultimately, context determines meaning. And so, the court looks
to the term's use in the overall statutory scheme. The pertinent
statutory text exempts Medicaid provider agreements for direct
care services to Medicaid recipients unless provided through a
home care agency, a community residence facility, or a group home
for persons with intellectual disabilities.

In other words, all providers of Medicaid-covered direct care
services are exempt from the Living Wage Act, except when
delivered through one of the three enumerated modes. To define
those modes, the Medicare provider exemption expressly cross-
references and adopts the definitions of those terms as set forth
in the Health-Care and Community Residence Facility, Hospice, and
Home Care Licensure Act, D.C. Code Section 44-501. As defined in
that Act, Home care agency means an entity, other than a hospice,
that directly provides skilled nursing services and at least one
other therapeutic service to an individual.

Similarly, the definitions of community residence facility and
group home for persons with intellectual disabilities refer to a
sheltered living environment for individuals who desire or need
such an environment because of their physical, mental, familial,
social, or other circumstances. Thus, all three defined terms
focus on the provision of medical care or daily living assistance
in a residential setting. So, when the term direct care services
is read alongside the definitions of the excepted modes of such
service, the definitional intent of the City Council becomes more
apparent: direct care services must be understood as relating to
medical or therapeutic services or services that support daily
living in a residential setting. Read in that manner, the term
does not include a business whose sole purpose is to transport
Medicaid recipients to and from medical appointments.

Breach of Contract Count

Plaintiffs here have failed to show the contracting parties
clearly intended for them to be beneficiaries of the Contract.
The provisions on which Plaintiffs rely are not the result of the
parties' arms-length negotiations, but rather are contained in
the Contract because the Living Wage Act itself requires their
inclusion. Thus, the Contract's Living Wage Act requirements are
not reflective of the parties' intent, but rather the City
Council's. Plaintiffs therefore are not third-party beneficiaries
who can enforce the Contract. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' breach-of-
contract claim is dismissed.

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in
part. Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted as to Plaintiffs'
breach-of-contract claim, but is denied with respect to the
remaining four counts.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 5, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycravv7y
from Leagle.com.

ISAAC HARRIS, DARNELL FRYE & LEO FRANKLIN, Individually and on
behalf of all others, Plaintiffs, represented by Miriam R. Nemeth
-- mnemeth@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
Michael T. Kirkpatrick -, mkirkpatrick@citizen.org -- PUBLIC
CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP, Patrick D. Llewellyn --
pllewellyn@citizen.org -- PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP &
Joseph M. Sellers -- jsellers@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN
SELLERS & TOLL PLLC.

MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, represented
by John J. Hathway -- jhathway@wtplaw.com -- WHITEFORD, TAYLOR &
PRESTON L.L.P. & JWilliam F. Ryan, Jr. -- wryan@wtplaw.com --
WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON LLP.


MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Chambers Sues over Debt Collections
--------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Sheree Chambers, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Merchants & Medical Credit
Corporation, Inc.; David Edward Cairnduff; James Matthew Hresko;
and Does 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 18CV324210 (Cal.
Super., Santa Clara Cty., Feb. 28, 2018), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Merchants & Medical Credit is a Michigan corporation engaged in
the business of collecting defaulted consumer debts in this state
with its principal place of business located at 6324 Taylor
Drive, Flint, Michigan 48507. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fred W. Schwinn, Esq.
          Raeon R. Roulston, Esq.
          Matthew C. Salmonsen, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC.
          12 South First Street, Suite 1014
          San Jose, CA 95113-2418
          Telephone: (408) 294-6100
          Facsimile: (408) 294-6190
          Email: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com


MICHIGAN: Ct. Won't Dismiss Jewish Inmates' Suit Over Kosher Food
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, denied Defendant's motion to dismiss
the case captioned MICHAEL ARNOLD, individually and on behalf of
a putative class, Plaintiff, v. HEIDI WASHINGTON, Defendant,
Civil Case No. 13-14137 (E.D. Mich.).

Plaintiff pursues this action against Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) Director Heidi Washington (Defendant),
claiming that Jewish inmates requiring a kosher diet are
receiving food not prepared or served in a kosher manner.

The Court prematurely granted the motion on November 16, 2017,
having overlooked the parties' stipulation to extend their
deadlines to respond and reply to the motion. The Court,
therefore, struck its opinion and order granting Arnold's motion
for class certification. The motion was fully briefed and
prepared for ruling when, on January 26, 2018, Defendant moved to
file its motion to dismiss on mootness grounds based on the
MDOC's parole of Arnold three days earlier. On February 16, 2018,
the Court allowed Defendant to file the motion.

Arnold's counsel has identified two Jewish MDOC prisoners who
have been approved to receive kosher meals and are willing to
represent the putative class.

The Seventh Circuit held in Olson v. Brown, 594 F.3d 577(7th Cir.
2010), that a class action brought by an inmate alleging
constitutional violations at a county jail was not moot even
though the named plaintiff was transferred out of the jail before
the class was certified.  The court reasoned: "While the ultimate
length of confinement does affect the applicability of the
inherently transitory exception, the essence of the exception is
uncertainty about whether a claim will remain alive for any given
plaintiff long enough for a district court to certify the class."

This Court concludes that the inherently transitory exception
applies to the instant case. Arnold did not know how long he
would remain an MDOC inmate and thus how long his claims for
injunctive and declaratory relief would remain live. As such, the
Court holds that his parole before the ruling on his motion for
class certification did not moot the claims of the putative
class.

Defendant's Motion for Dismissal Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 5, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y72envaw from
Leagle.com.

Michael Arnold, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E. Manville  --
daniel.manville@law.msu.edu -- Civil Rights Clinic & Michael J.
Steinberg -- msteinberg@aclumich.org -- American Civil Liberties
Union Fund of Michigan.

Michael Martin, Special Activities Coordinator MDOC & Brad
Purves, Food Service Director MDOC, Defendants, represented by
John L. Thurber, MI Dept of Atty Gen Corrections Division.

Heidi Washington, Defendant, represented by Allan J. Soros,
Michigan Department of Attorney General Corrections Division &
John L. Thurber, MI Dept of Atty Gen Corrections Division.


MILDON BUS: 3rd Circuit Appeal Filed in Community Vocational Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Community Vocational Schools of Pittsburgh Inc. filed
an appeal from a court ruling in its lawsuit styled Community
Vocational Schools of Pittsburgh Inc. v. Mildon Bus Lines Inc.,
Case No. 2-09-cv-01572, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 13, 2018, Judge
Joy Flowers Conti gave the counsel for the Plaintiff 30 days to
file a motion to substitute a new Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class on July 7, 2017,
and brief in support thereof.  On Aug. 7, 2017, the Defendant
filed a response in opposition, and Community Vocational Schools
filed its reply brief on Aug. 28, 2017.  A hearing on the motion
to certify a class was held on Sept. 19, 2017, and the parties
were ordered to file supplemental briefs.  Community Vocational
Schools filed its supplemental brief on Sept. 26, 2017, and
Mildon filed its supplemental brief in response on Oct. 3, 2017.

The Court by separate order dated Feb. 9, 2018, granted Mildon's
motion for summary judgment, holding that Community Vocational
Schools lacked standing and that a reasonable jury could not
render a verdict in favor of Community Vocational Schools.  The
class cannot be certified because in order to pursue a class
action claim on behalf of itself and the putative class, the
named Plaintiff must have standing.  Community Vocational
Schools, the only named Plaintiff, does not have standing.

The counsel for the Plaintiff will have 30 days to file a motion
to substitute a new Plaintiff.  Failure to do so will result in
dismissal of the amended complaint.  An appropriate order denying
the motion to certify a class without prejudice will be entered.

The appellate case is captioned as Community Vocational Schools
of Pittsburgh Inc. v. Mildon Bus Lines Inc., Case No. 18-1541, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant COMMUNITY VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS OF PITTSBURGH
INC., a corporation, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons, is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
          BOCK HATCH LEWIS & OPPENHEIM LLC
          134 North La Salle Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com
                  tod@classlawyers.com

               - and -

          John C. Evans, Esq.
          SPECTER SPECTER EVANS & MANOGUE
          436 Seventh Avenue
          Koppers Building
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 642-2300
          E-mail: Jce@ssem.com

               - and -

          Max Margulis, Esq.
          MARGULIS LAW GROUP
          14236 Cedar Springs Drive
          Chesterfield, MO 63107
          Telephone: (314) 434-8502
          E-mail: MaxMargulis@margulislaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com

Defendant-Appellee MILDON BUS LINES INC., a Pennsylvania
corporation, is represented by:

          Amy M. Kirkham, Esq.
          Arthur Leonard, Esq.
          ROBB LEONARD & MULVIHILL LLP
          500 Grant Street
          BNY Mellon Center, 23rd Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-5431
          Facsimile: (412) 281-3711
          E-mail: akirkham@rlmlawfirm.com
                  aleonard@rlmlawfirm.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces "Brickey" Suit Over Roundup(R) Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Brickey and Nina Brickey, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:18-
cv-00333 (E.D. Miss., February 28, 2018), is an action for
damages as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting,
marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and sale of the
herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient
glyphosate.

Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology
corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth S. Webb, Esq.
      BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
      211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
      St. Louis, MO 63102
      Telephone: (314) 222-2222
      Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
      E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces "Holstrom" Suit Over Roundup(R) Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beverly Holstrom and Charles Holstrom, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No.
4:18-cv-00336 (E.D. Miss., February 28, 2018), is an action for
damages as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting,
marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and sale of the
herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient
glyphosate.

Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology
corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Seth S. Webb, Esq.
      BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
      211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
      St. Louis, MO 63102
      Telephone: (314) 222-2222
      Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
      E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MYLIFE.COM INC: Cichowlas and Bonell Sue over Privacy Rights
------------------------------------------------------------
Monika Cichowlas and John Bonell, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MyLife.Com, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2018CHO3443 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., March 15,
2018), alleges violation of the Illinois Right of Publicity Act.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant plainly describes its
Background Report, and monitoring and managing services as
commercial products. However, while the Defendant features
individual pages for thousands of Illinois residents, and uses
those pages to advertise and sell its Background Report and
monitoring and managing services, the Defendants fails to obtain
any consent from those individuals to use their identities for
commercial purposes.

Mylife.com, Inc. operates as a search platform that allows
members to connect and manage their social and email accounts,
monitor their online information, and make new connections all in
one place. The company allows members to control their profile
presence across the Web, build and monitor online identity, and
make personal and professional connections by searching various
profiles. It also offers its service through mobile applications
available on iPhone and Android devices. Mylife.com, Inc. was
formerly known as Reunion.com, Inc. and changed its name in
February, 2009. The company was founded in 2002 and is based in
Los Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
          Myles McGuire, Esq.
          Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275-7895
          E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
                  emeyers@mcgpc.com
                  eturin@mcgpc.com


NEW YORK, NY: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Grubbs" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Coralyn Grubbs, Sean Miller, Ali Rivera and Louis
Smith filed an appeal from the District Court's memorandum
decision and order entered on February 26, 2018, in their lawsuit
styled Grubbs, et al. v. Brown, et al., Case No. 92-cv-2132, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(New York City).

The lawsuit was filed on March 25, 1992, and arose from alleged
Civil Rights violations.

The appellate case is captioned as Grubbs, et al. v. Brown, et
al., Case No. 18-670, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Coralyn Grubbs, Louis Smith, Ali Rivera and
Sean Miller, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Colin West, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 819-8200
          Facsimile: (212) 354-8113
          E-mail: cwest@whitecase.com

Defendants-Appellees Lee Brown, in his official capacity as
Police Commissioner of the City of New York; New York City Police
Department; Gerald Mitchell, in his official capacity as Acting
Commissioner of Correction of the City of New York; New York City
Department of Correction; David Dinkins, in his official capacity
as Mayor of the City of New York; and City of New York are
represented by:

          Zachary W. Carter, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-4000
          E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov

Defendants-Appellees Matthew T. Crosson, in his official capacity
as Chief Administrator of the Courts; Milton L., in his official
capacity as Deputy Chief Administrative Judge of the New York
City Courts; and Office of Court Administration, of the New York
State Courts, are represented by:

          Kenneth Allen Falk, Esq.
          NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM
          25 Beaver Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 428-2150
          Facsimile: (212) 366-6950
          E-mail: kfalk@courts.state.ny.us


NEW YORK PIZZERIA: Faces "Peacock" Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York Pizzeria,
Inc. The case is captioned as Brendan Peacock, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. New York
Pizzeria, Inc.; Russo's Holdings LLC; and Russo's Retail LLC;
Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00228087-CU-BT-GDS (Cal.
Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 28, 2018).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Adam J. Gutride, Esq. --
adam@gutridesafier.com -- at Gutride Safier LLP.


NIAGARA FALLS WATER: Removes Salerno Suit to W.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of Dolly Salerno, and Diane Amantia,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. City of Niagara Falls; Niagara Falls Water Board;
Occidental Petroleum Corporation; Occidental Chemical
Corporation; Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc.; GHD Services, Inc;
Miller Springs Remediation Management, Inc.; Sevenson
Environmental Services, Inc.; Gross PHC LLC; David Gross
Contracting Corp; Gross Plumbing and Heating Co., Inc.; NRC NY
Environmental Services, Inc.; Roy's Plumbing, Inc.; Scott Lawn
Yard, Inc., Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from
the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Case No. E163835/2018) to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York and
assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-00304-WKS (W.D.N.Y., March 1, 2018).
The case is assigned to Judge William K. Sessions III.

The Niagara Falls Water Board (NFWB) is a public benefit
corporation created in 2002 by a special act of the New York
State Legislature.  The NFWB has owned and operated the drinking
water and wastewater treatment systems and the storm water
conveyance facilities since September 25th, 2003. The Niagara
Falls Public Water Authority oversees the bonding and financing
of the board's assets. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tate James Kunkle, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
          400 Broadhollow Road, Suite 305
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (212) 397-1000
          Facsimile: (646) 843-7603
          E-mail: tkunkle@napolilaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Thomas M. O'Donnell, Esq.
          CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS LAW DEPARTMENT
          745 Main Street
          Post Office Box 69
          Niagara Falls, NY 14302-0069
          Telephone: (716) 286-4409
          Facsimile: (716) 286-4424
          E-mail: thomas.odonnell@niagarafallsny.gov

               - and -

          Jeffrey F. Baase, Esq.
          RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM
          & COPPOLA LLC
          424 Main Street, Suite 1600
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 854-3400
          Facsimile: (716) 332-0336
          E-mail: baase@ruppbaase.com

               - and -

          Kevin M. Hogan, Esq.
          PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP
          One Canalside, 125 Main Street
          Buffalo, NY 14203-2887
          Telephone: (716) 847-8331
          Facsimile: (716) 852-6100
          E-mail: khogan@phillipslytle.com

               - and -

          Joel A Blanchet, Esq.
          Phillips Lytle LLP
          One Canalside, 125 Main Street
          Buffalo, NY 14203-2887
          Telephone: (716) 847-8400
          Facsimile: (716) 852-6100
          E-mail: jblanchet@phillipslytle.com

               - and -

          Lisa L. Smith, Esq.
          PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP
          One Canalside, 125 Main Street
          Buffalo, NY 14203-2887
          Telephone: (716) 847-8336
          Facsimile: (716) 852-6100
          E-mail: lsmith@phillipslytle.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey C. Stravino, Esq.
          HODGSON RUSS LLP
          The Guaranty Building, Suite 100
          140 Pearl Street
          Buffalo, NY 14202-4040
          Telephone: (716) 848-1394
          Facsimile: (716) 849-0349
          E-mail: jstravino@hodgsonruss.com

               - and -

          David R. Adams, Esq.
          HURWITZ & FINE, P.C.
          1300 Liberty Building
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          E-mail: dra@hurwitzfine.com

               - and -

          Roger P. Doyle, Jr., Esq.
          KENNEY, SHELTON, LIPTAK & NOWAK, LLP
          The Calumet Building
          233 Franklin Street
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 853-3801
          Facsimile: (716) 853-0265
          E-mail: rpdoyle@kslnlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Schulman, Esq.
          PILLINGER MILLER TARALLO, LLP
          507 Plum Street, Suite 120
          Syracuse, NY 13204
          Telephone: (315) 471-6166
          Facsimile: (315) 295-2575
          E-mail: jschulman@pmtlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Robert E. Knoer, Esq.
          THE KNOER GROUP, PLLC
          424 Main Street, Suite 1820
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 332-0032
          Facsimile: (716) 362-8748
          E-mail: rknoer@knoergroup.com

               - and -

          Brian F. Sutter, Esq.
          SUGARMAN LAW FIRM LLP
          1600 Rand Building
          14 Lafayette Square
          Buffalo, NY 14203
          Telephone: (716) 847-2523
          Facsimile: (716) 847-2589
          E-mail: bsutter@sugarmanlaw.com


NICOR ENERGY: Court Denies Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Plummer"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, Indianapolis Division, issued an Order denying
Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned
KRISTEN PLUMMER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NICOR ENERGY SERVICES COMPANY, Defendant,
Cause No. 1:17-cv-2177-WTL-MPB (S.D. Ind.).

In her putative class action Complaint, Plummer alleges that
Defendant Nicor enters into business relationships with public
utilities that provide essential services to consumers, such as
gas, electricity, and water. Plummer alleges that the repair
plans offered by Nicor are of little or no value to consumers and
that Nicor's business arrangements with public utilities violate
Indiana statutes designed to protect Hoosiers from deceptive
telephone solicitations and from companies pretending to be
governmental entities.

Vectren entered into a relationship with Nicor that allows Nicor
to charge Vectren customers for Nicor charges on Vectren bills.

The Plan

In conjunction with its Motion to Compel, Nicor submitted the
Declaration of Pamela Watkins along with Exhibits A and B.
Exhibit A is the audio recording of the telephone call between
Nicor's representative and Plummer when she sought to transfer
her service with Vectren.

Section 16.1 of the Plan states, In the unlikely event that
Nicor's customer service department is unable to resolve a
complaint You may have to your satisfaction, we each agree to
resolve those disputes through binding arbitration or small
claims court instead of in courts of general jurisdiction.

MOTION TO COMPEL

The Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Section 1, et seq.,
provides that arbitration provisions in commercial contracts will
"be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds
as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract."

