CAR_Public/180410.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Tuesday, April 10, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 72



                            Headlines


24 HOUR: NLRB Case Over Employee Arbitration Agreements Pending
1750 ASIAN BUFFET: Castillo, et al. Seek to Certify Drivers Class
7-ELEVEN INC: Wins Bid for Judgment; Haitayan's Case Dismissed
8POINT3 ENERGY: Violates Securities Exchange Act, Taylor Says
A.J. BOGGS: Faces "Doe" Suit in California Superior Court

A'GACI LLC: Villarreal Sues over Marketing Text Messages
AAC HOLDINGS: June 8 Hearing on $25MM Securities Suit Settlement
ACCENTCARE HOME: Faces "Lanuza" Suit in California Superior Ct.
AFRICAN RAINBOW: Silicosis Class Action Nears Settlement
ALL AMERICAN WATER: Faces "Fernandez" Suit in S.D. New York

ALLIANCE MMA: Settles Stockholder Class Action Over 2016 IPO
ALLIANZ TRANSPORTATION: Ryoo Dental Sues over Unsolicited Ads
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Class Cert. Proceedings in "Dombrowksi" Stayed
ALLIQUA BIOMEDICAL: Monteverde & Associates PC Files Class Action
AMERICAN HONDA: "Preston" Suit Seeks to Certify Class

AMERIGAS PROPANE: "Jarrell" Case Settlement Wins Final Approval
ANDY MOHR: Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, "Thomas" Suit Claims
ARKEMA INC: Court Certifies Two Subclasses in "Carter" Suit
ARS NATIONAL: Brown Alleges Wrongful Debt Collection Practices
BANK OF THE WEST: "Meller" Suit Seeks OT Compensation under FLSA

BASF CATALYSTS: Faces "Williams" Suit in N.D. Ohio
BLUE BUFFALO: Shumaker Balks at Merger Deal with General Mills
BRIJON MANAGEMENT: Faces ERISA Class Action
BUFFALO WILD: "Meeks" Suit Transferred to C.D. California
BUFFALO WILD: Judge Dismisses Vegetarian Customers' Class Action

BULLDOG SQUARE: Orozco Seeks Minimum Wages, OT under Labor Code
CALIFORNIA: Oroville Dam Class Action Transferred to Sacramento
CAMDEN PROPERTY: Suarez Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
CAMPBELL SOUP: Deceptively Packaged Products, Sims Claims
CAPGEMINI NORTH: Two Subclasses Certified in "Bhattacharya" Suit

CAPEX OILFIELD: "Adams" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Clemons" Suit in S.D. Texas
CELLULAR SALES: Prall Sues over Autodialed Telemarketing Calls
CLEVELAND MEDICAL: Pennimans Sue over Damaged Frozen Embryos
COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL: Faces Sage Apts Suit in N.D. California

CONTEGO SERVICES: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Orlow Says
COCONINO, AZ: "Tenorio-Serrano" Suit Moved to Fed. District Court
CADILLAC LOUNGE: "Pizzarelli" Suit Wins Class Certification
CIGNA CORP: Judge Allows Drug Pricing Class Action to Proceed
COACH INC: Vaughn Seeks to Certify Store Manager Class

COLLEGIATE HOUSING: "Dearman" Suit Has Conditional Class Cert.
CONCENTRIX CORP: Armstrong Moves to Certify Class of AHCSRs
CONN APPLIANCES: "Gerlach" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Class Certification Sought in "Bartz" Suit
CVS PHARMACY: Class Certification Bid in "Lowe" Suit Underway

DAN LEPKE TRUCKING: Court Denies Certification of Three Classes
DRW HOLDINGS: Manipulated VIX-Linked Investment Prices, Suit Says
DST SYSTEMS: Faces Securities Class Action in Delaware
DUKE ENERGY: Court Conditionally Certifies Hourly Workers Class
DURHAM SCHOOL: Romo Seeks to Certify Settlement Class

E.N.T. ASSOCIATES: "O'Keefe" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
EKSO BIONICS: Shareholders File Securities Class Action
EL TAQUITOS: Faces "Galeana" Suit in S.D. New York
ELTMAN LAW: "Alejandro" Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of New York
EMERALD COAST: Settles Class Action Over VirnetX Patent Troll

EMERALD LAWNS: Court Certifies Class of Spray Technician
ENAGIC USA: Faces "Makaron" Suit in C.D. California
ENERGEN RESOURCES: Ulibarri Seeks Royalty Payments over Gas Sales
EOG RESOURCES: "Qualls" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
EVA AIRWAYS: Settles Long-Haul Flight Price-Fixing Class Action

FEDEX FREIGHT: Bid to Certify Operations Supervisor Class Denied
FIFTH THIRD BANK: Smith Sues over Out-of-Network ATM Fee
FLAGSHIP RESORT: Colosimo Seeks Collective Action Certification
FOOT LOCKER: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
FOUR POINT CONSTRUCTION: Sandoval Suit Overtime Wages under FLSA

FSB: Telegram Users File Privacy Class Action in Moscow
FYRE MEDIA: Judge Consolidates Five Fyre Festival Suits
G. WELDING CONTRACTOR: Sanchez Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under FLSA
G&R COLLECTIONS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in "Tiernan"
GLYNN COUNTY, GA: Faces Class Action Over Wealth Discrimination

GOTHAM HALL: Settecasi Seeks OT Compensation under Labor Law
GOOGLE INC: CEI's Ted Frank Responds to Cy Pres Argument
GOOGLE INC: Defends $8.5-Mil. Class Action Settlement
GOOGLE INC: Says $8.5MM Class Action Settlement Not Unfair
GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS: Faces ERISA Suit by Bator et al.

GUARDIAN CREDIT: Class Certification Sought in "Starkey" Suit
GULLIVER'S TAVERN: Court Grants Class Certification in "Levi"
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Faces Class Action in Tenn. Over TCPA Violation
HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES: "Garza" Suit Wins Class Certification
HEALTHCARE NATIONAL: Picha Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls

HENRY SCHEIN: Faces Class Action, May 7 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
HLADIK ONORATO: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
HOME DEPOT: Court Certifies Lock-In and Hourly Employee Classes
HOME DEPOT: Averts 4x4 Wood Board Labeling Class Action
HOME DEPOT: Plaintiff Can Still Refile 4x4 Lumber Class Action

IMPACT HOME: Court Certifies Healthcare Workers Class in "Clark"
INTEL CORPORATION: Faces "Phillips" Suit Over Defective CPU's
INTERSTATE HOTELS: Sheraton Workers Win Wage Class Action
IYOGI INC: Kobialko Sues over Unsolicited Phone Calls
JUST BORN: White Seeks to Certify 3 Classes

KAYAFAS CONTRACTING: Jaigua Seeks Unpaid Overtime & Wages
KEEFE COMMISSARY: Micko Seeks Certification of Class Action
KISWANI TRUCKING: Permitted to Notify Plaintiff Class
LAKEMOOR, IL: Knutson Files Prelim. Bid for Class Certification
LJM FUNDS: Faces "Nosewicz" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports

LOBLAW: Judge Awards Carriage of Bread Price-Fixing Class Action
LOOK INTERNATIONAL: Saleh Sues over Marketing Text Messages
MAZUMA CREDIT: Initial Approval of "Bowens" Settlement Sought
MDL 2818: "Pitre" Suit vs. General Motors Moved to E.D. Mich.
MENARD'S: Faces Class Actions Over FLSA Violations

MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Gender Bias, Sexual Harassment Complaints
MICROSOFT CORP: Documents Unsealed in Gender Bias Class Action
MISSOURI: Brown, et al. Seek to Certify Prisoners Class
MONAT: Class Actions Pile Up Over Hair Care Products
MONAT: Accused of Using Legal Tactics to Silence Critics

MOUNT KISCO BAGEL: "Tapia" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
MYER: Has Until May 18 to Settle Shareholder Class Action
NATIONSTAR MORRTGAGE: 4 Classes Certified in "McNamer" Suit
NEIGHBORHOOD GARAGE: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
NEW ORLEANS MILLWORKS: FLSA Class Certified in "Maldonado" Suit

NRA GROUP: Class Certification Under Damasco Sought in "Bartz"
OHIO: Class Certification Bid in "Ball" Suit Granted in Part
OPAL AGED: Shine Lawyers File Class Action Over Care Home Fire
ORACLE AMERICA: Fails to Pay Wages, Williams Says
OWL INC: Court Denies Motion for Issuance of Notice in "Perez"

PGA INC: Class of Workers Certified Under FLSA in "Schilling"
PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Ohigashi" Suit Over Penn Merger
PIONEER CREDIT: Toney-Adkins Withdraws Bid to Certify Class
PNC: Wants Suit Over Job Applicants' Arrest Records Dismissed
PRESTIGE AUTO: Lopez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA

PODS ENTERPRISES: Faces "Ellenburg" Suit in Cal. Super. Court
PURDUE PHARMA: New Castle Class Suit Removed to E.D. Philadelphia
RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Rafferty Seeks to Certify Florida Consumers
REVENUE GROUP: Illegally Collects Debt, "Mormon" Suit Claims
ROSELAND RESIDENTIAL: "Conley" Suit Moved to Fed. District Court

RUSHMORE LOAN: Bid to Certify Class Denied Without Prejudice
S.A.S. SERVICES: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Elkhouly Says
SAFE HAVEN: Response to Class Certification Motion due by May 3
SAFEMARK SYSTEMS: Court Denies Class Certification in Gorss Suit
SE INDEPENDENT: Colon Seeks Class Certification

SEALY INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Sarmiento" Suit Says
SHORE CONSTRUCTION: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Magana"
SOUTH CAROLINA: Class Action Seeks Hep C Testing for Inmates
SPARCO LLC: Faces "Rudisel" Suit in South Carolina
STUCKY LAUER: Maloy Seeks to Certify Settlement Class

SUPERVALU INC: Faegre Baker Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
SYNGENTA: $1.51BB GMO Cor Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court OK
TELECHECK SERVICES: Bid for Class Certification Denied as Moot
TIGER BRANDS: 50 Families of Listeriosis Victims to Join Suit
TIGER BRANDS: Suits Expected to Pile Up Over Listeriosis Outbreak

TIGER BRANDS: To Contest Listeriosis Class Action Aggressively
TIGER BRANDS: Spoor Optimistic on Success of Listeriosis Case
TONE HOUSE: Faces "Martinez" Suit in E.D. New York
TRUECAR INC: Milbeck Sues over Securities Fraud
TWITTER INC: Two Men Want to Lead Stock Fraud Class Action

U.S. GEOTHERMAL: Young Balks at Merger Deal with Ormat Tech
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Taubenfliegel" Suit in E.D. New York
UNITED STATES: Ramos et al Sue Homeland Security over TPS Rule
UNITED STATES: Opposes Class Action in Guam Over H-2B Visas

UNITED STATES: Aguilar's Bid to Certify Taken Under Advisement
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Sauder Schelkopf Files Suit Over Lost Eggs
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Clinic Malfunction Case May Face Challenges
UPMC: Cole's Wexford Moves to Certify Class of Highmark Insureds
USA GATEWAY: Faces "Argamaso" Suit in California Superior Court

USF REDDAWAY: "Gomez" Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
WAL-MART STORES: "Phipps" Suit Seeks to Certify Employees Class
WALGREENS BOOTS: "Polsky Suit Moved to S.D. Texas
WARREN COUNTY, OH: Certification of Adoptive Parents Class Sought
WELLS FARGO: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code

WINES TIL SOLD: DOJ's Move to Oppose Settlement Challenged
WOOD GROUP: Pipeline Inspectors Class Certified in "Fenley" Suit
YAHOO INC: Must Face Class Action Over Data Breaches
YOUNG ADULT INSTITUTE: Khan Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
ZAPPOS.COM: 9th Cir. Revives Data Breach Class Action

* Cohen Milstein Files Class Action Over VIX Index Manipulation
* Cyber-Related Securities Fraud Class Action on the Rise
* Locke Lord Attorney Discusses Independent Contractor Cases
* Schwarzenegger Mulls Class Action Against Oil Industry
* SCOTUS Ruling on Class-Action Waivers Expected







                            *********


24 HOUR: NLRB Case Over Employee Arbitration Agreements Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Goodheart, and Roxane Auer, writing for Fast Company,
report that Capital & Main is an award-winning publication that
reports from California on economic, political, and social
issues.

On its website, 24 Hour Fitness says it has thousands of job
openings.  That's great news for fitness buffs hunting for work.
Or is it?

Disgruntled former employees of the San Ramon, California-based
company have filed hundreds of cases over almost two decades,
some resulting in settlements in the millions of dollars.

And the large payouts appear to have made 24 Hour Fitness one of
the nation's more aggressive advocates for curtailing workers'
ability to defend their rights in court, labor lawyers say.
That advocacy has also put the almost four-million-member-strong
fitness chain in the crosshairs of the National Labor Relations
Board, which has said the firm's employee arbitration agreements
violate federal labor law.

The company's dispute with the NLRB may make it to the U.S.
Supreme Court, which could hear oral arguments next term as to
whether the contracts the firm asks workers to sign when they are
hired violate historic worker protections put in place as part of
New Deal legislation adopted in the 1930s.  Those contracts ask
employees to waive their right to come together to file class
action lawsuits.

Some workers say the company's single-minded focus on selling
memberships caused it to run afoul of wage and hour law.

"We worked basically 8 to 8 every day no matter what, and if you
got a lunch break it was usually at the club, or you went out and
came right back," said Gabe Beauperthuy, a former general
manager, who worked in fitness centers in Colorado before leaving
the company in 2006.

At first, Mr. Beauperthuy said, he loved the work and embraced
the company's philosophy of personal transformation.  But the
long days and relentless pressure to sign up new members made him
question the company's commitment to changing people's lives, and
even his own priorities.  He developed a single-minded focus on
bringing in the "almighty dollar" for the company because, he
explained, "you're a product of your environment."

"I'm thankful that I realized that, and I'm thankful that I'm no
longer there," said Mr. Beauperthuy, now a competitive amateur
wrestler and coach.

24 Hour Fitness declined to comment for this story.

Mr. Beauperthuy was one of more than 900 managers, sales
counselors, and trainers to bring a collective action lawsuit
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging the company had
misclassified them and denied them overtime pay.  After the class
was decertified and following seven years of litigation, the
group settled for $17.5 million in 2013, according to published
reports.  The company settled another lawsuit involving thousands
of California employees for $38 million, the nation's sixth
largest wage and hour class action settlement of 2006.