Nicor cites Hill v. Gateway, 105 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 1997), for
the proposition that an arbitration clause will be enforced if it
is mailed to a consumer along with the product purchased. In
Hill, the Hills purchased a computer from Gateway, which in turn
shipped the computer in a box to the Hills that also contained a
list of terms, said to govern unless the customer returns the
computer within 30 days. After the Hills brought claims against
Gateway, Gateway sought enforcement of the arbitration clause
that had been included in the terms in the box. Upholding the
arbitration clause, the Hill court noted that a contract need not
be read to be effective; people who accept take the risk that the
unread terms may in retrospect prove unwelcome.

Hill further stated that the terms inside Gateway's box stand or
fall together. If they constitute the parties' contract because
the Hills had an opportunity to return the computer after reading
them, then all must be enforced. The Hill court noted that
practical considerations support allowing vendors to enclose the
full legal terms with their products. Customers as a group are
better off when vendors skip costly and ineffectual steps such as
telephonic recitation, and use instead a simple approve-or-return
device.

But that it is not the case here. Nothing in the Welcome Letter
or Plan indicates that the terms govern the parties' contract
upon some affirmative action by Plummer. Nor is there anything
that states that her failure to act within a certain number of
days following receipt will serve as acceptance. If Nicor wished
to have Plummer accept the new terms and conditions, it was
incumbent on Nicor to obtain her consent to do so in some
fashion. Nicor, however, failed in that regard and therefore its
Motion to Compel is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 5, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9k9dzhy from Leagle.com.

KRISTEN PLUMMER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Irwin B. Levin --
ilevin@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP, Lynn A. Toops --
ltoops@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP, Richard E. Shevitz
-- rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP & Vess Allen
Miller, -- vmiller@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP.

NICOR ENERGY SERVICES COMPANY, Defendant, represented by Danielle
Chattin -- dchattin@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING LLP, David L.
Balser -- dbalser@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING LLP, Kenneth J.
Munson -- kmunson@hooverhullturner.com -- HOOVER HULL TURNER LLP,
Wayne C. Turner -- wturner@hooverhullturner.com -- HOOVER HULL
TURNER LLP & Zachary A. McEntyre -- zmcentyre@kslaw.com -- KING &
SPALDING, LLP, pro hac vice.


OHIO: Governor, Attorney General Face "Robinson" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the State of Ohio.
The case is pending before the state's Supreme Court. The case is
captioned as Gregory Robinson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. John Kasich, Governor of
Ohio; Mike DeWine, Attorney General of Ohio, Respondents, Case
No. 2018-0408 (Ohio, March 16, 2018).

The State of Ohio is located in the Midwestern region of the
United States. The State provides a full range of services that
include education, transportation, law, regulation, and public
libraries. Ohio has an economy that is primarily based on
manufacturing, financial activities, and tourism. [BN]

The state is represented by Richard Michael DeWine, Esq.


PACIFIC FERTILITY: Faces "Bauer" Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Fertility
Center. The case is captioned as Megan Bauer and Jonathan Bauer,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Pacific Fertility Center; and Prelude Fertility
Center, Defendants, Case No.3:18-cv-01634-SK (C.D. Cal., March
15, 2018). The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim.

Pacific Fertility Center, located in Northern California's San
Francisco Bay Area, is an international destination for male and
female fertility treatment and care. The Company is also doing
business in California, like Berkeley, Oakland, Palo Alto, and
Marin County. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Brett Wolf, Esq.
          Tracey B. Cowan, Esq.
          PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE, APLC
          4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 766-3545
          Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
          E-mail: awolf@prwlegal.com
                  tcowan@prwlegal.com


PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION: Faces "Anderson" Suit in E.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pennsylvania Higher
Education Assistance Agency. The case is styled as Arielle M.
Anderson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency
doing business as: Fedloan Servicing doing business as: American
Education Services, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01378-CDJ (E.D.
Penn., April 2, 2018).

The Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA) is
one of the nation's leading student aid organizations, serving
millions of students and thousands of schools.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   MARC H. EDELSON, Esq.
   EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC
   3 TERRY DR SUITE 205
   NEWTOWN, PA 18940
   Tel: (215) 867-2399
   Fax: (267) 685-0676
   Email: medelson@edelson-law.com


PENNYMAC LOAN: Faces "Malek" Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PennyMac Loan
Services, LLC. The case is captioned as Simi Ghasri Malek,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-02142-GW-AS (C.D. Cal., March 14, 2018).

The case is assigned to Judge George H. Wu, and referred to
Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar.

PennyMac Loan Services, LLC provides home mortgage loans to
borrowers and investors. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC has
strategic partnerships with BlackRock Mortgage Ventures, LLC; and
HC Partners, LLC. The company was founded in 2008 and is based in
Westlake Village, California. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC
operates as a subsidiary of Private National Mortgage Acceptance
Company, LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason A Ibey, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: jason@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Joshua B Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE AND SWIGART APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Nicholas Barthel, Esq.
          Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (760) 579-1313
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: nicholas@kazlg.com
                  ak@kazlg.com


PETCO ANIMAL: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Lanning" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Annette Lanning, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees v. PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc., Case No. 2:2018cv00247
(W.D. Penn., February 27, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work that
exceeds 40 hours in a workweek.

PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc. operates stores in the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania that sells pet products and services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PHEA: Hawkins Sues over Federal Student Loans
---------------------------------------------
Mark Hawkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance
Agency d/b/a FedLoan Servicing, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-
cv-00490-YK (M.D. Pa., Feb. 28, 2018), is an action against the
Defendant for violating the state and federal laws in connection
with the servicing of Plaintiff's federal student loans.

The complaint alleged that Defendant breached its servicing
contract with the federal government, of which Plaintiff was an
intended third party beneficiary; tortiously interfered with a
written agreement between the federal government and Plaintiff;
and violated various state and federal laws in connection with
the servicing of Plaintiff's federal student loans.

Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency offers student
financial aid services. The agency offers loan guaranty, loan
servicing, financial aid processing, outreach, and other student
aid programs. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency was
founded in 1963 and is based in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlo Sabatini, Esq.
          SABATINI FREEMAN, LLC
          216 N. Blakely St.
          Dunmore, PA 18512
          Telephone: (570) 341-9000
          Facsimile: (570) 504-2769
          E-mail: carlo@sabatinilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Dan A. Edelman, Esq.
          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Tara L. Goodwin, Esq.
          Frances R. Greene, Esq.
          Cassandra P. Miller, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379

               - and -

          Anthony Fiorentino, Esq.
          FIORENTINO LAW OFFICES LTD.,
          180 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2440
          Chicago, IL 60602
          E-mail: anthony@fiorentinolaw.com


RC&D INC: "Hermenegildo" Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Hermenegildo, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. RC&D, Inc. and James
Henebury, Individually and in his capacity as CEO and Vice
President of RC&D, Inc. Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00103 (D.
R.I., March 1, 2018), seeks recovery of all unpaid prevailing
wages, unpaid overtime wages, reimbursement of withheld benefits,
treble damages, interest, cost and attorneys' fees and all other
relief for violation of Rhode Island and Massachusetts wage laws,
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

RC&D is a self-performing heavy civil and environmental
contractor specializing in remediation, site civil and marine
construction. Hermenegildo worked for several RC&D projects as an
hourly-paid worker. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Geoffrey M. Aptt, Esq.
      DARROWEVERETT LLP
      One Turks Head Place, Suite 1200
      Providence, RI 02903
      Tel: (401) 453-1200
      Fax: (401) 453-1201
      E-mail: gaptt@darroweverett.com


ROAD MACHINERY: Faces "Ruiz" Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Road Machinery, LLC. The
case is captioned as Anthony Ruiz, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Road Machinery, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. BCV-18-100488 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., Feb.
28, 2018).

Road Machinery, LLC engages in selling, renting, and servicing
mining, construction, and forestry equipment in the United
States. The company was founded in 1955 and is based in Phoenix,
Arizona. The company has locations in Arizona, California, Texas,
and New Mexico. Road Machinery, LLC operates as a subsidiary of
Mitsui & Co. Ltd. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Jonathan S. Lee, Esq.


RUBY IV: "Kidwell" Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Kidwell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Ruby IV, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-02052 (E.D. La.,
February 27, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and
overtime wages, liquidated damages, penalty wages, and attorney's
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ruby IV, LLC owns and operates a restaurant located at 3733 Lake
Michel Court, Gretna, Louisiana, 70056. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher L. Williams, Esq.
      WILLIAMS LITIGATION, L.L.C.
      639 Loyola Ave., Suite 1850
      New Orleans, LA 70113
      Telephone: (504) 308-1438
      Facsimile: (504) 308-1446
      E-mail: chris@williamslitigation.com

         - and -

      Charles J. Stiegler, Esq.
      STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC
      318 Harrison Ave., Suite 104
      New Orleans, LA 70124
      Telephone: (504) 267-0777
      Facsimile: (504) 513-3084
      E-mail: Charles@StieglerLawFirm.com


SAS ANALYTICS: McMurtry Appeals Order in "Cahoo" Suit to 6th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Julie A. McMurtry filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit titled Patti Cahoo, et al. v. SAS Analytics Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-10657, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to enjoin the Defendants, their agents, successors,
employees and other representatives, from engaging in or
continuing to engage in the design, implementation, development
and maintenance of software utilized by the Michigan's
Unemployment Insurance Agency for unemployment benefits,
restitution, damages associated with delayed benefits, punitive
damages, attorney's fees, interest, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and all other and further relief resulting from the
program's negligent design and product liability, breach of
implied warranty and in violation of the Michigan State
Constitution and the False Claim Act.

The State of Michigan's Unemployment Insurance Agency administers
unemployment insurance through automated programs designed,
implemented, and/or maintained by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs
say.  They contend that this system has resulted in countless
unemployment insurance claimants being accused of fraud even
though they did nothing wrong.  They add that the defective
programs and/or their implementation resulted in claimants being
falsely accused of intentional misrepresentation and assessed
onerous financial penalties because of multiple discrepancies
between employer and employee-reported information.

The appellate case is captioned as Patti Cahoo, et al. v. SAS
Analytics Inc., et al., Case No. 18-1295, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees PATTI JO CAHOO, an individual; KRISTEN
MENDYK, an Individual; KHADIJA COLE, an Individual and on behalf
of similarly situated; HYON PAK and MICHELLE DAVISON are
represented by:

          Jonathan Robert Marko, Esq.
          ERNST & MARKO LAW, PLC
          645 Griswold Street, Suite 4100
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 965-5555
          E-mail: jon@ernstmarkolaw.com

Defendant-Appellant JULIE A. MCMURTRY is represented by:

          Emily A. McDonough, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL - MICHIGAN
          525 W. Ottawa Street
          Lansing, MI 48909
          Telephone: (517) 373-2560


SENTRY CREDIT: Riccio Appeals D.N.J. Ruling to Third Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Maureen Riccio filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Maureen Riccio v. Sentry Credit Inc., Case No.
3-17-cv-01773, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 1, 2018, Judge
Brian R. Martinotti granted Sentry's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings.

The dispute arises out of Riccio's putative class action claim,
alleging Sentry's debt collection practice violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practice Act by failing to properly inform the least
sophisticated consumer that to effectively dispute the alleged
debt, such dispute must be in writing.  On Aug. 15, 2016, Riccio
incurred a financial obligation, which had been assigned to
Sentry for debt collection purposes.  Sentry mailed the
Collection Letter to Riccio in connection with debt.  The
Collection Letter provided Riccio with a toll-free telephone
number, mailing address, and website to contact Sentry concerning
the debt.

The appellate case is captioned as Maureen Riccio v. Sentry
Credit Inc., Case No. 18-1463, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant MAUREEN RICCIO, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

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

Defendant-Appellee SENTRY CREDIT INC. is represented by:

          Yevgeny Roymisher, Esq.
          Peter G. Siachos, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
          18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 220
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 549-2500
          E-mail: eroymisher@gordonrees.com
                  psiachos@gordonrees.com


SOTTILE SECURITY: Fails to Pay Wages, Sokunbi-Jones Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
DOMINIC SOKUNBI-JONES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOTTILE SECURITY INTERNATIONAL,
INC.; SOTTILE SECURITY SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1-100,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01591-KAM-SJB (E.D.N.Y., March 14,
2018), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay the
minimum wage rate for all hours worked and the required overtime
premium rate for all hours worked over 40 per week, in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Sokunbi-Jones was employed by the Defendants as
security officer from July 16, 2017 to January 2. 2018.

Sottile Security International, Inc. is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its
principal place of business located at 40 Exchange Place, Suite
400, New York, New York, 10005. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Erica Sanders, Esq.
          THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C.
          401 Park Avenue South
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 571-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0505
          E-mail: erica@ottingerlaw.com


SUPERIOR CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Rettinger" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Rettinger and Forrest Long, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Superior Care
Pharmacy, Inc., and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-
00010452-CU-06-CTL (Cal. Super., March 1, 2018), is an action
against the Defendants for failure to pay wages, overtime pay,
provide meal periods, and rest periods.

Plaintiffs was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly
workers in California.

On January 17, 2018, Plaintiffs filed Notices of Labor Code
Violations with the Labor and Workforce Development Agency. To
date, Plaintiffs have not received notice that the agency will
taking action in response to Plaintiff's Notices.

Superior Care Pharmacy Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Omnicare
Inc. The Company owns and operates pharmaceutical facilities in
the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Turley, Esq.
          David Mara, Esq.
          Jill Vecchi, Esq.
          Matthew Crawford, Esq.
          THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234-2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4048


SUTTON ASSOCIATES: "Flores" Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA
----------------------------------------------------------
Luis Flores, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Sutton Associates, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 2:18-cv-01611-SJF-SIL (E.D.N.Y., March 15, 2018), alleges
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is assigned
to Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein, and referred to Magistrate Judge
Steven I. Locke.

In an Order dated March 16, 2018, the Court set the Notice of
Hearing Initial Conference for July 17, 2018, 11:00 a.m., in
Courtroom 1010, before Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein, at the Central
Islip Federal Courthouse, 100 Federal Plaza, Central Islip, New
York.

Sutton Associates, LLC is a global investigative and research
firm based in New York. The Company provide companies and
individuals around the world with the facts they need to make
informed decisions. With more than 20 years of experience in the
intelligence industry, it offers a wide range of consulting and
investigative services to help mitigate risks and uncover the
truth. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abel L. Pierre, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ABEL L. PIERRE,
            ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C.
          140 Broadway, 46th floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 766-3323
          Facsimile: (212) 766-3322
          E-mail: abel@apierrelaw.com


TD BANK: Appeals Ruling in Debit Card Overdraft MDL to 4th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant TD Bank, N.A., filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the multidistrict litigation styled In re: TD Bank, N.A., Debit
Card Overdraft Fee Litigation, MDL No. 6:15-mn-02613-BHH, pending
in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina at
Greenville.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the actions
in the litigation share factual questions relating to the
imposition of overdraft fees by TD Bank on its customers'
checking accounts in a manner that, according to the Plaintiffs,
improperly results in maximizing the amount of these fees.  All
of the actions focus on TD Bank's overdraft fee practices
following its settlement of similar claims that had been
transferred to an earlier MDL -- In re Checking Account Overdraft
Litig., 626 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (J.P.M.L. 2009).

The appellate case is captioned as TD Bank, N.A. v. James King,
et al., Case No. 18-149, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner TD BANK, N.A., f/k/a Carolina First Bank,
f/k/a Mercantile Bank, is represented by:

          Joshua D. Dunlap, Esq.
          Lucas A. Ritchie, Esq.
          PIERCE ATWOOD LLP
          254 Commercial Street
          Portland, ME 04101
          Telephone: (207) 791-1100
          E-mail: jdunlap@pierceatwood.com
                  lritchie@pierceatwood.com

               - and -

          Donald R. Frederico, Esq.
          PIERCE ATWOOD LLP
          100 Summer Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 488-8400
          E-mail: dfrederico@pierceatwood.com

               - and -

          Thomas William McGee, III, Esq.
          NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP
          P. O. Box 11070
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Telephone: (803) 255-9431
          E-mail: billy.mcgee@nelsonmullins.com

Plaintiffs-Respondents JAMES KING, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated; JAN KASMIR, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; SHAWN BALENSIEFEN,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; JOANNE
MCLAIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated; MICHAEL MCLAIN, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; and KEITH IRWIN, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          William Elvin Hopkins, Jr., Esq.
          HOPKINS LAW FIRM, LLC
          12019 Ocean Highway
          P. O. Box 1885
          Pawleys Island, SC 29585
          Telephone: (843) 314-4202
          E-mail: bill@hopkinsfirm.com

               - and -

          Mark Charles Tanenbaum, Esq.
          MARK C. TANENBAUM, PA
          1017 Chuck Dawley Boulevard
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 577-5100
          E-mail: mark@tanenbaumlaw.com

               - and -

          Edward Adam Webb, Esq.
          WEBB LAW GROUP, LLC
          1900 The Exchage, SE
          Atlanta, GA 30339-0000
          Telephone: (770) 444-0773
          E-mail: adam@webbllc.com

Plaintiff-Respondent FREDERICK KLEIN is represented by:

          H. Blair Hahn, Esq.
          RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC
          1037 Chuck Dawley Boulevard
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464-0000
          Telephone: (843) 727-6500
          E-mail: bhahn@rpwb.com

               - and -

          Richard Harpootlian, Esq.
          Christopher P. Kenney, Esq.
          RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN, PA
          1410 Laurel Street
          P. O. Box 1090
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 252-4848
          E-mail: rah@harpootlianlaw.com
                  cpk@harpootlianlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark Charles Tanenbaum, Esq.
          MARK C. TANENBAUM, PA
          1017 Chuck Dawley Boulevard
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 577-5100
          E-mail: mark@tanenbaumlaw.com

               - and -

          Edward Adam Webb, Esq.
          WEBB LAW GROUP, LLC
          1900 The Exchage, SE
          Atlanta, GA 30339-0000
          Telephone: (770) 444-0773
          E-mail: adam@webbllc.com


TESORO REFINING: Court Issues Protective Order in "Valliere"
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, issued a Stipulated
Protective Order in the cases captioned JON VALLIERE, EILEEN
FOSTER, ANTONIO GARCIA, and SAMANTHA WEST, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated current and former employees,
Plaintiffs, v. TESORO REFINING AND MARKETING COMPANY LLC, TESORO
LOGISTICS GP, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.
JINETRA BONNER, individually, on behalf herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TESORO REFINING & MARKETING
COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1
through 100 inclusive, Defendants, Case Nos. 3:17-CV-00123-JST,
17-CV-03850-JST (N.D. Cal.).

Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to
involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private
information for which special protection from public disclosure,
and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this
litigation, may be warranted.