Those cases may have made 24 Hour Fitness more steadfast in
defending their employee arbitration agreement that asks
employees to waive their right to bring class action lawsuits in
NLRB v. 24 Hour Fitness, which the U.S. Supreme Court may review
next year, depending on the outcome of a related case.  The fact
that 24 Hour Fitness has an employee arbitration agreement with a
"class action waiver" does not make it unusual. But the company
has been especially aggressive in defending its arbitration
agreement in the courts, labor advocates say.

"Historically, there have been a few companies who went out of
their way to fight and defend arbitration," says Cliff Palefsky,
a San Francisco attorney who filed the unfair labor practice case
resulting in the NLRB's finding that 24 Hour Fitness had violated
the law.  "They've been pretty aggressive in stripping workers of
their rights."

About 60 million people -- more than half of the non-union
private sector workforce -- are covered by mandatory arbitration
agreements, according to an Economic Policy Institute study.
These agreements require employees to resolve disputes through
private arbitrators chosen by employers, rather than go through
the courts.

An estimated 25 million of these arbitration agreements also
include class action waivers, like those used by 24 Hour Fitness,
in which employees give up their rights to band together to bring
class action suits to address workplace disputes in the courts.

The contract language has received attention in recent months as
the "Me Too" campaign has gained steam, and advocates pointed to
the difficulty of raising workplace concerns individually in
confidential arbitration proceedings that are crafted by the
employer.  Last year, U.S. Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-IL) introduced a
bipartisan bill that would prevent companies from keeping sexual
harassment and sex discrimination claims from going to court,
where the proceedings are typically in the public record.

A landmark case expected to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court
this term, National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, will
determine whether class action waivers will be a continuing
feature of employment contracts.  It will also decide the fate of
NLRB's dispute with 24 Hour Fitness.

"If the NLRB loses Murphy Oil, then our case would suffer the
same fate, essentially," says Mr. Palefsky.  In its Supreme Court
brief, 24 Hour Fitness distinguishes its employment agreements
from those at issue in the Murphy Oil case because the fitness
employees are given 30 days to opt out of the class action ban.

But Mr. Palefsky counters that the rarely used "opt out"
provision is irrelevant because a worker's right to act
collectively is one that cannot be signed away.

FAR MORE EMPLOYMENT CASES THAN ITS COMPETITORS
The argument about class action waivers might seem an academic
one to job seekers if 24 Hour Fitness is now complying with the
law.

There have been 621 employment cases filed in the federal courts
against 24 Hour Fitness since 2000.  On a per-establishment
basis, that's more than eight times as many as have been filed
against its competitor, Gold's Gym, during the same time period,
according to a Capital & Main review of federal court records.

The disproportionately large number of cases is likely linked to
the battle that took place between 24 Hour Fitness and
Beauperthuy's attorney, Richard Donahoo, who continued to fight
for his 900 or so clients even after a federal judge in San
Francisco granted a 24 Hour Fitness motion in 2011 to decertify
the class. (The judge's ruling that the plaintiffs' claims were
not sufficiently similar prevented the case from moving forward
as a collective action -- not the class action decertification
language -- but the effect was similar.)

"Many times that means it's the death of the case because people
don't want to proceed individually," said Mr. Donahoo, who is
based in Orange County. "Attorneys can't do it economically."

Nevertheless, Mr. Donahoo and his colleagues decided to "swallow
hard" and fight for each plaintiff individually.  They filed
hundreds of individual petitions in federal court to compel the
company to arbitrate claims in Northern California, where 24 Hour
Fitness is headquartered, and successfully fended off 24 Hour
Fitness's efforts in 21 federal courts across the country to
force the arbitration proceedings to take place near the clubs
where each of the former employees had worked.

"Our case became a 'careful what you wish for' scenario for the
company," Mr. Donahoo said.  The company ultimately agreed to a
settlement that resolved the individual claims at once.

Since then, 24 Hour Fitness has changed ownership. AEA Investors
LP, a New York-based private equity firm, Fitness Capital
Partners of Palm Beach, Florida, and the Toronto-based Ontario
Teachers' Pension Plan purchased the firm in 2014 in a leveraged
buyout.  But reasons remain to be concerned about the practice of
the fitness company, which employs about 20,000 workers and
operates in a highly competitive industry.

In November, the company agreed to pay restitution and settled a
lawsuit for $1.3 million filed by Orange County prosecutors,
stemming from allegations the company increased annual renewal
rates on prepaid memberships beginning in 2015 in violation of
its contracts with customers.  Customers were sold prepaid
memberships and charged upfront fees with the guarantee of a low
life-time renewal rate in 2006 but saw their rates rise as much
as 300 percent nine years later, according to The Orange County
Register.  The company admitted no wrongdoing in the settlement
agreement.

Last May, the ratings agency Moody's changed 24 Hour Fitness'
investment outlook from "stable" to "negative."  In justifying
the downgrade, the report pointed to the growing number of
fitness centers and the fact that the company is highly
leveraged.  The purchase of the company in 2014 was financed with
$1.35 billion in debt, about 75 percent of the total cost,
according to the Moody's report.

Moody's also singled out rising labor costs due to increases in
the minimum wage in many of the regions where 24 Hour Fitness
operates, suggesting the company employs a large number of low
wage workers.  Most of the clubs are concentrated in three states
-- California, Texas and Colorado.

"The company should be able to offset some of the pressure from
minimum wage increases by using labor optimization, and
reallocating the labor force within clubs based upon their age
and member profile," according to Moody's report.

The economic pressures 24 Hour Fitness faces may explain the
experience of one Ms. Randle, a former Kids' Club attendant, who
asked that her first name not be used.  She worked at a 24 Hour
Fitness in Orange County from 2014 to 2016.

She said managers told her not to leave her post to take a break
or use the rest room during her four-hour shift because the other
staff on duty lacked the necessary clearance to work with
children.  She complained to managers and eventually to the human
resources department, but had to file a complaint with the
California Labor Commissioner's Office to resolve the issue and
secure back pay for missed rest breaks, she said.

Ms. Randle thought that one of her co-workers endured repeated
urinary tract infections that could have been caused by not being
able to take bathroom breaks.  Ms. Randle felt the managers
lacked proper training.  "They were always focused on selling
memberships," she said.  "They didn't care too much about their
employees." [GN]


1750 ASIAN BUFFET: Castillo, et al. Seek to Certify Drivers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled EDUARDO CARBALLO CASTILLO, et al., the
Plaintiffs, v. 1750 ASIAN BUFFET INC., et al., the Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00137-PLM-ESC (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court for an Order:

   a. conditionally certifying a collective action for unpaid
      wages pursuant to 29 U.S.C section 216(b) defined as:

      "all current or former drivers or drivers' assistants
      and/or helpers who worked for Defendant at any time in the
      three years prior to the filing of this action";

   b. compelling Defendants to provide Plaintiffs with the names,
      all known addresses, e-mail addresses and cell phone
      numbers of the potential Collective members;

   c. authorizing notice to the Collective members with a 120 day
      opt-in period; and

   d. appointing Avanti Law Group, PLLC as interim class counsel.

Counsel for the Defendants indicated they oppose Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional class certification.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1qZaNGF7

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Anthony Alvarez, Esq.
          Agustin Henriquez, Esq.
          AVANTI LAW GROUP, PLLC
          600 28th Street SW
          Grand Rapids, MH 49509
          Telephone: (616) 257 6808
          Facsimile: (616) 257 8501
          E-mail: ralvarez@avantilaw.com
                  ksage@avantilaw.com


7-ELEVEN INC: Wins Bid for Judgment; Haitayan's Case Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John F. Walter grants a motion for judgment on the
pleadings filed by the Defendant/Counterclaimant of the lawsuit
styled Serge Haitayan, et al. v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Case No. 2:17-
cv-07454-JFW-JPR (C.D. Cal.).

7-Eleven owns, operates, and franchises convenience stores under
the trademarked name "7-Eleven," according to the Order.  7-
Eleven is one of the largest, well-known, and most-successful
franchise systems in the world.  Currently, there are more than
7,800 7-Eleven stores operating in the United States,
approximately 1,500 of which are franchised to independent
business owners in California.  Each of the franchised 7-Eleven
locations are governed by a written franchise agreement.

Plaintiffs Serge Haitayan, Jaspreet Dhillon, Robert Elkins and
Maninder Paul Lobana have for many years operated 7-Eleven stores
in various locations in California pursuant to franchise
agreements and in accordance with policies and procedures
contained in 7-Eleven's Operations Manual.

On October 12, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed this action against 7-
Eleven and on November 1, 2017, they filed a First Amended
Complaint alleging six claims against 7-Eleven, including failure
to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Federal Labor
Standards Act and the California Labor Code.

7-Eleven moves for judgment on the pleadings as to all of
Plaintiffs' claims on the grounds that 7-Eleven is not
Plaintiffs' employer.

In the order, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated that 7-Eleven exercises control over their wages,
hours, or working conditions and, therefore, they cannot show
that an employment relationship exists.

Accordingly, Judge Walter grants 7-Eleven's Motion for Judgment,
and dismisses with prejudice the Plaintiffs' FAC.  The parties
are ordered to meet and confer and agree on a joint proposed
Judgment, which is consistent with this Order and which disposes
of the counterclaim filed on November 30, 2017.

In light of the Court's ruling, the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Class Certification and Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification, both of which were filed on February 7, 2018, are
denied as moot.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eGlhV3mP


8POINT3 ENERGY: Violates Securities Exchange Act, Taylor Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN TAYLOR, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. 8POINT3 ENERGY PARTNERS LP, CHARLES
D. BOYNTON, MARK R. WIDMAR, NATALIE F JACKSON, ALEX BRADLEY,
THOMAS C. O'CONNOR, NORMAN J. SZYDLOWSKI, and MICHAEL W. YACKIRA,
the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01989-SI (N.D. Cal., March 31,
2018), seeks to enjoin the Defendants from holding a shareholder
vote on a proposed merger transaction and taking any steps to
consummate the proposed transaction unless and until material
information is disclosed to 8point3 Energy's shareholders
sufficiently in advance of the vote on the proposed transaction
or, in the event the proposed transaction is consummated, to
recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the
Exchange Act.

This action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf
of himself and the other public holders of the Class A common
shares of 8point3 Energy Partners LP against 8point3 Energy and
the members of the Partnership's board of directors and together
with 8point3 Energy for their violations of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with
the proposed acquisition of 8point3 Energy, and its affiliates,
by Capital Dynamics, Inc., through its affiliates and certain
other co-investors.

On February 5, 2018, the Board caused the Partnership to enter
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which each
common share of 8point3 Energy will be converted into the right
to receive $12.35 per share. On March 19, 2018, in order to
convince 8point3 Energy's shareholders to vote in favor of the
Proposed Transaction, Defendants authorized the filing of a
materially incomplete and misleading proxy statement with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning: (i) financial projections for
8point3 Energy; (ii) the valuation analyses performed by 8point3
Energy's financial advisor, Evercore Group L.L.C., in support of
its fairness opinion; (iii) information relating to the
Background of the Merger; and (iv) potential conflicts of
interest faced by the financial advisors. The special meeting of
8point3 Energy shareholders to vote on the Proposed Transaction
is forthcoming. It is imperative that the material information
that has been omitted from the Proxy is disclosed to the
Partnership's shareholders prior to the shareholder vote so that
they can properly exercise their corporate suffrage rights.

8point3 Energy is a growth-oriented limited partnership formed by
First Solar and SunPower to own, operate and acquire solar energy
generation projects.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          David E. Bower, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: (213) 446 6652
          Facsimile: (212) 202 7880


A.J. BOGGS: Faces "Doe" Suit in California Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A.J. Boggs &
Company. The case is styled as A Doe, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A.J. Boggs &
Company, Defendant, Case No. CGC18565456 (Cal. Super. Ct., April
3, 2018).

A.J. Boggs & Company is a software company in Meridian Charter
Township, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


A'GACI LLC: Villarreal Sues over Marketing Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------
Nilka Villarreal, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. A'GACI, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 0:18-cv-60695-CMA (S.D. Fla., Apr. 1, 2018), seeks
injunctive relief and statutory damages to halt Defendant's
illegal conduct.

The case is an action under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act. The Defendant is a national women's clothing and apparel
retailer with 78 store-fronts in the United States. As Defendant
states, "A'GACI is a lifestyle brand created for young fashion
lovers who rock it well and march to their own beat." In efforts
to increase the sales of its clothing and accessories from the
public at large, Defendant made consumers' cellular phones
constantly ring to Defendant's own beat by sending tens of
thousands of illegal marketing text messages which solicited
several types of discounts and promotions for future purchases of
"minutes" without first obtaining express written consent to send
such marketing text messages as required to do so under the TCPA.

These messages were sent using mass-automated technology either
directly or through a third-party company hired by Defendant to
send marketing text messages on Defendant's behalf en masse. In
sum, Defendant knowingly and willfully violated the TCPA, causing
injuries to Plaintiff, including invasion of their privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and
conversion.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
          110 SE 6th Street
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907 1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529 9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


AAC HOLDINGS: June 8 Hearing on $25MM Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

DR. JOSEPH F. KASPER, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

AAC HOLDINGS, INC., JERROD N. MENZ,
MICHAEL T. CARTWRIGHT, ANDREW W.
MCWILLIAMS, and KIRK R. MANZ,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:15-CV-00923-JPM

(Consolidated)

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF
ALLOCATION; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AWARD
OF
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:

ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED AAC
HOLDINGS, INC. ("AAC") SECURITIES BETWEEN OCTOBER 2, 2014, AND
AUGUST 4, 2015 AT 9:40 A.M. (EDT) (the "Class").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, that
a hearing will be held on June 8, 2018, at 9:30 a.m., before the
Honorable Jon P. McCalla, United States District Judge, at the
United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, Nashville Division, 801 Broadway, Room 783, Nashville,
TN 37203, for the purpose of determining: a) whether the proposed
Settlement of the claims alleged in the above captioned
securities class action ("Action") for Twenty-Five Million
Dollars ($25,000,000) is fair, reasonable, and adequate and
should be approved by the Court; b) whether the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants as set forth in
the Stipulation of Settlement dated February 15, 2018; c) whether
the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair and reasonable and should
be approved by the Court; d) whether Co-Lead Counsel's request
for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation
expenses should be approved by the Court; and e) any other relief
the Court deems necessary to effectuate the terms of the
Settlement.

IF YOU PURCHASED AAC SECURITIES BETWEEN OCTOBER 2, 2014 AND
AUGUST 4, 2015 AT 9:40 A.M. (EDT), YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY
THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION.