The parties acknowledge that the Protective Order does not confer
blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery
and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use
extends only to the limited information or items that are
entitled to confidential treatment under applicable legal
principles.

The protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order cover not
only Protected Material, but also (1) any information copied or
extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts,
summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any
testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their
Counsel that might reveal Protected Material.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 5, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybvgytvx from Leagle.com.

Antonio Garcia, Eileen Foster, Samantha West, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated current and former employees &
Jon Valliere, Plaintiffs, represented by Cornelia Dai, Hadsell
Stormer & Renick, LLP, Randy R. Renick, Hadsell Stormer & Renick,
LLP, 128 North Fair Oaks Avenue. Pasadena, California 91103-3645,
Jay Edward Smith, Gilbert & Sackman, A Law Corporation & Joshua
Finley Young, Gilbert & Sackman, A Law Corporation, 3699 Wilshire
Boulevard, Suite 1200, Los Angeles, CA

Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company LLC & Tesoro Logistics GP,
LLC, Defendants, represented by Michael Warner Kopp --
mkopp@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Mary Deanna Manesis --
mmanesis@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Timothy Michael
Rusche -- trusche@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & William
James Dritsas -- wdritsas@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


TSYS BUSINESS: Removes "Gardiner" Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of Adam Gardiner and Aldwin Marquis,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Tsys Business Solutions, LLC formerly known as
TransFirst LLC formerly known as Tsys Merchant Solutions LLC;
Total System Services, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, Defendants,
filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Orange (Case No. 30-02017-
00942890-CU-OE-CXC) to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California and assigned Case No. 8:18-cv-00415-CJC-
DFM (C.D. Cal., March 15, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge
Cormac J. Carney, and referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas F.
McCormick.

Tsys Business Solutions, LLC formerly known as TransFirst LLC
formerly known as Tsys Merchant Solutions LLC provides
transaction processing and payment technologies. The Company
offers products and services to process credit and, debit cards,
checks, and other non-cash payment methods. TransFirst serves
retail, restaurants, automotive, and other industries throughout
the United States.

Total System Services, Inc. provides payment processing,
merchant, and related payment services to financial and
nonfinancial institutions worldwide. The company operates through
three segments: Merchant Solutions, Issuer Solutions, and
Netspend. It offers general purpose reloadable prepaid and
payroll cards, demand deposit accounts, and other financial
service solutions to the underbanked and other consumers and
businesses. The company also provides third party processing and
related services for credit card issuers, merchant acquirers,
independent sales organizations, and financial institutions; and
issuer processing services, as well as operates as a prepaid
program manager. Total System Services was founded in 1982 and is
headquartered in Columbus, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul Keith Haines, Esq.
          Daniel Johnson Brown, Esq.
          Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP APC
          222 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  dbrown@haineslawgroup.com
                  tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John R Giovannone, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1406
          Telephone: (213) 270-9600
          Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
          E-mail:jgiovannone@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Jinouth D Vasquez Santos, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: jvasquezsantos@seyfarth.com


TUTTO FRESCA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Joya" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jose Antonio Joya, Adonay Pineda Alcantara, and Angel Ramirez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Tutto Fresca Italian Food LLC d/b/a Passione Della
Cucina, Emilio Branchinelli, and Daniel Zucco, Defendants, Case
No. CV 18-1299-LDW-GRB (E.D.N.Y., March 1, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, minimum wages, compensatory
damages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs, pursuant
to the Federal and New York labor laws.

The Plaintiffs claim to have worked in excess of 40 hours per
week without overtime compensation and did not receive any wage
statements.

Plaintiff Joya was employed by the Defendants from August 2012 to
November 2017, as food preparer, cook, cleaner and kitchen
worker.

Plaintiff Alcantara was employed by the Defendants from February
2012 to September 2015, as food preparer, cook, cleaner and
kitchen worker.

Plaintiff Ramirez was employed by the Defendants from March 2013
to April 2017, as food preparer, cook, cleaner and kitchen
worker.

Tutto Fresca Italian Food LLC d/b/a Passione Della Cucina, Emilio
Branchinelli is a corporation organized under the laws of New
York, with business address at 231 Old Country Road, Carle Place,
NY 11514. [BN]


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
          69-12 Austin Street
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Reaffirms Arbitration Order in "Meyer"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Kalanick and Uber Technologies, Inc., filed motions to
compel arbitration in the case captioned SPENCER MEYER,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. TRAVIS KALANICK, and UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendants, No. 15 Civ. 9796 (S.D.N.Y.).  Kalanick also filed a
motion for judgment on the pleadings and to dismiss as moot
Spencer Meyer's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief.

Meyer opposes defendants' motions arguing that, as a result of a
pop-up keypad not in evidence prior to remand, Meyer did not have
reasonably conspicuous notice that, by registering with Uber, he
was agreeing to Uber's Rider Terms, otherwise referred to as the
User Agreement or Terms of Service and therefore never entered
into an agreement with defendants to arbitrate his claims.

Meyer further argues that, even if an agreement to arbitrate was
reached between Meyer and defendants, Kalanick expressly waived
his, and by extension, Uber's, right to compel arbitration in
this case.

By bottom line Order dated November 22, 2017, the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted
Uber's motion to compel arbitration and Kalanick's motion for
judgment on the pleadings, and dismissed Meyer's case without
prejudice to Meyer pursuing his claims against Kalanick before an
arbitrator. The Court also denied as moot Meyer's motion  made
after the Court had denied defendants' initial motions to compel
arbitration in 2016 but prior to the Second Circuit's review of
the case  to join four additional plaintiffs.

The Pop-Up Keypad

Meyer raises for the first time on remand the issue of a pop-up
keypad, which entirely obscured Uber's Terms of Service hyperlink
while Meyer entered his payment information. As a result of
additional discovery conducted in late 2017, it is now clear that
Meyer spent a total of 34.7 seconds on the "payment page," which
is the only page that includes Uber's Terms of Service hyperlink.
According to Meyer, he should be excused for failing to introduce
evidence of the keypad issue earlier because his failure to do so
was the result of defendants' "apparently misleading and false
representations" to this Court.

Specifically, Meyer points to the statements made by a senior
Uber engineer named Vincent Mi in an affidavit dated May 24,
2016. According to Meyer, Mi's declaration gives the materially
false impression that Uber's Terms of Service hyperlink was
visible even when Meyer entered his payment information.

This Court finds, however, that Mi's statements in his affidavit
are not false and that the fault in failing to raise this matter
previously was Meyer's, not Kalanick's. Mi's affidavit accurately
describes what the payment screen looked like when Meyer loaded
it. And Mi's declaration does not purport to address what the
screen looked like after Meyer engaged the keypad to enter his
payment information. Nor is there any indication that Uber failed
to turn over any relevant documents prior to defendants' appeal.
The screenshot now in the record showing that a pop-up keypad
obscured the Terms of Service hyperlink was constructed on remand
especially for this litigation, pursuant to Meyer's request.

Thus, although Meyer refers to the recently constructed
screenshot as new evidence, it is not new in the relevant sense
that it could not have been obtained earlier. The facts regarding
the pop-up keypad were readily discoverable in 2016 and fully
known to Meyer himself. On this record, Meyer fails to excuse his
failure to raise this issue prior to appeal, and, accordingly the
Court concludes that the keypad issue has been waived.

Waiver by Defendants

Meyer's arguments are premised entirely on conduct undertaken by
Kalanick before Uber was even a party to the case, and as soon as
Uber was timely joined to the action, Uber moved to compel
arbitration. Meyer protests that our judicial system does not
sanction the game Defendants seek to play. But it is Meyer who
started this game of which he now complains by bringing his suit
against Kalanick only, instead of Uber, in the first place. The
Court, therefore, finds that Uber did not waive its right to
arbitrate and grants Uber's motion to compel arbitration.

Rule 19(b)

The remaining question is, in effect, whether Kalanick should be
joined to the arbitration. The question is posed here by
Kalanick's motion under Rule 19(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., to dismiss
the entire case against him without prejudice to Meyer's joining
him as a party to Meyer's arbitration claim against Uber.

Under Rules 12(h)(2)(B) and 19(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., a court
should enter judgment on the pleadings where a necessary party
cannot be joined to a litigation.  Because of the nature of the
claim against Kalanick, it would almost be impossible to tailor
relief in a way that would not impact Uber. The Court has already
recognized this in its earlier rulings. Additionally, Meyer has
an adequate remedy as a matter of law if the action were
dismissed for non-joinder: namely, arbitration.

As any judgment entered against Kalanick in Uber's absence would
severely prejudice Uber.  The Court finds that Uber is a
necessary party without which Meyer's case against Kalanick
cannot proceed and therefore grants Kalanick's motion for
judgment on the pleadings, without prejudice to Meyer joining
Kalanick to the arbitration of Meyer's claims against Uber.

The Court, accordingly, reaffirms its bottom line Order of
November 22, 2017 granting Uber's motion to compel arbitration
and granting Kalanick's motion for judgment on the pleading
without prejudice to Meyer's pursuing his claims against Kalanick
in the Uber arbitration.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 5, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycfczlmj from Leagle.com.

Spencer Meyer, Individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ankur Kapoor --
akapoor@constantinecannon.com -- Constantine Cannon, LLP, Brian
Marc Feldman, Harter, Secrest & Emery, LLP, 1101 Market Street,
Suite 2650. Philadelphia, PA 19107, Bryan Lee Clobes, Cafferty
Faucher LLP, David Alan Scupp, Constantine Cannon, LLP, Edwin
Michael Larkin, III, Harter Secrest & Emery LLP, Ellen
Meriwether, Miller Faucher & Cafferty, LLP, James Hartmann Smith,
McKool Smith, Jeffrey A. Wadsworth, Harter Secrest & Emery LLP,
1101 Market Street, Suite 2650. Philadelphia, PA 19107, John
Christopher Briody, McKool Smith, One Bryant Park, 47th Floor,
New York, NY 10036, Lewis Titus LeClair, McKool Smith, P.C., 00
Crescent Ct Ste 1500. Dallas, TX 75201-6970,  pro hac vice,
Matthew L. Cantor -- mcantor@constantinecannon.com -- Constantine
Cannon, LLP, Nyran Rose Rasche, Cafferty Faucher LLP, 150 S
Wacker Dr Ste 3000. Chicago, IL, 60606-4207 & Andrew Arthur
Schmidt -- andy@maineworkerjustice.com -- Andrew Schmidt Law
PLLC.

Travis Kalanick, Defendant, represented by Peter M. Skinner,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Alanna Cyreeta Rutherford, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Joanna Christine Wright, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP, Karen L. Dunn, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP &
William A. Isaacson, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, 575 Lexington
Ave 7th Floor New York, NY 10022


UNITED CONSUMER: "Declue" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on November 18, 2016 captioned
Trever Declue and Katherine Declue, individually and behalf of
those similarly situated v. United Consumer Financial Services
Company, Case No. 3:16-cv-02833 was transferred on February 22,
2018 from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio (Cleveland). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:18-cv-00425 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

United Consumer Financial Services Company, Inc. (UCFS) is a
sales finance company that provides retail sales financing for
distributors, dealers and merchants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      Bonnie McKnight, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
              bonnie@westcoastlitigation.com

         - and -

      Clark Robert Conforti, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523

         - and -

      Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL G. SHAY
      409 Camino del Rio South, Suite 101B
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 222-7429
      Facsimile: (866) 431-3292


UNITED CONTINENTAL: Wins Summary Ruling in Silver Wings Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment in the case captioned HOWARD S. NEFT, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS, INC., and UNITED AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendants, No. 16-cv-765 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff Howard Neft brings this proposed class action on behalf
of himself and similarly situated plaintiffs against Defendants
United Continental Holdings, Inc. (UCH) and United Airlines, Inc.
(United), for Defendants' alleged breach of contract arising out
of their failure to provide bargained-for benefits to their
Silver Wings discount program lifelong members.

In this lawsuit, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other
lifetime members of Silver Wings, seeks to recover the one-time
$225 fee that he paid to join Silver Wings, plus attorneys' fees
and costs. His complaint contains one count, for breach of
contract. The complaint alleges that he and other members of the
class entered into a contractual relationship with Defendants
when they signed up to become Silver Wings lifetime members. The
complaint further alleges that while Plaintiff no longer has
copies of the documents from United which describe Silver Wings
and its benefits, these documents are (on information and belief)
in Defendants' exclusive custody and control.

According to Plaintiff, Defendants breached their obligations to
lifetime members of Silver Wings and failed to honor their
obligation of good faith and fair dealing, by: (1) failing to
provide zones air fares, either over the phone or online; (2)
representing in bad faith that Silver Wings members have access
to zoned fares, when in fact that is not the case; and (3)
failing to refund membership fees when United ceased offering
zoned fares.

UCH

Plaintiff concedes that UCH is entitled to summary judgment based
on the undisputed fact that it was not a party to any contract
with Plaintiff. Therefore, UCH is entitled to summary judgment in
its favor and against Plaintiff on all claims.

United

Under Illinois law, which the parties agree governs here, the
elements of a claim for breach of contract are (1) the existence
of a valid and enforceable contract; (2) substantial performance
by the plaintiff; (3) breach of contract by the defendant; and
(4) resultant injury to the plaintiff.

The Court concludes that United is entitled to summary judgment
on Plaintiff's breach of contract claim because Plaintiff has not
presented any evidence that he was denied the right to purchase
any zoned airfares that United made available to Silver Wings
customers or that he suffered any injury. The only zoned fare
that Plaintiff allegedly attempted to purchase was (he believes)
for a flight between Phoenix and Chicago on an unspecified date
in 2013. According to Plaintiff, United's agents either had no
knowledge of the Silver Wings Program or zoned airfares or told
him that the program had been discontinued and that no zoned
fares were available.

However, Plaintiff presents no evidence that United did, in fact,
offer zoned airfare between Phoenix and Chicago for the date he
wished to travel (a date that he did not specifically recall).
Such evidence would be essential to his claim that he was not
allowed to access a zoned fare that United purported to make
available to Silver Wings customers, given his concession that
United has a right to withdraw and limit any offers and therefore
does not have a contractual obligation to offer zoned airfare
generally or on any particular routes.

Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted. Judgment will
be entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 5, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydyp5dq4
from Leagle.com.

Howard Neft, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J. Stein, III --
rob@dss.law -- DiVincenzo Schoenfield Swartzman & Anthony S.
DiVincenzo, 33 N La Salle St., Ste 2900, Chicago, IL 60603

United Continental Holdings, Inc. & United Airlines Inc,
Defendants, represented by Sondra A. Hemeryck -- shemeryck@rshc-
law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, Patricia Brown
Holmes -- pholmes@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila
LLP & Tal Cohen Chaiken -- tchaiken@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer
Holmes & Cancila LLP.


UNITED PARCEL: Seeks 6th Cir. Review of Decision in "Solo" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant United Parcel Service Co. filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Joe Solo, et al. v. United Parcel
Service Co., Case No. 2:14-cv-12719, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs have asserted claims for relief on behalf of
purchasers for declared value coverage in excess of $300,
alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment.  The claims
are based on the theory that the Defendant charges more for
declared value of packages than permitted by contract.

The appellate case is captioned as Joe Solo, et al. v. United
Parcel Service Co., Case No. 18-1260, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees JOE SOLO and BLEACHTECH LLC, and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Sanford P. Dumain, Esq.
          Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Esq.
          Charles Slidders, Esq.
          MILBERG, WEISS, BERSHAD, SPECTHRIE & LERACH
          1 Pennsylvania Avenue, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          E-mail: sdumain@milberg.com
                  emckenna@milberg.com
                  cslidders@milberg.com

               - and -

          Daniel Richard Karon, Esq.
          KARON LLC
          700 W. St. Clair Avenue, Suite 204
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 622-1851
          E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. McGuinness, Esq.
          P. O. Box 7711
          Ann Arbor, MI 48107-7711
          Telephone: (734) 274-9374
          Facsimile: (734) 786-9935
          E-mail: drewmcg@topclasslaw.com

Defendant-Appellant UNITED PARCEL SERVICE CO. is represented by:

          Deanne E. Maynard, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 6000
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 887-1500
          E-mail: dmaynard@mofo.com

               - and -

          Jill Margaret Wheaton, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          2723 S. State Street, Suite 400
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 214-7660
          E-mail: jwheaton@dykema.com


UNITED STATES: Damus et al. Sue Homeland Security in D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------
ANSLY DAMUS; N.J.J.R.; ABELARDO ASENSIO CALLOL; ALEXI ISMAEL
MONTES CASTRO; H.A.Y.; A.M.M.; L.H.A.; E.E.C.S.; and L.I.L.M., on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, Secretary of the Dep't of Homeland Security, in
her official capacity; THOMAS HOMAN, Acting Director for U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity;
REBECCA ADDUCCI, Director of the ICE Detroit Field Office, in her
official capacity, c/o Office of the General Counsel, Department
of Homeland Security; WILLIAM JOYCE, Acting Director of the ICE
El Paso Field Office, in his official capacity, c/o Office of the
General Counsel, Department of Homeland Security; DAVID MARIN,
Director of the ICE Los Angeles Field Office, in his official
capacity, c/o Office of the General Counsel, Department of
Homeland Security; JOHN TSOUKARIS, Director of the ICE Newark
Field Office, in his official capacity, c/o Office of the General
Counsel, Department of Homeland Security; GREG BRAWLEY, Director
of the ICE Philadelphia Field Office, in his official capacity,
c/o Office of the General Counsel, Department of Homeland
Security; JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, in
his official capacity; JAMES MCHENRY, Director of the Exec.
Office for Immigration Review, Defendants, Case No.1:18-cv-00578-
JEB (D. D.C., March 15, 2018), is an action to enjoin the
Defendants' policy and practice of categorically detaining asylum
seekers in order to deter others from seeking refuge in the
United States.

Plaintiffs are all asylum seekers who traveled to the United
States, were found to have a credible fear of persecution, and
were referred for immigration proceedings to decide their asylum
claims. All of them have sponsors in the United States who are
prepared to provide them with housing and ensure they attend
their court hearings, and none of them have criminal records or
history of violence. Yet the Defendants has imprisoned them
during the pendency of their asylum cases, with no individualized
review of whether their detention is necessary.