If you have not received a detailed Notice of (I) Proposed
Settlement and Plan of Allocation; (II) Settlement Hearing; and
(III) Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses ("Notice"), you may obtain copies by writing
to Kasper v. AAC Holdings, Claims Administrator, c/o A.B. Data,
Ltd., P.O. Box 170500, Milwaukee, WI 53217 or at
www.aacsecuritiesclassaction.com.  If you are a Class Member, in
order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund,
you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release by mail (postmarked
no later than July 19, 2018) or submitted electronically no later
than July 19, 2018, establishing that you are entitled to
recovery.

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to object to the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the fee and expense
applications, or otherwise request to be heard.  To object, you
may submit a written objection in accordance with the procedures
described in the more detailed Notice, referred to above, and/or
you may appear at the hearing described above.  Any written
objection must be delivered to the following postmarked no later
than May 18, 2018: (a) the Clerk of the Court, United States
District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Clerk's
Office, 801 Broadway, Room 800, Nashville, TN 37203; (b) Donald
R. Hall, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, 850 Third Avenue, 14th
Floor, New York, NY 10022; (c) Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick & Foti
LLC, 206 Covington Street, Madisonville, LA 70447; and (d) Lisa
R. Bugni, King & Spalding LLP, 1180 Peachtree Street NE, Atlanta,
GA 30309.  Note that the Court can only approve or deny the
Settlement, not change the terms of the Settlement.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE OR AAC
REGARDING THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about the
Settlement, you may contact Co-Lead Counsel at the addresses
listed below:

         Frederic S. Fox
         Donald R. Hall
         Jeffrey P. Campisi
         KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
         850 Third Avenue; 14th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
        (212) 687-1980
         www.kaplanfox.com

         Lewis S. Kahn
         Ramzi Abadou
         KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
         206 Covington Street
         Madisonville, LA 70447
        (504) 455-1400
         www.ksfcounsel.com

Dated:  April 4,2018

By Order of the Clerk of Court
United States District Court
Middle District of Tennessee


ACCENTCARE HOME: Faces "Lanuza" Suit in California Superior Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Accentcare Home
Health of California Inc. The case is styled as Magdalena Lanuza,
an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Accentcare Home Health of
California Inc. a California Corporation, Accentcare Inc. a
Corporation and Does 1 to 50, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
CGC18565521 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 4, 2018).

AccentCare Home Health, Inc. offers home healthcare services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
   Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik
   255 Calle Clara
   La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
   Tel: (858) 551-1223
   Fax: (858) 551-1232
   Email: norm@bamlawca.com


AFRICAN RAINBOW: Silicosis Class Action Nears Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Miningmx reports that South African gold producers could reach a
settlement regarding a lawsuit over the fatal lung disease
silicosis within six weeks, according to a report by Reuters.

Richard Spoor, a prominent human rights attorney who helped bring
a class action on behalf of former gold mine employees suffering
from the disease, said he was: ". . . confident we will finalise
the settlement within six weeks".  A spokesman for the working
group formed by gold mining companies, the Occupational Lung
Disease (OLD), concurred with Spoor, said Reuters.

The settlement would need to be approved by the High Court before
it was implemented.  The matter had been contested in courts but
the parties decided to settle outside of a formal court process.
South African gold mining companies, as well as African Rainbow
Minerals and Anglo American, have set aside a combined R5bn to
settle the matter.

On top of the R5bn that companies have made in provisions, there
is R4bn available from a compensation fund to which the industry
has been contributing for years, said Reuters. [GN]


ALL AMERICAN WATER: Faces "Fernandez" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against All American Water
Street Deli, Inc. The case is styled as Ilvin Omar Fernandez,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. All American Water Street Deli, Inc. doing business
as: All American Deli, Jimmy Sadonny, Nagi Nassar, Said Mohamad
and Amr Saadany also known as: Amir, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-
cv-02988 (S.D. N.Y., April 4, 2018).

All American Water Street Deli Inc. is in the Delicatessen Stores
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ALLIANCE MMA: Settles Stockholder Class Action Over 2016 IPO
------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance MMA, Inc. (Nasdaq: AMMA) on March 13 disclosed that it
has agreed to settle and resolve a stockholder class action
lawsuit initially filed in April 2017 against Alliance, certain
of its current and former officers and directors, and the
underwriter in Alliance's initial public offering completed in
October 2016. The class action settlement is subject to District
Court approval.  If approved by the District Court, the
settlement will lead to a dismissal of all claims against the
defendants in the litigation.

Under the terms of the settlement, the settlement amount
attributable to Alliance will be covered in full by its D&O
insurer.  Alliance's sole financial responsibility with respect
to the settlement will be to pay costs and expenses up to the
policy deductible amount of $250,000, of which it has already
paid $137,761 in the form of legal fees.

"Given the circumstances in which Alliance found itself, we
couldn't be more pleased with the outcome," said Bob Mazzeo, CEO
of Alliance.  "While it remains our view that Alliance did not
violate any laws in conducting its initial public offering,
settling this case on the terms agreed by the parties is clearly
in the best interests of our stockholders."

"This settlement represents a fresh start for Alliance and
provides the new management team with a renewed opportunity to
leverage our relationships and build strategic partnerships that
we believe will help drive revenues for years to come.  At the
same time, we will continue implementing our plan to streamline
the operation of the business and reduce our expenses as we
advance toward profitability."

                    About Alliance MMA, Inc.

Alliance MMA -- http://www.alliancemma.com-- is a sports and
media company that combines premier regional mixed martial arts
(MMA) promotions with event ticketing, media production and
talent management services.  Its common stock is listed on the
NASDAQ stock exchange and is the only MMA promotion company in
the U.S. whose stock is publicly-traded.  MMA is the world's
fastest-growing sport with approximately 300 million fans
worldwide, according to sports marketing research firm Repucom.
Professional MMA fights are legal and regulated by state athletic
commissions in all 50 states. [GN]


ALLIANZ TRANSPORTATION: Ryoo Dental Sues over Unsolicited Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
RYOO DENTAL, INC. d/b/a RYOO DENTAL, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLIANZ
TRANSPORTATION, INC. d/b/a ATI MEDICAL WASTE and VAHRAM POLADYAN
d/b/a ATI MEDICAL WASTE, the Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-00548
(C.D. Cal., March 31, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by
Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

On June 26, 2017, Defendants, or someone acting on their behalf,
used a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to
send to Plaintiff's telephone facsimile machine at (714) 333-1840
an unsolicited advertisement. The Plaintiff received the Fax
through Plaintiff's facsimile machine. The Fax constitutes
material advertising the quality or commercial availability of
any property, goods, or services.

The Defendants have sent other facsimile transmissions of
material advertising the quality or commercial availability of
property, goods, or services to Plaintiff and to at least 40
other persons as part of a plan to broadcast fax advertisements.
The transmissions of facsimile advertisements, including the Fax,
to Plaintiff, lacked a notice that complied with 47 U.S.C.
section. The Defendants violated the TCPA by transmitting the Fax
to Plaintiff and to the Class members without obtaining their
prior express invitation or permission and by not displaying the
proper opt-out notice required by 47 C.F.R. section
64.1200(a)(4). The Defendants knew or should have known that (a)
facsimile advertisements, including the Fax, were advertisements,
(b) Plaintiff and the other Class members had not given their
express invitation or permission to receive facsimile
advertisements, (c) no established business relationship existed
with Plaintiff and the other Class members, and (d) Defendants'
facsimile advertisements did not display a proper opt-out
notice.[BN]

Attorneys for Ryoo Dental, Inc.:

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


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Class Cert. Proceedings in "Dombrowksi" Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled STEVE DOMBROWSKI, the Plaintiff, v. ALLIED
INTERSTATE LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00348-WED (E.D.
Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered an order April
5, 2018 granting plaintiff's motion to stay further class
certification proceedings.

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

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

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


ALLIQUA BIOMEDICAL: Monteverde & Associates PC Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC on March 13 disclosed that it has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for The District  of Delaware, Case No. 1:18-cv-00301, on behalf
of shareholders of Alliqua BioMedical, Inc., ("Alliqua" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: ALQA) who held Alliqua securities and have
been harmed by Alliqua and its Board of Directors (the "Board")
for alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in
connection with the sale of all or substantially all of the
Company's assets, including certain assets comprising its MIST,
Biovance, and Interfyl product lines (the "Purchased Assets"), to
Celularity Inc. ("Celularity").

Under the terms of the asset purchase agreement (the
"Agreement"), Alliqua will receive $29 million in cash for the
Purchased Assets (the "Asset Consideration").  The complaint
alleges that this offer is inadequate and that the Preliminary
Proxy Statement on a Schedule 14A (the "Proxy") provides
materially incomplete and misleading information about the
Company's financials and the transaction, in violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  Specifically, the
Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning: (i) the valuation analyses conducted by the Company's
financial advisor, Cowen and Company, LLC ("Cowen"), in support
of its fairness opinion; and (ii) the background process leading
up to the Agreement.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from March 13, 2018.  Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this
action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact:

Click here for more information:
www.monteverdelaw.com/investigations/m-a/.  It is free and there
is no cost or obligation to you.

Monteverde & Associates PC -- http://www.monteverdelaw.com-- is
a boutique class action securities and consumer litigation law
firm. [GN]


AMERICAN HONDA: "Preston" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL PRESTON and PENELOPE TURGEON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00038-R-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs move for
certification of a class of:

   "all persons in the State of Illinois who, (a) between May
   2014 and May 2017, (b) purchased or leased a new Honda vehicle
   at a Honda authorized dealership in Illinois and not for
   purposes of resale, (c) which Honda vehicle is equipped with a
   P.S. Gear Box (EPS), (d) which Honda vehicle experienced a
   power steering malfunction attributed to rodent damage to one
   of the parts contained within the P.S. Gear Box (EPS) during
   the applicable new vehicle warranty period, and (e) Honda
   denied warranty coverage for the service, repairs, and/or
   replacement parts needed to fix the power steering
   malfunction."

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sXBaZ04R

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephanie R. Tatar, Esq.
          TATAR LAW FIRM, APC
          3500 West Olive Avenue, Suite 300
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (323) 744 1146
          Facsimile: (888) 778 5695
          E-mail: stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Larry P. Smith, Esq.
          SMITHMARCO, P.C.
          55 West Monroe St., Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 324 3532
          Facsimile: (888) 418 1277
          E-mail: lsmith@smithmarco.com

               - and -

          Stacy M. Bardo, Esq.
          BARDO LAW, P.C.
          22 West Washington St., Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 219 6980
          Facsimile: (312) 219 6981
          E-mail: stacy@bardolawpc.com


AMERIGAS PROPANE: "Jarrell" Case Settlement Wins Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JIMMIE JARRELL, the Plaintiff, v. AMERIGAS
PROPANE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01481-JST (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order on April 5,
2018, granting final approval of a proposed settlement and
granting in part and denying part Plaintiff's motion for
attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive award.

The Plaintiff brings this wage and hour class action against the
Defendant on behalf of himself and other individuals who are or
have been employed by AmeriGas as service technicians.  The
alleged violations concern meal and rest periods, payment for on-
call time and travel time, vacation pay, and accuracy of wage
statements.

The settlement provides for a common fund of $800,000, including:
(1) payouts to class members; (2) attorneys' fees of not more
than $266,640 (33.33% of the common fund); (3) litigation costs
and expenses not to exceed $35,000; (4) settlement administration
costs, estimated to be $20,000; (5) an incentive award to
Jarrell, not to exceed $10,000; (6) a $30,000 payment to the
California Labor Workforce Development Agency; and (7) payroll
taxes.  Class member payouts will vary based on the number of
weeks each class member worked during the class period.  Current
employees who do not opt out will automatically receive a payout,
whereas former employees must submit a claim form.

The Court, however, enter a modified version of the parties'
proposed judgment.  The Court said the Class Representative
Jimmie Jarrell is not eligible for a $10,000 incentive award.

According to the Court, the Class Representative estimates that
he spent "well over 40 hours" on this litigation, including
"traveling to the mediation in this matter, working with
attorneys, and completing tasks given to me by my lawyers." His
contributions include communicating with counsel, reviewing
documents, identifying potential witnesses, and "bringing certain
issues that are involved in this matter to my counsel's
attention, and explaining the factual background that was used to
prosecute the claims in this case." Jarrell was not deposed, and
he did not sign a release that was broader than those of other
class members. Neither the tasks Jarrell performed nor the time
he spent doing them go beyond what would be expected of any class
representative. In addition, he was not a current employee during
the pendency of this lawsuit and therefore did not risk
retaliation by AmeriGas. An incentive award is warranted based on
Jarrell's contributions to the case, but the presumptively
reasonable $5,000 award is sufficient. This award is more than
the average class recovery before fees, and more than double the
average class recovery after fees.

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


ANDY MOHR: Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, "Thomas" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Andy Mohr Motors, Inc. d/b/a Andy Mohr Kia, Case No.
1:18-cv-01624 (N.D. Ill., March 5, 2018), seeks to stop
Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited text messages to
cellular telephones without the recipient's prior express written
consent and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its
conduct, including injunctive relief.

Andy Mohr Motors, Inc. owns and operates an automobile dealership
company located at 8789 E. US Highway 36, Avon, Indiana 46123.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stefan Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
      201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (877) 333-9427
      Facsimile: (888) 498-8248
      E-mail: Law@StefanColeman.com


ARKEMA INC: Court Certifies Two Subclasses in "Carter" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROGER D. CARTER, EDDIE DEAN HEWITT, DAVID
WAYNE WARREN, RICKY LYNN WOODS, and a class others similarly
situated, the PLAINTIFFS, v. ARKEMA, INC., and ARKEMA INC.
RETIREMENT BENEFITS PLAN, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 3:13-cv-01241-
JHM-CHL (W.D. Ken.), the Hon. Judge Joseph H. McKinley entered an
order granting certification of two subclasses:

   "[1] all participants in the Arkema, Inc. Retirement Benefits
   Plan, at any time from January 1, 1988 to the present, who
   were employed by Arkema, Inc. or its predecessors at Arkema's
   Carrollton, Kentucky plant, and whose initial service dates
   were "adjusted" to the first day of the month next following
   their attainment of 25 years of age"; and

   "[2] all participants in the Arkema, Inc. Retirement Benefits
   Plan, at any time from January 1, 1988 to the present, who
   were employed by Arkema, Inc. or its predecessors at Arkema's
   Carrollton, Kentucky plant, and who are eligible (or may
   become eligible) for the Rule of 85 due to termination of
   employment after reaching the age of 55 and 30 years of
   service".