The United States Department of Homeland Security is a
governmental agency that works to prevent terrorist attacks
within the United States, reduce America's vulnerability to
terrorism, and minimize the damage from terrorist attacks. The
Department also assists immigrants learn English, embrace the
American civic culture, and become fully American. [BN]

The Plaintiff are represented by:

          Dennis B. Auerbach, Es.
          Philip J. Levitz, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          One City Center
          850 Tenth St., N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20001-4956
          Telephone: (202) 662-6000

               - and -

          Judy Rabinovitz, Esq.
          Michael K.T. Tan, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          FOUNDATION, IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2618

               - and -

          Stephen B. Kang, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          FOUNDATION, IMMIGRANTS'RIGHTS PROJ
          39 Drumm Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 343-0783

               - and -

          Hardy Vieux, Esq.
          Laura Gault, Esq.
          HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST
          805 15th Street, N.W., Suite 900
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 547-5692

               - and -

          Josie Cardoso-Rojo, Esq.
          HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST
          75 Broad Street, 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 845-5200

               - and -

          Eunice Lee, Esq.
          Blaine Bookey, Esq.
          CENTER FOR GENDER & REFUGEE STUDIES
          200 McAllister St.
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 565-4877

               - and -

          Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF THE DISTRICT
          OF COLUMBIA
          915 15th Street, NW, 2nd Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20005-2302
          Telephone: (202) 457-0800

               - and -

          Farrin R. Anello, Esq.
          Edward Barocas, Esq.
          Jeanne Locicero, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW JERSEY FOUNDATION
          P.O. Box 32159
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 642-2084

               - and -

          Michael J. Steinberg, Esq.
          Abril Valdes, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FUND OF MICHIGAN
          2966 Woodward Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 578-6814

               - and -

          Leon Howard, Esq.
          Kristin Greer Love, Esq.
          ACLU OF New Mexico
          1410 Coal Ave. SW
          Albuquerque, NM 87104
          Telephone: (505) 266-5915, xl007

               - and -

          Witold J. Walczak, Esq.
          Golnaz Fakhimi, Esq.
          ACLU OF PENNSYLVANIA
          247 Ft. Pitt Blvd., 2nd floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 681-7864

               - and -

          Freda J. Levenson, Esq.
          ACLU OF OHIO
          4506 Chester Ave.
          Cleveland, OH 44103
          Telephone: (216) 472-2220

               - and -

          Ahilan T. Arulanantham, Esq.
          Sameer Ahmed, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          1313 West 8th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977-5232

               - and -

          Edgar Saldivar, Esq.
          Andre Segura, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF TEXAS, INC.
          1500 McGowen, Suite 250
          Houston, TX 77004
          Telephone: (713) 942-8146


VACASA LLC: Faces "Fisher" Suit in Oregon
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vacasa LLC. The
case is captioned as Barbara Fisher, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Vacasa LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 18CV06985 (Ore. Cir., Umatilla Cty., Feb. 28,
2018).

Vacasa, LLC operates a vacation rental management platform. Its
platform manages a portfolio of vacation homes in Australia,
Belize, Chile, Italy, Mexico, New Zealand, Panama, Spain, and the
United States. The company was founded in 2009 and is based in
Portland, Oregon. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter D. Stutheit, Esq.
     STUTHEIT KALIN LLC
     308 Sw 1st Ave. Ste. 325
     Portland, OR, 97204-3410


VU FOOD SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Carrion" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIA CARRION, Plaintiff v. VU FOOD SERVICES, INC. d/b/a
BASILIC VIETNAMESE GRILL; and VINCE VU, Defendants, Case No.
68550241 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Feb. 27, 2018) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys'
fees, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Carrion was employed by the Defendants as a waitress
from December 2016 to April 2017.

Vu Food Services, Inc. d/b/a Basilic Vietnamese Grill is a
corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida and
doing business in the County of Broward. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn  L. Birken, Esq.
          SHAWN  L. BIRKEN, P.A.
          Counsel for Plaintiff
          100 SE 3rd Ave., Suite 1300
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
          Tel: (954) 990-4343
          Fax: (954) 990-4469
          E-Mail: sbirken@birken-law.com


WALMART DE MEXICO: Fogel Appeals S.D.N.Y. Rulings to 2nd Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs C. E., Claudia S. Egleston and Michael Fogel filed an
appeal from a District Court opinion and order dated February 21,
2018, and District Court judgment and opinion and order, both
dated February 27, 2018, entered in their lawsuit styled Fogel,
et al. v. Vega, et al., Case No. 13-cv-2282, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City).

The appellate case is captioned as Fogel, et al. v. Vega, et al.,
Case No. 18-650, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Walmart de
Mexico SAB de CV or Wal-Mex owns and operates a network of retail
stores in Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua,
and Costa Rica.  Wal-Mex is a subsidiary of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
More specifically, it is a subsidiary of Wal-Mart International,
one of Wal-Mart's three divisions.

Ernesto Vega, and Scot Rank are employees of Mal-Mex, who has
held a variety of executive positions at the company.

On April 21, 2012, the New York Times published an article by
David Barstow titled, Wal-Mart Hushed Up a Vast Mexican Bribery
Case.  The Times Article exposed an internal investigation of
alleged bribery at Wal-Mex that was conducted by Wal-Mart in 2005
and 2006.

Lead Plaintiff Michael Fogel is a holder of Wal-Mex American
Depository Shares or ADRs that he purchased on March 7, 2012;
March 26, 2012; and April 17, 2012. Fogel alleges that Wal-Mex,
Ernesto Vega, Scot Rank, and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, in public statements
that were issued as late as 2012.

The lawsuit was originally filed against Vega and Wal-Mex but on
December 8, 2014, plaintiff filed his first amended complaint,
bringing for the first time claims against Wal-Mart and Rank, in
addition to the claims brought in plaintiff's original
complaint.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Michael Fogel, Claudia S. Egleston;
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and
C. E., an infant under the age of fourteen (14) years, by her
mother and natural guardian, are represented by:

          Thomas McKenna, Esq.
          GAINEY MCKENNA & EGLESTON
          440 Park Avenue South
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 983-1300
          E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com

Defendants-Appellees Ernesto Vega, Wal-Mart de Mexico, SAB De CV,
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., and Scot Rank are represented by:

          Brian Glennon, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 485-1234
          E-mail: brian.glennon@lw.com


WAL-MART STORES: Abbey Spanier Appeals Order in Braun/Hummel Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Spanier, LLP, filed an appeal from a lower court order
entered on January 24, 2018, in the lawsuits entitled Michelle
Braun, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a Delaware Corporation and Sam's Club an
operating segment of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; and Dolores Hummel,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Sam's Club an
operating segment of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., in the Philadelphia
County Court of Common Pleas.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs allege that the Company failed to pay class members
for all hours worked and prevented class members from taking
their full meal and rest breaks.

According to the Class Action Reporter's coverage of the case,
Braun/Hummel was commenced in March 2002 in the Court of Common
Pleas in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  On October 13, 2006, a jury
awarded back-pay damages to the plaintiffs of approximately $78
million on their claims for off-the-clock work and missed rest
breaks. The jury found in favor of the Company on the plaintiffs'
meal-period claims.

Abbey Spanier, LLP, has represented Michelle Braun, et al.

The appellate case is captioned as Braun, M., et al. v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 659-EDA-2018, in the Superior
Court of Pennsylvania.[BN]

Defendant-Appellee Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., is represented by:

          Maureen Murphy McBride, Esq.
          John J. Cunningham, IV, Esq.
          James C. Sargent, Jr., Esq.
          LAMB MCERLANE, PC
          PO Box 565
          24 E Market St.
          West Chester, PA 19381-0565
          Telephone: (610) 430-8000
          Facsimile: (610) 692-0877
          E-mail: mmcbride@lambmcerlane.com
                  jcunningham@lambmcerlane.com
                  jsargent@lambmcerlane.com

Appellant Abbey Spanier, LLP, is represented by:

          Douglas Evan Ress, Esq.
          Matthew Roger Williams, Esq.
          KAUFMAN, COREN & RESS P.C.
          2001 Market St., Suite 3900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-7099
          Telephone: (215) 735-8700
          Facsimile: (215) 735-5170
          E-mail: dress@kcr-law.com
                  mwilliams@kcr-law.com

Participant Franklin D. Azar & Associates is represented by:

          Madeline M. Sherry, Esq.
          Scott Joel Etish, Esq.
          GIBBONS P.C.
          130 N 18th St., Suite 1210
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2769
          Telephone: (215) 665-0400
          E-mail: msherry@gibbonslaw.com
                  setish@gibbonslaw.com

               - and -

          Marc J. Zucker, Esq.
          Steven E. Angstreich, Esq.
          WEIR & PARTNERS LLP
          1339 Chestnut St., Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19107-3501
          Telephone: (215) 241-7792
          E-mail: mzucker@weirpartners.com
                  sangstreich@weirpartners.com

Plaintiffs-Participants Michelle Braun and Dolores Hummel are
represented by:

          Michael D. Donovan, Esq.
          DONOVAN LITIGATION GROUP LLC
          15 St. Asaphs Rd.
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 647-6067
          Facsimile: (610) 647-7215


WELLS FARGO: June 7 Case Management Conference in "Carroll"
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District
California, San Francisco Division, will continue the Case
Management Conference in the case captioned KELLY CARROLL, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 3:15-CV-02321 EMC (N.D. Cal.), to June 7, 2018.

On January 22, 2018, the Court issued an Order continuing the
further telephonic Case Management Conference to May 17, 2018,
and ordered the filing of a joint updated Case Management
Conference Statement by May 10, 2018.

Plaintiffs' lead counsel, Rhonda Wills, is getting married on May
18, 2018 and will be out of the country for her wedding and
honeymoon from May 15, 2018 through May 30, 2018.