The Court said, "Subclass 1 is certified as to Count I of the
amended complaint, and Subclass 2 is certified as to Count II of
the amended complaint. Rule 23(c)(2)(A) states that the Court may
direct appropriate notice to a class but is not required to do
so. Neither party has asked the Court to direct notice to the
subclass members. Therefore, the Court will not direct notice to
the subclasses at this time. Rule 23(g)(1) requires the Court to
appoint class counsel. The Court must consider the work counsel
has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the
action, counsel's experience in handling class actions, counsel's
knowledge of the applicable law, and the resources counsel will
commit to representing the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A).
The Court may also consider counsel's ability to fairly and
adequately represent the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(g)(1)(B). David Leightty, counsel for the plaintiffs has
provided his resume to the Court, and the Court is satisfied that
he, along with Alison Messex, meet the requirements of Rule
23(g)(1). Therefore, the Court appoints them as counsel for the
class."

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


ARS NATIONAL: Brown Alleges Wrongful Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAYO BROWN, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers, the Plaintiff, v. ARS NATIONAL SERVICES, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01058-CDJ (E.D. Pa., March 12, 2018),
seeks to recover damages arising from Defendant's violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, on a date better known by Defendant,
Plaintiff incurred a debt through the use of a credit card for
personal, familial, and household use. On or around April 25,
2017, Defendant, in an attempt to collect on the debt, sent
Plaintiff a letter. The letter provides a 30-day notice language
required by the FDCPA in the second paragraph. The third
paragraph of the letter describes in detail a settlement offer.
The fourth paragraph states, "There are other payment options
available." It then proceeds to list the options for payment,
including online, by phone, Western Union, Moneygram, and regular
mail. The final paragraph states, "Please call us at (800) 976-
0960 with any questions or to discuss all your payment options."
The letter is confusing and misleading because it suggests
multiple options for the consumer to communicate with the debt
collector in order to dispute the debt. Specifically, by
supplying the phone number and asking the consumer to call "with
any questions" the least sophisticated consumer would not know
that a dispute must be in writing and may take the easier option
of disputing the claim by phone.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nichlolas Linker, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          78 John Miller Way, Suite 430
          Kearny, NJ 07032
          Telephone: (862) 227 3106
          E-mail: nl@zemellawllc.com


BANK OF THE WEST: "Meller" Suit Seeks OT Compensation under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA MELLER, DEBRA ANDERSON, CYNTHIA PASH, and EDDIE CAPOVILLA,
on behalf of themselves and classes of those similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF THE WEST, the Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-00033-JAJ-RAW (S.D. Iowa, March 29, 2018), seeks to
recover overtime compensation for Plaintiffs and their similarly
situated co-workers who worked as Customer Service Managers at
Bank of the West branch locations in the United States, under
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant has more than $600 billion in assets and more than
600 bank branch locations in 19 different states. The Defendant
employed CSMs, such as Plaintiffs and others similarly situated,
at Bank of the West branch locations nationwide. All of the work
that Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective have performed has been
assigned by Defendant, and/or Defendant has been aware of all of
the work that Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective have performed.
As part of its regular business practice, Defendant has
intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly engaged in a pattern,
practice, and/or policy of violating the FLSA with respect to
Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective. This policy and pattern or
practice includes, but is not limited to willfully failing to pay
Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA Collective overtime wages
for hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek
Defendant is aware or should have been aware that federal law.
The Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective all performed the same
primary duty. Defendant's unlawful conduct has been widespread,
repeated, and consistent.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and proposed Collective and Class
Members:

Dorothy A. O'Brien, Esq.
O'BRIEN & MARQUARD, P.L.C.
2322 E. Kimberly Road Ste. 100E
Davenport, IA 52807
Telephone: (563) 355 6060
Facsimile: (563) 355 6666
E-mail: dao@emprights.com

     - and -

Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245 1000
Facsimile: (212) 977 4005
E-Mail: jms@outtengolden.com

     - and -

Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Paolo Meireles, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
1515 South Federal Highway, Suite 404
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 447 8888
Facsimile: (561) 447 8831
E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
        pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com


BASF CATALYSTS: Faces "Williams" Suit in N.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BASF Catalysts LLC.
The case is styled as Kimberlee Williams, Nancy Pease, Marilyn L.
Holley, Donna Ware, Donnette Wengerd and Rosanne Chernick,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. BASF Catalysts LLC, Cahill Gordon &
Reindel LLP, Cahill Gordon & Reindel, Thomas D. Halket, Arthur A.
Dornbusch, II, Glenn Hemstock, Howard G. Sloane also known as:
Peter Sloane, Ira J. Dembrow, Scott A. Martin, John Doe Business
Entities 1-200, John Doe Lawyers 1-500 and John Doe 1-500,
Defendants, Russ Smith Law, Robert E. Sweeney Company and LPA,
Defendants/Movants, Case No. 1:18-mc-00033-DCN (N.D. Ohio, April
3, 2018).

BASF Catalysts LLC develops and produces environmental and
process catalysts for customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

   Christopher M. Placitella, Esq,
   Cohen, Placitella & Roth - Red Bank
   127 Maple Avenue
   Red Bank, NJ 07701
   Tel: (732) 747-9003
   Fax: (732) 747-9004
   Email: cplacitella@cprlaw.com

      - and -

   Harry Roth, Esq.
   Cohen, Placitella & Roth
   127 Maple Avenue
   Red Bank, NY 07701
   Tel: (732) 747-9003

      - and -

   Jared M. Placitella, Esq.
   Cohen, Placitella & Roth
   127 Maple Avenue
   Red Bank, NJ 07701
   Tel: (732) 747-9003
   Email: jmplacitella@cprlaw.com

      - and -

   Michael Coren, Esq.
   Cohen, Placitella & Roth-Philadelphia
   2001 Market Street, Ste. 2900
   Philadelphia, PA 19103
   Tel: (215) 567-3500
   Fax: (215) 567-0619
   Email: mcoren@cprlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   John R. Mitchell, Esq.
   Thompson Hine - Cleveland
   3900 Key Tower
   127 Public Square
   Cleveland, OH 44114
   Tel: (216) 566-5847
   Fax: (216) 566-5800
   Email: john.mitchell@thompsonhine.com

      - and -

   Angelo A. Stio , III, Esq.
   Pepper Hamilton LLP
   301 Carnegie Center, Suite 400
   Princeton, NJ 08543

      - and -

   Barry Boise, Esq.
   Pepper Hamilton - Philadelphia
   3000 Two Logan Square
   Eighteenth & Arch Streets
   Philadelphia, PA 19103
   Tel: (215) 981-4000

      - and -

   Nina M. Gussack, Esq.
   Pepper Hamilton - Philadelphia
   3000 Two Logan Square
   Eighteenth & Arch Streets
   Philadelphia, PA 19103
   Tel: (215) 981-4000
   Fax: (215) 981-4756
   Email: gussackn@pepperlaw.com

      - and -

   Eric Tunis, Esq.
   Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis
   99 Wood Avenue South
   Iselin, NJ 08830
   Tel: (732) 476-2676
   Fax: (732) 475-2677

      - and -

   John A. Boyle, Esq.
   Marino Tortorella & Boyle
   437 Southern Blvd.
   Chatham, NJ 07928

      - and -

   Kevin Marino, Esq.
   Marino Tortorella & Boyle
   437 Southern Blvd.
   Chatham, NJ 07928

The Movants are represented by:

   Anthony Gallucci, Esq.
   Kelley & Ferraro
   1300 Ernst & Young Bldg.
   950 Main Avenue
   Cleveland, OH 44113
   Tel: (216) 575-0777
   Fax: (216) 575-0799
   Email: agallucci@kelley-ferraro.com

      - and -

   Kevin E. McDermott, Esq.
   McDermott & Hickey
   2639 Wooster Road, Ste. 203
   Rocky River, OH 44116
   Tel: (216) 712-7452
   Fax: (440) 356-2873
   Email: kevin.mcdermott@kmcdermottlaw.com


BLUE BUFFALO: Shumaker Balks at Merger Deal with General Mills
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM SHUMAKER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BLUE BUFFALO PET PRODUCTS,
INC., WILLIAM BISHOP, BILLY BISHOP, PHILIPPE AMOUYAL, EVREN
BILIMER, RAYMOND DEBBANE, MICHAEL A. ECK, FRANCES FREI, AFLALO
GUIMARAES, AMY SCHULMAN, GENERAL MILLS, INC., and BRAVO MERGER
CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00535-MPS (D. Conn.,
March 29, 2018), contends that the merger deal between Blue
Buffalo Pet Products, Inc., and General Mills, Inc. and Bravo
Merger Corp. is the result of an unfair process for an unfair
price.  The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the consummation of the
proposed all-cash transaction, which is valued at approximately
$8.0 billion.

The terms of the Proposed Transaction were memorialized in a
February 23, 2018 filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Form 8-K attaching the definitive Agreement and
Plan of Merger. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Blue
Buffalo will become an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of
General Mills, and Blue Buffalo stockholders will receive $40.00
per share in cash for each share of Blue Buffalo common stock
they own. Thereafter, on March 19, 2018, Blue Buffalo filed a
Preliminary Information Statement on Schedule Prem14C with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission in support of
the Proposed Transaction.

Blue Buffalo is, by its own admission, a controlled company, with
approximately 55% of its outstanding stock owned by either equity
funds associated with Invus, L.P., a longtime financial investor
in the Company, or by members of the Bishop family, the founders
of the Company.

According to the complaint, this clear conflict of interest
between the Majority Stockholders who control the Company and
Plaintiff and other minority holders has most definitely played a
role in the failure to ensure an adequate process and has
trampled on the rights of Plaintiff and other Company
stockholders. The Proposed Transaction is unfair and undervalued
for a number of reasons. Significantly, the Majority Stockholders
have pledged all such shares in a support agreement to vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction; no vote of any minority
shareholders is required to consummate the Proposed Transaction.
Furthermore, as is made clear in the Preliminary Information
Statement, the Company does not intend for any such vote to take
place. Rather, the Proposed Transaction can be consummated at any
moment.

Despite engaging in a several month sales process, the Board did
not engage in any effort whatsoever to perform any type of market
check for potentially interested third parties, at any point in
the process. Moreover, the Board did not even require a go-shop
period, accepting, instead, a weak "window shop" period of 30
days. Instead, the Board has entered into the Proposed
Transaction to procure for themselves and senior management of
the Company significant and immediate benefits with no thought to
the Company's public stockholders.

For instance, pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, upon
the consummation of the Proposed Transaction, Company Board
Members and executive officers will be able to exchange all
Company equity awards for the merger consideration. Moreover,
certain Directors and other insiders will also be the recipients
of lucrative change-in-control agreements, triggered upon the
termination of their employment as a consequence of the
consummation of the Proposed Transaction.

The lawsuit also notes Defendant Billy Bishop, CEO of Blue
Buffalo, negotiated not only retention of employment with the
surviving entity, but a substantial pay raise as well, all while
negotiations to achieve the best possible deal for the
stockholders of the Company should have been happening.
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
stockholders by agreeing to the Proposed Transaction which
undervalues Blue Buffalo and is the result of a flawed sales
process.

As part of such a process, the Board and Company agreed to an
onerous and preclusive no solicitation clause, that, after a
short 30-day "window shop period", the Company cannot terminate
the Proposed Transaction should a third party offer a deal that
the Board considers to be a superior offer. This is particularly
prejudicial given the lack of any actual market check prior to
the Merger Agreement being signed.

In violation of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, and in violation of their fiduciary duties,
Defendants caused to be filed the materially deficient
Preliminary Information Statement on March 19, 2018 with the SEC.
The Preliminary Information Statement is materially deficient and
deprives Blue Buffalo stockholders of the information they need
to make an intelligent, informed and rational decision of whether
to seek appraisal of their shares in lieu of the consideration
offered under the terms of the Proposed Transaction. The
Preliminary Information Statement omits and/or misrepresents
material information concerning, among other things: (a) the
sales process leading up to the Proposed Transaction; (b) the
financial projections for Blue Buffalo, provided by Blue
Buffalo's management to the Company's financial advisors J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC and Centerview Partners LLC for use in its
financial analyses; and (c) the data and inputs underlying the
financial valuation analyses that purport to support the fairness
opinions provided by the Company's financial advisors, J.P.
Morgan and Centerview.

Blue Buffalo Pet Products, Inc., through its subsidiary, Blue
Buffalo Company, Ltd., operates as a pet food company in the
United States, Canada, Japan, and Mexico.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

Nicole A. Veno, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NICOLE A. VENO, LLC
573 Hopmeadow Street
Simsbury, CT 06070
Telephone: (860) 474 4024
Facsimile: (860) 717 3207
E-mail: nveno@venolaw.com

     - and -

Evan J. Smith, Esq.
Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
Two Bala Plaza, Ste. 510
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (610) 667 6200
Facsimile: (610) 667 9029
E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com
        mackerman@brodskysmith.com


BRIJON MANAGEMENT: Faces ERISA Class Action
-------------------------------------------
Todd D. Wozniak, Esq. -- wozniakt@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg
Traurig LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that in Wema
Hoover v. Brijon Management & Employee Leasing Services, et al.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-05786-MAS-DEA (D. N.J.), a former employee of
Brijon Management & Employee Leasing Services, Inc. (Brijon) and
a participant in the Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP)
sponsored by Brijon filed a class action complaint alleging that
Brijon, its former Chief Executive Officer (CEO), and others
violated ERISA when they approved the ESOP's sale of 100 percent
of Brijon's stock to Defendant CarolBri, LLC (CarolBri), an
entity partially owned by Brijon's former CEO, for an amount that
plaintiff alleged was less than the fair market value of the
stock.

The plaintiff's stock valuation expert claimed that the fair
market value of Brijon's stock at the time of the sale was $5.93
million.  Defendants' expert opined that the amount the ESOP
received for the stock actually exceeded the fair market value of
Brijon's stock.  Given that any liability rested, if at all, on
the valuation of Brijon's stock, the parties agreed to a
settlement in which the class and the parties would be bound by
the findings of a neutral valuation expert who would be appointed
as a Special Master by the court.  The case would then be
certified as a no opt-out class action under Rule 23(b)(1) and
all clams of all class members would be extinguished.

After reviewing the submissions of the parties and their experts,
the Special Master determined that the ESOP received at least
fair market value for Brijon's stock.  Those findings resulted in
the release and dismissal of all individual and class claims
asserted in the case with Defendants paying nothing to either the
class members or to Plaintiff's counsel.  The motion to approve
the class action settlement, to certify the case as a no opt-out
class action, and to dismiss with prejudice all claims was
approved by the court in October 2017, after it found that the
settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate under the
circumstances.

Although this approach may not be suitable in all ESOP class
action cases, ESOP class action cases often turn on the
valuations performed of the plan sponsor or its stock and the
parties may only dispute a couple of key valuation issues.  In
those circumstances, having a neutral stock valuation expert
determine the fate of the case should be considered, as opposed
to a federal judge who may have very limited experience with
valuation issues and the complexities involved.

Greenberg Traurig represented the main defendants in the Hoover
case.  GT Shareholders Kristine Feher, Todd Wozniak, and Practice
Group Attorney Lindsey Reagan Camp led the defense. [GN]


BUFFALO WILD: "Meeks" Suit Transferred to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Marche Meeks, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Buffalo
Wild Wings Inc., a Minnesota corporation; Blazin Wings, Inc., a
Minnesota corporation; Yelp Inc., a Delaware corporation; and
Nowait, Inc., a Delaware corporation, the Defendants, and Wingmen
V, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, the Respondent,
Case No. 4:17-cv-07129, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Western
Division - Los Angeles) on April 4, 2018. The Central District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-02673-PA-AS to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Percy
Anderson.

Buffalo Wild Wings is an American casual dining restaurant and
sports bar franchise in the United States, Canada, Mexico, the
Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and
India which specializes in Buffalo wings and sauces.[BN]

Attorneys for Marche Meeks on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated:

          Justin Kachadoorian, Esq.
          Alexandria Rose Kachadoorian, Esq.
          Anthony J Orshansky, Esq.
          COUNSELONE, PC
          9301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 650
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 277 9945
          Facsimile: (424) 277 3727
          E-mail: justin@counselonegroup.com
                  alexandria@counselonegroup.com
                  anthony@counselonegroup.com

Attorneys for Buffalo Wild Wings Inc. and Blazin Wings, Inc.:

          Anahit Tagvoryan, Esq.
          Harrison Maxwell Brown, Esq.
          Safia G. Hussain, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          2029 Century Park East 6th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 239 3400
          Facsimile: (424) 239 3434
          E-mail: atagvoryan@blankrome.com
                  hbrown@blankrome.com
                  shussain@blankrome.com

Attorneys for Yelp Inc. and Nowait, Inc.:

          Brian Adair Sutherland, Esq.
          Ashley Lynn Shively, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          101 Second Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 543 8700
          Facsimile: (415) 391 8269
          E-mail: bsutherland@reedsmith.com
                  ashively@reedsmith.com

Attorneys for Wingmen V, LLC:

          Christine Marie Reilly, Esq.
          Kristin Emily Haule, Esq.
          MANATT PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP
          11355 W Olympic Blvd
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-1656
          Telephone: (310) 312 4237
          E-mail: creilly@manatt.com
                  khaule@manatt.com


BUFFALO WILD: Judge Dismisses Vegetarian Customers' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence I. Weinstein, Esq. and Tiffany Woo, Esq., of Proskauer
Rose LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, wrote that
recently, a federal district court judge in the Southern District
of New York dismissed claims asserted under New York General
Business Law Sec. 349 on behalf of a putative class of vegetarian
customers of Buffalo Wild Wings.  The court's decision found that
although the plaintiff had standing to bring her claims, her
allegations did not point to an "actual injury" sufficient to
state a claim under section 349.  Plaintiff has appealed.

The complaint in Borenkoff v. Buffalo Wild Wings, 2018 WL 502680
(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2018) alleged that defendant uses beef tallow
to fry non-meat food items like mozzarella sticks and french
fries, whereas the "industry standard" is to use non-beef cooking
oil to fry such items.  According to plaintiff, a reasonable
consumer would not expect non-meat items to be fried in beef
tallow.  Buffalo Wild Wings' failure to include beef tallow among
the listed menu ingredients for its non-meat food items therefore
allegedly constituted a "material misrepresentation and omission"
under section 349.  Plaintiff claimed she would not have ordered
or consumed the mozzarella sticks and fries had she known they
were prepared using beef tallow.

In evaluating defendant's motion to dismiss, Judge Katherine
Forrest found that injury had been adequately pled for Article
III standing purposes, but not for the purpose of stating a claim
under section 349.  The key to the court's decision was Second
Circuit authority holding that an alleged injury sufficient for
Article III standing "need not be capable of sustaining a valid
cause of action."

As for Article III standing, the court held that a plaintiff must
allege a "concrete and particularized" "injury in fact."  The
court found that the injury in fact plaintiff pled--that
plaintiff would not have purchased the food if she had known it
was fried using beef tallow--was a "pure economic injury" in
which her claimed damages were the amount of money she paid for
the food.  The court noted that numerous courts, including the
Third and Fifth Circuits, have found similar allegations
insufficient to confer standing without any further allegation
that the food items received were defective in some way, or
objectively worth less than the amount plaintiff paid.  As the
court put it, "Borenkoff paid for french fries and mozzarella
sticks, and that is ultimately what she received."  But in light
of Second Circuit authority, and despite expressing "serious
reservations," the court found plaintiff's alleged injury in fact
sufficiently "concrete and particularized" to confer standing.

Nonetheless, the court found plaintiff's alleged injury
insufficient to state a claim under section 349.  Judge Forrest
noted that under New York law, "the loss of the purchase price of
an item," standing alone, does not satisfy the "actual injury"
element of a section 349 claim.  See, e.g., Small v. Lorillard
Tobacco, 94 N.Y.2d 43, 55-56 (N.Y. 1999).  The court found that
plaintiff needed to show more to state a section 349 claim--e.g.,
that the food she received harmed her, that the food was
defective in some way, or that the price of the food was inflated
as a result of using beef tallow.  As plaintiff had not made such
further allegations, the court dismissed the section 349 claim.

In addition, the court also dismissed plaintiff's unjust
enrichment claim as merely "duplicative" of the section 349
claim. [GN]


BULLDOG SQUARE: Orozco Seeks Minimum Wages, OT under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO OROZCO, an individual, individually 0n behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated under the Private Attorney
General Act (PAGA) pursuant to Labor Code section 2698, et seq.,
the Plaintiff, v. BULLDOG SQUARE, INC, a California Corporation,
dba BULLDOG TOWING SERVICE; RICHARD MCCRACKEN, an individual, dba
76 TOWING; KEVIN MCCRACKEN, an individual; and DOES 1-50, the
Defendant, Case No. 18CECG01105 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 4, 2018),
seeks to recover full restitution and compensation for unpaid
wages including minimum wages and overtime premiums, pena1ties,
liquidated damages, and interest under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants operate two
coordinated towing businesses, located in Fresno, California
(Fresno County), which are most commonly known as "Bulldog
Towing" and "76 Towing". The Plaintiff was "on call" for both
Bulldog and 76 Towing for several 24-hour shifts, and making
himself available to respond at a moment's notice to emergency
calls throughout Fresno County, California. Plaintiff carried two
cell phones, reported to accidents, carried two uniforms, etc.,
and was required to be ready for either entity, to be able t0
respond to a call within 25 minutes of dispatch in the
appropriate truck and uniform. He was not paid for this on-call
time. During this on-call time, he was under the control of the
employer(s), including being suffered and permitted t0 work,
which should be treated as hours worked.

As a result of being on-call, Plaintiff was required to work in
excess eight hours in a work day or 40 hours in workweek, but was
not paid for overtime, double time, or minimum wages. Defendants'
piece rate compensation system did not properly compensate
Plaintiff for all hours worked, nor did Defendants treat this
"on-call" time as hours worked. As a result, Plaintiff also never
received a complete or accurate paystub, in violation of Labor
Code section 226, and the applicable IWC Wage Order. The
Plaintiff's wages were tied to commissions (i.e. a piece rate),
but Defendants failed t0 account for all hours worked during
authorized rest breaks and non-productive time, nor was Plaintiff
paid for this time. Plaintiff s non-productive time included, but
is not limited to: pre- and post- trip inspections of the tow
truck; maintaining and cleaning the company tow trucks; gassing
up the tow trucks; training new hires on company procedure;
filling out paperwork on behalf of Defendants; and other tasks
not directly tied to the piece rate. The Defendants did not have
a piece-rate compensation system that pays for non-productive
time, nor did Defendants track this time.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J.F. Smith, Esq.
          John L. Migliazzo, Esq.
          MICHAEL J.F. SMITH, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          1391 West Shaw Avenue, Suite D
          Fresno, CA 93711
          Telephone: (559) 229 3900
          Facsimile: (559) 229 3903


CALIFORNIA: Oroville Dam Class Action Transferred to Sacramento
---------------------------------------------------------------
Risa Johnson, writing for OrovilleMR News, reports that a change
of venue request from Butte County to Sacramento County has been
granted for plaintiffs in the first class action lawsuit filed
against DWR for the Oroville Dam crisis.

Attorneys, on behalf of plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit
filed in August against the state Department of Water Resources,
asked for the change in September and got final approval on
March 7.  McNicholas & McNicholas, a Los Angeles-based trial
firm, along with Frantz Law Group are representing Butte County
residents Francis Bechtel, Jacob Klein, Denise Johnson, Chantel
Ramirez and the proposed group of 188,000 residents downstream
ordered to evacuate their homes on Feb. 12, 2017.

The stipulation to transfer was originally approved by Judge
Michael Candela in January but held up because the Sacramento
County Superior Court did not receive the small processing fee
required from McNicholas & McNicholas.

The lawsuit, filed before the release of the forensic report in
January, alleged insufficient maintenance and repairs and faulty
design led to the crisis.  The forensic investigation
corroborated that these were factors.

The complaint also cast blame on the department's decision to not
armor the emergency spillway, although environmental groups
including Friends of the River pointed out in 2005 the danger of
leaving it as is.

The groups continue to advocate for fully lining the emergency
spillway, which DWR has yet to commit to.  However, the
department is installing an underground erosion cutoff wall and a
concrete splash pad, to deter erosion if the spillway were to be
used again.

No estimation of damages was listed in the lawsuit.  Plaintiffs
named in the suit claim decreases in property value, fear about
the potential for future dam failures and stigma now associated
with the city.  Lawyers have demanded a jury trial.

A separate class action complaint was filed Feb. 8 against DWR on
behalf of several local business owners and a couple of property
owners claiming losses in property value following the spillway
crisis.  Alleged damages ranged from $3,000 to $500,000.

The proposed classes include a diminution class to represent
property owners who saw property values decrease, a property loss
class for those who suffered real or personal property damage of
$100,000 or less and also a business loss class. [GN]


CAMDEN PROPERTY: Suarez Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
--------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JORGE SUAREZ, the Plaintiff, v. CAMDEN
PROPERTY TRUST, CAMDEN DEVELOPMENT, INC. and CSP COMMUNITY OWNER,
LP f/k//a CSP COMMUNITY OWNER, LLC, d/b/a CAMDEN WESTWOOD, the
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00124-D (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff
moves the Court for an order to certify Classes:

The Initial Collection Letter Class:

   "all natural persons who (a) at any point within the four (4)
   year period preceding the filing of Plaintiff's Complaint and
   during its pendency (b) resided in any of the properties in
   North Carolina owned and operated by Defendants and (c) were
   sent an Initial Collection Letter that (d) threatens to charge
   Filing & Service Fees and Attorneys' Fees if such persons do
   not make a complete rental payment after the 15th of the
   month."

The Fee Class:

   "all natural persons who (a) at any point within the four (4)
   year period preceding the filing of Plaintiff's Complaint and
   during its pendency (b) resided in any of the properties in
   North Carolina owned and operated by Defendants and (c) were
   charged and (d) actually paid Filing & Service Fees and
   Attorneys' Fees without a North Carolina court awarding such
   Filing & Service Fees and Attorneys' Fees to Defendants."

   Excluded from the classes are: (a) any Judge or Magistrate
   presiding over this action and members of their families; (b)
   Camden and any entity which Camden has a controlling interest
   or which has a controlling interest in Camden and all legal
   representatives; (c) all persons who properly execute and file
   a timely request for exclusion from the classes.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=toVX3bPI

Attorneys for Jorge Suarez:

          Scott C. Harris, Esq.
          Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600 5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600 5035
          E-mail: scott@wbmllp.com
                  pat@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Edward H. Maginnis, Esq.
          Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq.
          MAGINNIS LAW, PLLC
          4801 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 310
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Telephone: (919) 526 0450
          Facsimile: (919) 882 8763
          E-mail: emaginnis@maginnislaw.com
                  kgwaltney@maginnislaw.com


CAMPBELL SOUP: Deceptively Packaged Products, Sims Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
HORTENSE SIMS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, a New Jersey
Corporation; and Y&R, a New York Corporation, the Defendants,
Case No. 5:18-cv-00668 (C.D. Cal., April 4, 2018), seeks an order
compelling Defendants to, inter alia: (1) cease packaging,
distributing, advertising and selling the Products in violation
of California law; (2) re-label or recall all existing
deceptively packaged Products; (3) conduct a corrective
advertising campaign to fully inform California consumers; (4)
award Plaintiff and other Class-members restitution, actual
damages, and punitive damages; and (5) pay all costs of suit,
expenses, and attorney fees.

According to the complaint, the Defendants manufacture, package,
distribute, advertise, market, and sell fruit-flavored beverage
products under the trade name "V8 Splash (TM)". These Products
are all falsely advertised in California. First, the Products'
labels convey to the consumer that these are healthy, natural
beverages, brimming with healthful fruit and vegetable juices.
This is simply false. The Products consist of water and corn
syrup with minimal amounts of reconstituted carrot juice and 2%
or less of the juice of all the fruits and berries the Products
are named for combined.

The Defendant's "Berry Blend" Product, for example, contains less
than 2% of the juice of all of the berries shown on its label,
combined. The Defendant's "Strawberry Kiwi" Product contains less
than 2% of the juices of kiwi fruit and strawberries combined.
The Defendants cover up the near-absence of actual fruit juice in
the Products by instead adding artificial flavoring but conceal
this fact from consumers. The Products are labeled as if they are
flavored only with natural ingredients when in fact the Products
are artificially flavored. Defendants' packaging, labeling, and
advertising scheme is intended to give consumers the impression
that they are buying a premium, 'all natural' product with
natural flavoring ingredients instead of a product that is
artificially flavored. The Plaintiff, who was deceived by
Defendants' unlawful conduct and purchased one or more of the
Products multiple times in California during the proposed Class
Period, brings this action, on her own behalf and on behalf of
California consumers similarly situated, to remedy Defendant's
unlawful acts.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696 9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564 6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  mike@consumersadvocates.com


CAPGEMINI NORTH: Two Subclasses Certified in "Bhattacharya" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly denies the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification without prejudice in part (with respect to
count 1) and grants it in part (with respect to counts 2 through
4) in the lawsuit titled PRANAV BHATTACHARYA and NAVANEETHA
KOOTHAPILLAI, individually and for all others similarly situated
v. CAPGEMINI NORTH AMERICA, INC., CAPGEMINI FINANCIAL SERVICES
USA, INC., and PETER KORNOWSKE, Case No. 1:16-cv-07950 (N.D.
Ill.).