The Parties agree and request that the further telephonic Case
Management Conference set for May 17, 2018 (and the filing of the
updated, joint case management conference statement in advance of
same) be continued to a date convenient to the Court's calendar
after May 30, 2018.

Pursuant to the Parties' stipulation, the further telephonic Case
Management Conference set for May 17, 2018, will be continued to
June 7, 2018. at 10:30 a.m.  The Parties will file an updated
joint Case Management Conference Statement by May 31, 2018.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 5, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ydf5j5ak from Leagle.com.

Kelly Carroll, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by John Manuel Padilla, Padilla
& Rodriguez, L.L.P., 5433 Westheimer Rd #825, Houston, TX 77056,
USA, David Roger Markham -- dmarkham@markham-law.com -- The
Markham Law Firm, Genevieve Estrada, pro hac vice, 1776 Yorktown
Street, Suite 570, Houston, Texas 77056, Jose Moises Cedillos,
pro hac vice, Peggy J. Reali -- preali@realilaw.com  -- The
Markham Law Firm & Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills, Wills Law Firm,
PLLC, 1776 Yorktown Street, Suite 570, Houston, Texas 77056 pro
hac vice.

Wells Fargo & Co., Defendant, represented by Christian Joseph
Rowley -- crowley@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Andrew More
McNaught -- amcnaught@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Jill
Crawley Griset -- jgriset@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods, LLP,
pro hac vice, Rachel Megan Hoffer -- rhoffer@seyfarth.com --
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, pro hac vice, Richard Lee Alfred --
rmcardle@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, pro hac vice, Scott
Edward Atkinson -- satkinson@seyfarth.com --  Seyfarth Shaw LLP &
Timothy Mitchell Watson -- watson@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw
LLP, pro hac vice.


WESTERN RANGE: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Castillo" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Abel Cantaro Castillo and Alcides Inga Ramos filed an
appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Abel Cantaro
Castillo, et al. v. Western Range Association, et al., Case No.
3:16-cv-00237-RCJ-VPC, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada, Reno.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 14, 2018, Judge
Robert C. Jones granted the Motions to Dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint and granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File
Excess Page.

The case is a putative employment class action alleging breach of
contract and wage-and-hour violations.  Cantaro, Alcides Inga
Ramos, and Rafael De La Cruz are Peruvian citizens lawfully
admitted to the United States under the Department of Labor's
("DOL") H-2A guestworker visa program.  Cantaro alleges he was
employed as a shepherd by Defendants Western Range Association
("WRA"), El Tejon Sheep Co., and Melchor Gragirena from October
2007 to June 2014.  Inga alleges he was employed as a shepherd by
Defendants Mountain Plains Agricultural Services ("MPAS") and
Estill Ranches from April 2012 to February 2013.  De La Cruz
alleges he was employed as a shepherd by MPAS from March 2009 to
"late 2014."

The Plaintiffs filed the action on May 3, 2016, claiming breach
of contract and violations of state labor laws, based primarily
on their respective employers' failure to pay minimum wages under
Article 15, Section 16 of the Nevada Constitution.

On April 13, 2017, the Court dismissed the First Amended
Complaint ("FAC") with leave to amend for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.  On May 15, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed their Second
Amended Complaint ("SAC"), which includes additional and more
detailed allegations regarding the amount-in-controversy
requirement under Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").  The SAC
also adds a new Plaintiff -- Rafael De La Cruz.

De La Cruz has previously been a plaintiff in multiple other
cases involving Defendants WRA and MPAS.  The first was filed on
Aug. 8, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado.  The case was primarily brought against Thomas E.
Perez, former U.S. Secretary of Labor; the U.S. Department of
Labor; and Portia Wu, former Assistant Secretary of Labor for the
Employment and Training Administration, as an action under the
Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") challenging the
implementation of the DOL's 2011 and 2015 Special Procedures for
H-2A Shepherds ("APA Action").

The appellate case is captioned as Abel Cantaro Castillo, et al.
v. Western Range Association, et al., Case No. 18-15398, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by April 9, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on May 8, 2018;

   -- Appellants Abel Cantaro Castillo and Alcides Inga Ramos'
      opening brief is due on June 18, 2018;

   -- Appellees El Tehon Sheep Company, John Estill, Estill
      Ranches, LLC, Melchor Gragirena, Mountain Plains
      Agricultural Service and Western Range Association's
      answering brief is due on July 17, 2018; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants ABEL CANTARO CASTILLO and ALCIDES INGA
RAMOS, and those similarly situated, are represented by:

          Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
          Leah Lin Jones, Esq.
          Mark Russell Thierman
          THIERMAN BUCK, LLP
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
          E-mail: josh@thiermanbuck.com
                  leah@thiermanbuck.com
                  mark@thiermanbuck.com

               - and -

          Christine E. Webber, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: cwebber@cohenmilstein.com

Defendant-Appellee WESTERN RANGE ASSOCIATION is represented by:

          Ellen Jean Winograd, Esq.
          WOODBURN AND WEDGE
          6100 Neil Road, Suite 500
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 688-3000
          E-mail: ewinograd@woodburnandwedge.com

Defendants-Appellees MELCHOR GRAGIRENA and EL TEHON SHEEP COMPANY
are represented by:

          Anthony L. Hall, Esq.
          HOLLAND & HART LLP
          5441 Kietzke Lane
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 327-3000
          E-mail: ahall@hollandhart.com

Defendant-Appellee MOUNTAIN PLAINS AGRICULTURAL SERVICE is
represented by:

          Paul J. Anderson, Esq.
          MAUPIN COX & LeGOY
          4785 Caughlin Pkwy.
          P.O. Box 30000
          Reno, NV 89520
          Telephone: (775) 827-2000
          Facsimile: (775) 827-2185
          E-mail: panderson@mclrenolaw.com

               - and -

          Enrique Schaerer, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 683-9271

Defendants-Appellees ESTILL RANCHES, LLC, and JOHN ESTILL are
represented by:

          Leigh Goddard, Esq.
          MCDONALD CARANO WILSON, LLP
          100 W. Liberty St., 10th Floor
          P.O. Box 2670
          Reno, NV 89501
          Telephone: (775) 788-2000
          E-mail: lgoddard@mcdonaldcarano.com


WHITING PETROLEUM: "Schindler" Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on April 27, 2017 captioned Craig
Schindler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Whiting Petroleum Corp., Case No. 1:17-cv-01051 was
transferred on February 28, 2018 from the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas (Houston). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-00634 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Whiting Petroleum Corp. operates an independent exploration and
production company with an oil focused asset base. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
      Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
      JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 352-1100
      Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
      E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
              adunlap@mybackwages.com
              litkin@mybackwages.com
              jbresler@mybackwages.com

         - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

      Ann Christoff Purvis, Esq.
      Maral Shoaei, Esq.
      GORDON & REES LLP
      555 17th Street, Suite 3400
      Denver, CO 80202
      Telephone: (303) 200-6894
      E-mail: apurvis@grsm.com
              mshoaei@grsm.com
         - and -

      Laurie J. Rust, Esq.
      HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP
      560 Mission Street, 25th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 268-2000
      Facsimile: (415) 268-1999


WHOLE FOODS: Balks at Allegations in "Rabb" Suit
------------------------------------------------
The Defendant filed on March 6, 2018, an answer to the complaint
in the case of JESSE RABB, Plaintiff v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP,
INC. d/b/a WHOLE FOODS MARKET, Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-300-
ORL-40-TBS (M.D. Fla., March 1, 2018).

The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff fails to state facts
sufficient to state a claim; the claims are barred by the
provisions of 29 U.S.C. Section 254; the Defendant is entitled to
offset all time the Defendant voluntarily paid for time not
worked by Plaintiff and the class against any overtime liability;
and Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the requirements for an award
of declaratory relief against the Defendant.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Benton N. Wood, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1100
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 541-0888
          Facsimile: (407) 541-0887
          E-mail: bwood@fisherphillips.com


WYNDHAM VACATION: Seeks 6th Cir. Review of Order in "Pierce" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc., and Wyndham Vacation
Resorts, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
styled Jesse Pierce, et al. v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:13-cv-00641, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 13, 2018, the
District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion denying Defendants'
Motion for Partial Findings and Conclusions Regarding
Representative Evidence in the case.

The Defendants provide family destination vacations.  Customers
purchase points that may be used for vacations at Wyndham resorts
or other locations.  Wyndham employs three groups of sales
representatives: (1) Front-Line Sales Representatives, (2) In-
House Sales Representatives, and (3) Discovery Sales
Representatives.

The complaint alleges that certain sales representatives, who
worked at the Defendants' offices worked off the clock and were
not paid for working in excess of 40 hours in a work week.  The
complaint alleges that the Defendants willfully violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Jesse Pierce, et al. v.
Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-5258, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees JESSE PIERCE and MICHAEL PIERCE, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Martin D. Holmes, Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
          424 Church Street, Suite 1401
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-6538
          E-mail: mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com

Defendants-Appellants WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS, INC., and WYNDHAM
VACATION OWNERSHIP, INC., are represented by:

          Colby Shannon Morgan, Jr., Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS PC
          999 Shady Grove Road, Suite 110
          Memphis, TN 38120
          Telephone: (901) 462-2603
          E-mail: Colby.Morgan@jacksonlewis.com









                            *********


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  * * *