The Court certifies these subclasses:

     Subclass one:

     All current and former Indian national employees who elected
     coverage under defendants' group health plan, together with
     their spouses, from August 8, 2014 to the date of judgment
     in this action, who were not provided written notice of
     their COBRA rights at the time of commencement of coverage
     under the plan; and

     Subclass two:

     All current and former Indian national employees who elected
     coverage under defendants' group health plan, together with
     their spouses and other covered dependents and who were not
     provided notice of COBRA continuation coverage upon loss of
     coverage under Capgemini FS's group health plan as a result
     of a "transfer" from Capgemini FS to Capgemini India from
     August 8, 2014 to the date of judgment in this action.

Pranav Bhattacharya and Navaneetha Koothapillai have filed suit
against Capgemini Financial Services USA, Inc. (now known as
Capgemini America, Inc.), its parent company Capgemini North
America, Inc., and Peter Kornowske, a former Capgemini Financial
Services USA employee, for alleged violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, as amended by the Consolidated
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985.  The Plaintiffs, who
were employed by Capgemini Financial Services USA, have asserted
four claims arising from the Defendants' alleged failure to
comply with a number of ERISA and COBRA requirements related to
group health plans and continuation coverage.

Bhattacharya and Koothapillai are appointed as class
representatives, and their current counsel are appointed as class
counsel.  The Court defers ruling on the parties' pending cross-
motions for summary judgment to allow time for class members to
receive notice of the action and to avoid running afoul of the
rule against one-way intervention.

The case was set for an in-person status hearing last March 28,
2018, at 9:30 a.m.  The Court expected the parties, before that
date, to discuss and attempt to agree upon a proposed class
notice or notices and to work on compiling a list of appropriate
notice recipients.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CO3VNio5


CAPEX OILFIELD: "Adams" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
ZACH ADAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAPEX OILFIELD SERVICES, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00323 (W.D. Pa., March 12, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act,
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay
Act.

Capex provides oilfield services and rental equipment to the
energy industry. Capex operates throughout the United States,
including in Pennsylvania and Ohio. To carry out its work, Capex
employed Plaintiff and other workers like him and typically
scheduled them for 12-hour shifts, seven days a week, for weeks
at a time. But these workers never received overtime for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. The Defendant
paid these workers a daily rate with no overtime pay and
classified them as independent contractors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Jennifer M. Solak, 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
                  jsolak@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
          3634 California Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 766 1455
          Facsimile: (412) 766 0300
          E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, 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


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Clemons" Suit in S.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Management
Services. The case is styled as Brasher Clemons, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capital
Management Services and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-01073 (S.D. Tex, April 4, 2018).

Capital Management Services L.P., a collections agency, provides
delinquent receivables resolutions. It monitors and tracks debt
collection laws, state licensing, company profile, and client
contractual expectations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan David Kandelshein, Esq.
   The Law Office of Jonathan Kandelshein
   18208 Preston Rd, Ste D-9 No. 256
   Dallas, TX 75252
   Tel: (646) 753-0149
   Email: Jonathan.kandelshein@gmail.com


CELLULAR SALES: Prall Sues over Autodialed Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
TRAVIS PRALL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CELLULAR SALES OF KNOXVILLE, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00136 (E.D. Tenn., March 29,
2018), seeks award of statutory damages resulting from
Defendant's practice of placing autodialed telemarketing calls to
individuals in the absence of prior express written consent, and
in the absence of any "do not call" policy or training, in
violation of two separate provisions Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, despite not having such a policy or
conducting this training, as required by law prior to making
telemarketing calls, Defendant has placed numerous autodialed
calls to Plaintiff's cellular telephone. The Plaintiff has had no
contact with Defendant, done no business with Defendant, and has
never provided Defendant prior express written consent to place
calls to his cellular telephone.

Cellular Sales Of Knoxville, Inc. operates a network of Verizon
Wireless retail stores in the United States. It offers various
phones and devices, including basic phones, smartphones, tablets,
and mobile hotspot Internet devices; and accessories, such as
cases and protections, batteries and chargers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Jeremy M. Glapion, Esq.
THE GLAPION LAW FIRM, LLC
1704 Maxwell Drive
Wall, New Jersey 07719
Telephone: (732) 455 9737
Facsimile: (732) 709 5150
E-mail: jmg@glapionlaw.com


CLEVELAND MEDICAL: Pennimans Sue over Damaged Frozen Embryos
------------------------------------------------------------
WENDY AND RICK PENNIMAN, individually and on the behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSITY
HOSPITALS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.; UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS CLEVELAND
MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a as, inter alia, University Hospitals Rainbow
Babies & Children's Hospital And University Hospitals MacDonald
Women's Hospital; UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS AHUJA MEDICAL CENTER,
INC.; JOHN DOE PROFESSIONAL CORP.; JOHN DOE MECHANIC; JOHN DOES
I-X; JOHN DOE MANUFACTURER; JOHN DOE MONITOR; and JOHN DOE
SECURITY COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. CV 18 894396 (Ohio
Court Of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, March 12, 2018), seeks to
recover damages, equitable relief, and other remedies from
Defendants as a result of their misconduct which caused
irreparable and permanent damage to their frozen eggs and
embryos.

The Defendants are in the business of protecting, preserving,
extracting and storing Plaintiff's and other Class members' eggs
and embryos at a University Hospital Fertility Center located at
the Ahuja Medical Center located at 3999 Richmond Road,
Beachwood, Ohio 44122. The damage and harm occurred when the
temperature in the storage tank which the Defendants were using
to store, preserve and maintain the viability of embryos and eggs
rose. The temperature increase impacted more than 2,000 vials of
eggs and embryos, affecting the Plaintiffs and other Class
members.

The Defendants' gross and inexcusable conduct was a breach of
trust, confidence, decency, stewardship and professionalism,
Defendants' actions or lack thereof have ruined and destroyed the
hopes, aspirations and dreams of countless prospective parents
and families. Defendants' actions have ruined the last chance for
the Plaintiffs, as well as other Class members, to have children
or additional children. Defendants have not reached out to the
Plaintiffs and other Class members properly for their misconduct
and negligence, advising them of the extent of damage done to
their eggs and embryos, and not offering them proper compensation
and psychological counseling.

University Hospitals Health System, Inc. provides health care
services. The Company manages a network of hospitals, clinics,
and physicians for the provision of emergency care, women's
services, cancer care, and pediatric services. Fairview Health
Services serves customers in State of Ohio.[BN]

                           *     *     *

Another lawsuit was filed by the Plaintiffs on March 30.  The
case is captioned, WENDY AND RICK PENNIMAN, individually and on
the behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.; UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS
CLEVELAND MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a as, inter alia, University'
Hospitals Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital And University
Hospitals MacDonald Women's Hospital; and UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS
AHUJA MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; JOHN DOE PROFESSIONAL CORP.; JOHN DOE
MECHANIC; JOHN DOES I-X; JOHN DOE MANUFACTURER; JOHN DOE MONITOR;
and JOHN DOE SECURITY COMPANY, Case No. CV 18 895503 (Ohio Court
of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga Cty., March 30, 2018), and seeks
judgment declaring that life begins at the moment of conception;
therefore declaring the legal status of embryos is that of a
person.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs, began going to the
Defendant's fertility clinic in May 2013 to address their
unexplained recurrent miscarriages. In April 2014, the Plaintiffs
decided to undergo IVF treatment in an effort to have a child at
a later date when the underlying cause of her prior eleven
miscarriages could be determined. In April 2014, Plaintiff Wendy
Penniman went through IVF treatment and had three high graded
viable embryos frozen. After discovering the underlying cause of
their miscarriages, the Plaintiffs were able to have two
successful pregnancies and planned to use the frozen viable
embryos to have a third child. The Plaintiffs' frozen embryos
were under the Defendant's care and protection being stored in a
storage tank at the fertility clinic at Ahuja Medical Center.

On or about March 3, 2018, the storage tank housing the
Plaintiffs embryos had a significant temperature increase, going
from -160/-170 degrees to around -40 degrees, thereby destroying
the viability of the embryos. The Defendant did not become aware
of the temperature change until March 4. While the Defendant has
publicly taken responsibility for the loss of the embryos, the
Defendant is treating the embryos as chattel and simply offering
to reimburse the Plaintiffs for the production of the embryos.
The Plaintiffs view the embryos as patients of the Defendant, who
should have been protected as such. The Defendant knew weeks
prior to the incident that the storage tanks were malfunctioning
and ran the risk of losing embryos due to the malfunctioning
tanks. Had the Defendant treated these embryos as patients, and
as persons, immediate steps would have been taken to prevent
their loss. The Defendant, however, did not take these immediate
steps therefore showing that the Defendant regards the embryos as
chattel.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bruce D. Taubman, Esq.
          Brian M. Taubman, Esq.
          TAUBMAN LAW
          1826 West 25th Street
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 621 0794
          Facsimile: (216) 621 8886
          E-mail: brucetaubman@taubmanlaw.net
                  briantaubman@taubmanlaw.net


COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL: Faces Sage Apts Suit in N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Commercial
Industrial Building Owner's Alliance, Inc. The case is styled as
Sage Apts, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Commercial
Industrial Building Owner's Alliance, Inc., a California
corporation dba CIBA Insurance Services and Great Lakes Insurance
SE fka Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) SE, a German corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02045 (N.D. Cal., April 4, 2018).

Commercial Industrial Building Owner's Alliance, Inc. is in the
Surety Insurance business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   William A. Levin, Esq.
   Levin Simes LLP
   353 Sacramento Street, 20th Floor
   San Francisco, CA 94111
   Tel: (415) 426-3000
   Fax: (415) 426-3001
   Email: wlevin@levinsimes.com


CONTEGO SERVICES: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Orlow Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
ERIC ORLOW, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CONTEGO SERVICES GROUP,
LLC; and DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
BC700446 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 4, 2018), seeks to recover wages
and/or overtime under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, from at least four years prior to the
filing of this action continuing to the present, Defendant has
had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages and/or overtime
to all Proposed Class Members when they work more than eight
hours in a day or 40 hours in a week. The Plaintiff and other
Proposed Class Members were not properly compensated for overtime
at the appropriate rate of pay.

Contego Services provides insurance and cost containment
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq.
          Ari J. Stiller, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd, Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990 8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990 2903
          E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
                  liane@kingsleykingsley.com
                  ari@kingsleykingsley.com


COCONINO, AZ: "Tenorio-Serrano" Suit Moved to Fed. District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Guillermo Tenorio-Serrano, as an
individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Petitioner, v. James Driscoll, Coconino County Sheriff; Matt
Figueroa, Jail Commander of the Coconino County Jail; and Matt
Ryan, Lena Fowler, Jim Parks, Elizabeth Archuleta, and Art
Babbott, member of the Board of Directors of the Coconino County
Jail District, the Respondents, Case No. CV201800144, was removed
from the Coconino County Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona (Prescott Division) on April 4,
2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-08075-
DGC-BSB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
David G Campbell.[BN]

The Petitioner is represented by:

          Kathryn Grace Mahady, Esq.
          ASPEY WATKINS & DIESEL PLLC
          123 N San Francisco St., Ste. 300
          Flagstaff, AZ 86001
          Telephone: (928) 774 1478
          Facsimile: (928) 774 8404
          E-mail: kmahady@awdlaw.com

Attorneys for James Driscoll and Matt Figueroa:

          John T Masterson, Esq.
          Justin Michael Ackerman, Esq.
          Michele Molinario, Esq.
          JONES SKELTON & HOCHULI PLC
          40 N Central Ave., Ste. 2700
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 263 1700
          Facsimile: (602) 200 7846
          E-mail: jmasterson@jshfirm.com
                  jackerman@jshfirm.com
                  mmolinario@jshfirm.com


CADILLAC LOUNGE: "Pizzarelli" Suit Wins Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARISA PIZZARELLI, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE CADILLAC
LOUNGE, L.L.C.; NANCY SHAPPY; and RICHARD SHAPPY; all d/b/a/ THE
CADILLAC LOUNGE, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-00254-WES-PAS
(D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge William E. Smith entered an order on
March 30, 2018:

   1. denying the Defendant's motion for summary judgment; and

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

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1qZaNGF7


CIGNA CORP: Judge Allows Drug Pricing Class Action to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Cigna
Corp. suffered a big setback in a proposed class action accusing
it of overcharging for prescription drugs when a federal judge
refused to dismiss most of a 10-count complaint against the
insurer.

The proposed class of "thousands" of people in health plans
insured and administered by Cigna is moving forward with most of
their claims under federal employee benefits and racketeering
law, according to a March 12 decision by a federal judge in
Connecticut. [GN]


COACH INC: Vaughn Seeks to Certify Store Manager Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARTHA VAUGHN, on behalf of herself, all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COACH, INC, DBA
COACH LEATHERWARE CALIFORNIA INC., a Maryland corporation; and
DOES 1-50 inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-04633-VC
(N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an order:

   1. certifying Store Manager Class:

      "all individuals employed by Coach in the position of Store
      Manger in California at any time since June 29, 2012.
      Excluded from the Store Manager Class are those periods of
      time where an individual was employed as a Store Manager in
      a Coach store overseen by a General Manager";

   2. appointing Martha Vaughn as representative of the proposed
      classes or later proposed and approved by the Court and any
      other sub-class the Court may devise;

   3. appointing Shaun Setareh and H. Scott Leviant of Setareh
      Law Group as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
      23(g); and,

   4. issuing such other Orders as necessary to effectuate the
      Court's certification Order.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3joQvB52

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888 7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888 0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  scott@setarehlaw.com


COLLEGIATE HOUSING: "Dearman" Suit Has Conditional Class Cert.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GREG DEARMAN on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. COLLEGIATE HOUSING
SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00057-RJC-DCK
(W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Conrad entered an order on
March 29, 2018, granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class
conditionally as a collective action and facilitate notice under
29 U.S.C. section 216(b).

The Court said, "While Defendant raises valid concerns regarding
the certification of Plaintiff's purported class, those concerns
are better addressed in the later stages of this litigation under
a more fact-intensive inquiry. For now, Plaintiffs have met the
lenient standard of providing minimal evidence to prove that
potential plaintiffs are similarly situated."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kUUw5Ibc


CONCENTRIX CORP: Armstrong Moves to Certify Class of AHCSRs
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled as ASHLEY ARMSTRONG,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v.
CONCENTRIX CORPORATION, a New York corporation, Case No. 3:16-cv-
05363-WHO (N.D. Cal.), asks the Court to certify a class pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act:

     All current and former hourly At-Home Customer Service
     Representatives who work or have worked for Concentrix
     Corporation any time from December 14, 2015 through the date
     of judgment.

According to the Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities
in support of the Motion, the gravamen of the complaint is that
the Defendant maintained a company-wide compensation policy
pursuant to which it failed to pay its AHCSRs for integral and
indispensable work performed "off-the-clock" before, during, and
after their shifts.

The Court will commence a hearing on May 2, 2018, at 2:00 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Notice of Motion and Memorandum of Points is
available at no charge at:

  http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=n9wfXZ62

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Charles R. Ash, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          Facsimile: (248) 436-8453
          E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                  crash@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638-8800
          Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
          E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com


CONN APPLIANCES: "Gerlach" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JASON GERLACH AND MANUEL MAYORAL, ON BEHALF
OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs,
v. CONN APPLIANCES, INC., CONN'S INC., AND CONN CREDIT CORP.,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00860-LY (W.D. Tex.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of:

   "all persons within the United States who, on or after July
   12, 2012, received a non-emergency telephone call from CONNS
   to a cellular telephone through the use of an automatic
   telephone dialing system who did not provide prior express
   consent for such calls during the transaction that resulted in
   the debt owed and where defendant's records do not show that
   the person was customer of CONNS".

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TOtDb3ao

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian J. Trenz, Esq.
          David P. Schafer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID SCHAFER, PLLC
          2139 N.W. Military Hwy, Suite 200
          San Antonio, TX 78213
          Telephone: (210) 348 0500
          Facsimile: (210) 348 0520
          E-mail: brian@helpingtexas.com
                  david@helpingtexas.com

               - and -

          Samuel Meyler, Esq.
          Samuel W. Eastman, Esq.
          EASTMAN MEYLER, PC
          2301 E. Riverside Dr.
          Bldg. A, Suite 50
          Austin, TX 78741
          Telephone: (844) 466 7326
          Facsimile: (512) 879 1861
          E-mail: sam.meyler@emfirm.com
                  sam.eastman@emfirm.com


CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Class Certification Sought in "Bartz" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Bartz moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit styled CRYSTAL BARTZ, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, LP, Case No. 2:18-cv-00412 (E.D. Wisc.), and further
asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification
and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the
Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring
briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of
the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the
court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing
of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual
settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision
cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from
representing a class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing
Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App.
LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017).  The Plaintiff
asserts that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by
sending a certified check to the proposed class representative.
Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also
Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No.
15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24,
2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense
when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an
amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tjohsIY6

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


CVS PHARMACY: Class Certification Bid in "Lowe" Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Carl Lowe, et al., the Plaintiff, v. CVS
Pharmacy, Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:14-cv-03687
(N.D. Ill.), the Court will send out an agenda and contact the
parties with proposed dates shortly relating to motion for class
certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 30,
2018, after considering the parties' submissions related to the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the Court believes
that oral argument would be helpful with respect to certain
issues that have not been fully addressed in the parties' briefs.
The Court will send out an agenda and contact the parties with
proposed dates shortly.

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


DAN LEPKE TRUCKING: Court Denies Certification of Three Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TIMOTHY CONNELLY, DAVID WINCHELL,
RAYMOND SCHLICHT, and RODNEY SCHLICHT, the Plaintiffs, v. DAN
LEPKE TRUCKING LLC and LEPKE TRUCKING & EXCAVATING LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-00308-jdp (W.D. Wisc.), the Hon.
Judge James D. Peterson entered an order:

   1. denying three classes of:

      "drivers who did not receive separate hourly pay for all
      hours worked before their trucks were loaded for the first
      time and after their trucks were unloaded for the final
      time;

      "employees who worked more than 40 hours in a workweek and
      did not work across state lines during the four months
      preceding that workweek; and


      "drivers who worked more than 40 hours in a workweek
      regardless whether they worked across state lines during
      the four months preceding that workweek; and

   2. directing Plaintiffs to inform the court whether they want
      an opportunity to join more plaintiffs until April 6, 2018,
      until then, briefing on plaintiffs' motion for summary
      judgment is stayed.

The Court said, "plaintiffs have failed to show that the proposed
class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable. It follows
from this conclusion that plaintiffs should have an opportunity
to join other interested employees under Rule 20 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. The only wrinkle is that plaintiffs
recently filed a motion for summary judgment, even though the
deadline for doing so is not until May 7. Obviously, if
plaintiffs add more employees to the case, it could affect the
scope of their summary judgment motion. Accordingly, the court
will give plaintiffs an opportunity to inform the court whether
they want an opportunity to join more plaintiffs. If they do, the
court will set a deadline for filing an amended complaint and
deny their summary judgment motion without prejudice to their
renewing it after they file an amended complaint."

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


DRW HOLDINGS: Manipulated VIX-Linked Investment Prices, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Quint, on behalf himself, and a class consisting of
similarly situated persons v. DRW Holdings, LLC and John Does,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01980 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2018), arises from the
Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement
and conspiracy to manipulate markets to restrain trade of the
prices of VIX-Linked Investments.

The Defendants own and operate a trading company that trades
different financial instruments and asset classes. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron L. Brody, Esq.
      Michael J. Klein, Esq.
      STULL, STULL & BRODY
      6 East 45th Street
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 687-7230
      Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
      E-mail: abrody@ssbny.com mklein@ssbny.com


DST SYSTEMS: Faces Securities Class Action in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, on March 12 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware, case No. 1:18-cv-00286, on behalf of
shareholders of DST Systems, Inc. ("DST Systems" or the
"Company") (NYSE: DST) who have been harmed by DST Systems' and
its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") in connection with the proposed merger of
the Company with certain affiliates of SS&C Technologies, Inc.

On January 11, 2018, the Board caused the Company to enter into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Proposed Transaction"),
pursuant to which the Company's shareholders stand to receive
$84.00 in cash for each share of DST Systems stock they own. The
shareholder vote on the Proposed Transaction is expected to occur
on March 28, 2018.

The complaint alleges that the preliminary proxy statement (the
"Proxy") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") on February 7, 2018, violates Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act because it provides materially incomplete and
misleading information about the Company and the Proposed
Transaction, including information concerning the Company's
financial projections and analysis, on which the Board relied to
recommend the Proposed Transaction as fair to DST Systems
shareholders.

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action, you can
do so by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/DSTnotice.

Take Action

Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and
significant expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains
its principal office in New York City, with offices in Delaware,
California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from March 12, 2018, the date of this
notice.  Any member of the putative class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you
wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact:

         Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
         James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
         FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
         685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
         E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                 jwilson@faruqilaw.com [GN]


DUKE ENERGY: Court Conditionally Certifies Hourly Workers Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOHN BOWSER on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DUKE ENERGY, THE EMPYREAN
GROUP, LLC, and GUIDANT GROUP, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-00482-DSC (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. District Judge David
Stewart Cercone entered an order on March 30, 2018:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification;

   2. conditionally certifying case as collective action to:

      "all hourly workers assigned to Duke through Guidant's
      network of staffing companies who did not receive at least
      time and one-half of their regular hourly rate for hours
      worked in excess of forty in any workweek -- from April 21,
      2013, to date -- for the purposes of notice and pretrial
      discovery."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2CPPsUhm


DURHAM SCHOOL: Romo Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled YUDINA ROMO, as an individual and on behalf
of all similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. DURHAM
SCHOOL SERVICES, L.P.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendant Case No. 1:17-cv-01929 (N.D. Ill.), Plaintiffs will
move the Court for an Order:

   1. granting preliminary approval of a proposed class action
      settlement;

   2. certifying for settlement purposes a Class pursuant to
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) and/or 23(b)(2)
      defined as:

      "all persons employed by Durham in California as either a
      bus driver or bus attendant (who are also sometimes known
      as a "bus monitor") in any workweek from May 12, 2012 to
      December 31, 2017";

   3. appointing Plaintiffs Shemuel Chavez, Yudina Romo, Terrilyn
      Russell and Donisha Shann;

   4. appointing Plaintiffs' Counsel Kevin Allen and Treana L.
      Allen of ALLEN LAW GROUP, APC, as Class Counsel for
      settlement purposes;

   5. approving the proposed notice of class action settlement
      to be mailed to class members;

   6. approving the opt out and objection procedures provided in
      the Settlement Agreement and set forth in the Notice;

   7. directing Defendant Durham to furnish the Settlement
      Administrator within 15 calendar days after the Court
      grants preliminary approval of the Settlement a database
      containing the following information for each Class Member
      including name, last known address, and social security
      number; and

   8. setting a final fairness approval hearing.

The proposed Settlement delivers immediate and substantial
benefits to the settlement class. Specifically, the proposed
Settlement calls for Defendant to pay $3,875,000.00 to
approximately 4,888 current and former Class Members.

The proposed Settlement requires Defendant to pay the entire
gross settlement amount, with no monies reverting back to
Defendant. The proposed Settlement will provide average net
distributions to individual employees in the range of $500.  This
Settlement will bring real money to class members. Prior to
reaching this proposed settlement, Plaintiffs estimated
Defendant's total maximum exposure at approximately $14,900,000.
This included Defendant's potential exposure for Plaintiffs' Wage
Statement Claim as well as waiting time penalties pursuant to
Cal. Labor Code section 203. While Plaintiffs are confident in
their ability to certify the proposed classes, the risk, expense,
and complexity of continued litigation all support preliminary
approval of the proposed Settlement. There are many unresolved
legal and procedural issues and Defendant strongly and
consistently maintains that class certification in this matter is
not appropriate. In addition, if Plaintiffs were to certify the
proposed classes, litigation would continue for possible years on
merits and damage issues. Although Plaintiffs are confident that
any trial would be meritorious and successful, they are not blind
to the significant risk of losing at trial, including the
enormous costs, and the potential to overcome a high standard on
any appeal.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mI0ikSA6

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Allen, Esq.
          Treana L. Allen, Esq.
          ALLEN LAW GROUP, APC
          249 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590 5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590 8400
          E-mail: kAllen@Allen-law.net
                  tallen@Allen-law.net

               - and -

          Lisa L. Clay, Esq.
          345 North Canal Street Suite C202
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 753 5302
          Facsimile: (312) 544 4415
          E-mail: lclayaal@gmail.com


E.N.T. ASSOCIATES: "O'Keefe" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Brittany O'Keefe, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. E.N.T. Associates of
Greater New York, PLLC, the Defendants, Case No. 704857/2018
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 30, 2018), seeks to recover all unpaid
wages including her unpaid overtime wages, unlawful wage
deductions, maximum compensation for not receiving notices and
statements, maximum liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys'
fees pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant employed dozens of
employees at any given time and over 80 medical assistants during
the class period across several locations. The Plaintiff was
employed by Defendant from on or about August 3, 2015 to on or
about June 21, 2017 as a medical assistant performing all manual,
physical and repetitive tasks, including handling patients,
cleaning instruments, moving equipment, filing etc. throughout
her workday. The Plaintiff was paid at a regular rate of about
$13 an hour. The Plaintiff and the putative class members were
paid on a biweekly basis in violation of NYLL. The Defendant
failed to pay Plaintiff for each and all hours worked in each
week during her employment with Defendant. The Plaintiff was also
not paid any wages for work performed during the last three days
of her employment with Defendant. The Defendant did not provide
Plaintiff with the notice(s) required by NYLL.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
          ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          215-28 Hillside Avenue
          Queens Village, NY 11427
          Telephone: (718) 740 1000
          Facsimile: (718) 740 2000


EKSO BIONICS: Shareholders File Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on March 13
disclosed that purchasers of Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc.
(NasdaqCM: EKSO) have filed a class action complaint against the
company's officers and directors for alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between March 15, 2017 and
December 27, 2017.  Ekso designs, develops, and sells
exoskeletons for use in the healthcare, industrial, military, and
consumer markets in North America, Europe, the Middle East, and
Africa.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
www.robbinsarroyo.com/ekso-bionics-holdings-inc

Ekso Accused of Implementing Unreliable Internal Controls

According to the complaint, Ekso repeatedly attested to the
accuracy of the company's financial reporting, the disclosure of
any material changes to its internal controls over financial
reporting, and the disclosure of all fraud in its public filings.
It therefore came as a surprise to investors when Ekso disclosed
on December 14, 2017, that its internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2016 should not be relied upon.
Ekso cited a reevaluation of the company's information technology
controls by the company's auditor.  On December 27, 2017, Ekso
filed its amended annual report for 2016 and amended quarterly
reports for the first three quarters of 2017.  Since news of
Ekso's financial troubles became public, the company's stock
declined over 24%, closing at $1.83 per share on March 9, 2018.

Ekso Shareholders Have Legal Options

If you would like more information about your rights and
potential remedies, contact attorney Leonid Kandinov at (800)
350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the shareholder
information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- is a
shareholder rights law firm.  The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more
than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in
which they have invested. [GN]


EL TAQUITOS: Faces "Galeana" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against El Taquitos Corp.
The case is styled as Gabriela Galeana and N.G., a minor by his
parent and natural guardian Nicolas Galeana, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. El Taquitos Corp., Ricardo Rodriguez and Rocio Nava,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02950 (S.D. N.Y., April 3, 2018).

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

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


ELTMAN LAW: "Alejandro" Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jonathan Alejandro, On Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Eltman Law, P.C.; Navient Solutions, LLC, formerly known as:
Navient Solutions, Inc.; and VL Funding, LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 604471/2018, was removed from the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, Suffolk County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip) on March 29,
2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-01914 to
the proceeding.

Eltman Law is a national law firm with direct practices in New
York, California, Florida, Texas, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, New
Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Missouri, and
Kentucky.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Jared Hale Louzon, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF SIMON GOLDENBERG, PLLC
818 East 16th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11230
Telephone: (347) 640 4357
Facsimile: (347) 472 0347
E-mail: jlouzon@goldenbergfirm.com

Attorneys for Navient Solutions, LLC:

Ashley Bryne Huddleston, Esq.
VEDDER PRICE P.C.
1633 Broadway
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 407 7700
Facsimile: (212) 407 7799
E-mail: ahuddleston@vedderprice.com


EMERALD COAST: Settles Class Action Over VirnetX Patent Troll
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a Florida
optometry practice agreed to pay $180,000 to settle a class
action challenging its decision to over-invest 401(k) assets in
alleged "patent troll" VirnetX.

The deal resolves a lawsuit claiming Emerald Coast Eye Institute
and its founder, Dr. Samuel Poppell, directed a significant
portion of the 401(k) plan's assets into the stock of VirnetX, a
company that allegedly specialized in acquiring patents and
attempting to bring litigation against violators of those
patents. Poppell, who allegedly had no background in investment
management, learned of VirnetX through "online message boards and
unqualified or speculative investment blog-type websites,"
according to the lawsuit.

The $180,000 settlement is in addition to a deal between Emerald
Eye and the Labor Department in which the company agreed to
reimburse workers' out-of-pocket losses plus some interest,
settlement papers indicate.  VirnetX's poor performance -- it
allegedly lost 50 percent of its value in a single day in 2014
and declined more than 90 percent since June 2012 -- caused the
plan to suffer actual losses of more than $600,000 and
"underperformance damages" of more than $500,000, according to
the complaint.

The lawsuit is noteworthy for being one of a growing number of
class actions to challenge modestly sized 401(k) plans.  Emerald
Eye's plan had 25 participants and less than $500,000 in assets
during the period covered by this lawsuit, according to
government filings.  Most 401(k) class actions have been filed
against plans with billions or hundreds of millions of dollars in
assets, although recent cases have targeted auto body repair
provider LaMettry's Collision Inc. and Checksmart Financial LLC,
both of which had less than $30 million in 401(k) assets. The
case against LaMettry's was voluntarily dismissed in 2016.

The Emerald Coast workers are represented by Levin Papantonio
Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor PA, which stands to receive
$36,000 in attorneys' fees -- 20 percent of the settlement -- if
the deal is approved.  The defendants are represented by Clark
Partington Hart Larry Bond & Stackhouse.

The case is McLain v. Poppell, N.D. Fla., No. 3:16-cv-00502-MCR-
CJK, motion for settlement approval 3/12/18. It's pending before
Chief Judge M. Casey Rodgers of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Florida. [GN]


EMERALD LAWNS: Court Certifies Class of Spray Technician
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled AMONDO ARCE AND BERNARD WILLIAMS, on behalf
of themselves and a class of those similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. EMERALD LAWNS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-00900-SS (W.D. Tex.), the Court entered an order:

   1. conditionally certifying as a collective action under 29
      U.S.C. section 2 16(b), and will proceed as such until
      further order of the Court, on behalf of class members
      which shall include:

      "all persons who held the position of Spray Technician at
      any time during the period from September 13, 2014, through
      to the present and were not paid overtime for hours worked
      in excess of 40 in a workweek";

   2. authorizing expedited issuance of proposed notice in
      support of their motion, to be delivered or otherwise
      disseminated by delivery service (including, but not
      limited to United States mail, DHL, FedEx, United Parcel
      Service or other similar private delivery service), or
      email to all current and former employees who worked as
      Spray Technicians for Defendant for the past three years
      who were not paid at the rate of at least one-and-one-half
      of their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in
      excess of 40 hours in a workweek;

   3. directing Defendant to provide Plaintiffs' counsel a
      computer readable data file containing the names, all
      addresses, all email addresses, and all telephone numbers
      of all the potential opt-in Plaintiffs as defined in the
      previous paragraph within 14 days of this Order;

   4. Upon the production of such contact information, permitting
      Plaintiffs' counsel to send notices by mail and email
      within a period of 45 days from the date of production;

   5. directing Plaintiffs' counsel to file an advisory of the
      sending of such notices with this Court within three
      business days of doing so; in those advisories, Plaintiffs'
      counsel shall specify the date and manner by which they
      sent those notices;

   6. directing that the notice shall inform all potential opt-in
      Plaintiffs that they shall have until the date that is 60
      days from the date such notices are first sent as indicated
      in the Plaintiffs' counsel's first advisory contemplated in
      the previous paragraph to deposit in the mail, or return by
      email or fax, their Consents to Join to counsel for
      Plaintiffs; and

   7. authorizing Plaintiffs to offer potential opt-in Plaintiffs
      the option to consent to join this collective action
      through the use of electronic signatures, where Plaintiffs
      may use Adobe Document Cloud E-Sign Services, or a similar
      electronic signature program.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UxtbBRg6


ENAGIC USA: Faces "Makaron" Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enagic USA, Inc.
The case is styled as Edward Makaron, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Enagic USA, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-mc-00048-SJO-E (C.D. Cal., April 3,
2018).

Enagic USA, Inc. distributes water filtration systems and
ionizers to hospitals, restaurants, and homes in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David B. Levin, Esq.
   Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
   333 Skokie Boulevard, Suite 103
   Northbrook, IL 60062
   Tel: (888) 595-9111
   Fax: (866) 633-0228
   Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com


ENERGEN RESOURCES: Ulibarri Seeks Royalty Payments over Gas Sales
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GERALD ULIBARRI, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. ENERGEN RESOURCES
CORPORATION, the Defendant Case No. 1:18-cv-00294 (D.N.M., March
29, 2018), seeks judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the Class
members on their claim for Energen's breach of Royalty
Agreements, in an amount which equals the full amount of
Energen's royalty underpayments through May 31, 2015, plus
applicable prejudgment interest through the date of final
judgment.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a resident and
citizen of New Mexico, and has been paid royalties by Energen.
Energen did not pay royalties to Plaintiff or the Class on the
sale proceeds received on the sale of gas and/or the prevailing
market prices, including proceeds received on the sale of residue
gas, natural gas liquids, and condensate, to third party
purchasers. The proceeds received on the sale of gas, natural gas
liquids and condensate which came from Plaintiff's and the Class
members' wells are essentially equivalent to the prevailing
market price for such natural gas products.

Under the proceeds royalty provision, the gross proceeds royalty
provision, and the gross proceeds at the prevailing market rate
royalty provision, Energen was contractually obligated to pay
royalties based upon a specified percentage of the sales proceeds
received on the sale of the gas, including residue gas,
individual natural gas liquid products, and condensate, which
Energen produced from Plaintiff's and the Class members' Energen
Wells. Energen breached the applicable Royalty Agreements by
engaging in a common method of royalty accounting which: (1)
calculated a value for the royalties which were paid to Plaintiff
and the Class members that was substantially less than the sale
proceeds received on the sale of gas, including residue gas,
natural gas liquid products, and condensate, which came from
Plaintiff's and the Class members' Energen Wells; and (2)
improperly deducted costs for gathering, compression, processing,
NGPT, natural gas liquids transportation and fractionation, and
other costs and expenses.

As a direct result of Energen's breaches of the Class members'
Royalty Agreements, the royalties owed to Plaintiff and the
members of the Class were consistently and substantially
underpaid.

Energen Resources Corporation is the subsidiary of Energen
Corporation, an oil and gas exploration and production company
with headquarters in Birmingham, Alabama.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

George A. Barton, Esq.
Robert G. Harken
LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE A. BARTON, P.C.
7227 Metcalf Avenue, Suite 301
Overland Park, KS 66204
Telephone: (913) 563 6250
E-mail: gab@georgebartonlaw.com
        rob@georgebartonlaw.com

     - and -

Michael Chapman, Esq.
NEWBOLD CHAPMAN & GEYER PC
150 East Ninth Street, Suite 400
Durango, CO 81302
Telephone: (970) 247 3091
E-mail: mchapman@ncg-law.com


EOG RESOURCES: "Qualls" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on September 7, 2017 captioned
Marcus Qualls, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. EOG Resources, Inc., Bedrock Petroleum Consultants,
LLC and Jonathan Falcon, Case No. 1:17-cv-00916 was transferred
on March 2, 2018 from the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Mexico to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-
00666 to the proceeding.

The case asserts labor-related claims.

The Defendants own and operate an international energy company
engaged in exploration and production of oil and gas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Charles Borsellino, Esq.
      BORSELLINO, P.C.
      1020 Macon St., Suite 15
      Fort Worth, TX 76102
      Telephone: (817) 908-9861
      Facsimile: (817) 394-2412
      E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Carter Crow, Esq.
      Jesika Blanco, Esq.
      Kimberly Frances Cheeseman, Esq.
      NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
      1301 McKinney Street, Suite 5100
      Houston, TX 77010-3095
      Telephone: (713) 651-5151
      Facsimile: (713) 651-5246
      E-mail: carter.crow@nortonrosefulbright.com
              jesika.blanco@nortonrosefulbright.com
              kimberly.cheeseman@nortonrosefulbright.com

         - and -

      John Karl Ziegler, Esq.
      Robert C. Conklin, Esq.
      CONKLIN WOODCOCK ZIEGLER PC
      320 Gold Ave, SW, Ste 1111
      Albuquerque, NM 87102
      Telephone: (505) 224-9160
      E-mail: jkz@conklinfirm.com
              rcc@conklinfirm.com


EVA AIRWAYS: Settles Long-Haul Flight Price-Fixing Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
RJ Vogt, writing for Law360, reports that airline passengers
accusing a slew of airlines of fixing the price of long-haul
flights to Pacific destinations told a California federal judge
on March 13 they have agreed to settle with EVA Airways Corp. for
$21 million, marking the latest airline to settle out of the
sprawling multidistrict litigation.

In January, Philippine Airlines Inc., Air New Zealand Ltd. and
China Airlines Ltd. agreed to pay a total of $29.4 million to
settle the allegations.  Now EVA has followed suit, agreeing to
pay $21 million.

The case is In re TRANSPACIFIC PASSENGER AIR TRANSPORTATION
ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 3:07-cv-05634 (N.D. Calif.).  The
case is assigned to Judge Charles R. Breyer.  The case was filed
November 6, 2007.

EVA Airways is represented by Jonathan Jeffrey Faria, Esq.,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Jason Yuegin Kelly, Esq., Katten Muchin
Rosenman LLP, James Mutchnik, Esq., and Tammy Ann Tsoumas, Esq.,
Kirkland and Ellis LLP. [GN]


FEDEX FREIGHT: Bid to Certify Operations Supervisor Class Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GUILLERM O. PINA, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FEDEX FREIGHT,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-24274-FAM (S.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Judge Federico A. Mureno entered an order on April 5, 2018
denying Pina's motion for conditional certification on behalf of:

   "anyone who, like himself, worked as an Operations Supervisor
   for FedEx Freight during the three years prior to the
   initiation of this action. However, FedEx Freight contends
   that Pina's allegations are deficient and do not merit
   conditional certification."

The Court concludes that Pina has failed to meet his burden as to
the requirements provided in the case, Dybach v. State of Fla.
Dep't of Corr., 942 F.2d 1562, 1 567-68 (11th Cir. 1991).  In
Dybach, the court must first "satisfy itself that there are other
employees . . . who desire to 'opt-in' and who are 'similarly
situated' with respect to their job requirements and with regard
to their pay provisions."

Pina asserts that the proposed class consists of Operations
Supervisor who were similarly situated in that they performed
similar duties, were Operations Supervisors who were
misclassified as exempt and were paid one and half time' for a11
hours worked between 40 and 65 each week. Pina has failed to show
that the purported class consists of similarly situated employees
who desire to join the suit, the Court says.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PvQ8Klib


FIFTH THIRD BANK: Smith Sues over Out-of-Network ATM Fee
--------------------------------------------------------
CARNELL SMITH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FIFTH THIRD BANK, the Defendant, Case
No. 6:18-cv-00476-CEM-KRS (M.D. Fla., March 29, 2018), seeks to
recover damages arising from Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable assessment of two out-of-network ATM fee on out of
network ATM withdrawals preceded by a balance inquiry, and its
assessment of a 3% foreign transaction fee on amounts greater
than the transaction amount for which FTF should apply --
specifically, on the third party ATM cover fee for use of a
foreign ATM.

Such fee -- which are not disclosed to consumers at any point
during the ATM transaction and violate the agreement governing
the contractual relationship between Defendant and its customers
-- constitute a breach of contract and a breach of the covenant
of fair dealing with thousands of consumers and serves to enrich
Defendant to the tune of millions of dollars at the expense of
consumers.

Fifth Third Bank provides personal, small business, and
commercial banking and lending solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
Jake Philips, Esq.
NORMAND PLLC
62 W. Colonial Drive, Suite 209
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 603 6031
Facsimile: (888) 974 2174
E-mail: ed@ednormand.com
        jacob@ednormand.com


FLAGSHIP RESORT: Colosimo Seeks Collective Action Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CRISTINA COLOSIMO, individually and on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff(s), v. FLAGSHIP RESORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and JOHN
DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, the Defendant(s), Case No. 1:17-cv-03969-JHR-
JS (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an order
granting:

   1. conditional collective action certification pursuant to
      29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b);

   2. issuance of notice to all members of the putative
      collective class in accordance with Hoffman-LaRoche v.
      Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989);

   3. production to Plaintiff of all names, addresses and phone
      number of members of the putative collective class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rsTMrpe1

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Deborah L. Mains, Esq.
          COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
          18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 727 9700


FOOT LOCKER: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC on March 12 notified investors
that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Foot Locker,
Inc. ("Foot Locker") (NYSE: FL) and certain of its officers, on
behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Foot
Locker securities between August 19, 2016 and August 17, 2017,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").  Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/fl.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period,
defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose to investors that: (1) Foot Locker's vendors were
transitioning to selling through various online retailers,
diminishing the utility of Foot Locker's large number of brick
and mortar stores and the once-high value of its exclusivity
relationships with those vendors; (2) competition with online
retailers had increased the pricing competition Foot Locker faced
while also materially lowering the demand at Foot Locker stores;
and (3) as a result of defendants' failure to disclose this
information, Foot Locker stock was artificially inflated to a
high of $79.20 per share during the Class Period, while
executives were able to sell over 192,000 shares of their
personally held Foot Locker stock at artificially inflated prices
for gross proceeds of $13.3 million.

On August 18, 2017, Foot Locker revealed poor second quarter 2017
financial results, and a 6% drop in quarterly same-store sales
year-over-year, causing the substantial revenue miss.  Foot
Locker announced that it would close roughly 130 stores, more
than the 100 stores it had previously announced it would close
and on a conference call with investors and analysts that
morning, Foot Locker said it expected weaker sales for the
remainder of fiscal 2017.  Following this news, Foot Locker stock
dropped roughly 28% to close at $34.38 per share on August 18,
2017, on unusually high trading volume of more than 36.2 million
shares traded.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/flor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484.  If you
suffered a loss in Foot Locker you have until May 8, 2018 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve
as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC -- https://www.bgandg.com --
is a corporate litigation boutique.  Our primary expertise is the
aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients.
In addition to representing institutions and other investor
plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's
expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation,
as well as securities arbitration. [GN]


FOUR POINT CONSTRUCTION: Sandoval Suit Overtime Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
RONY SANDOVAL, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, v. FOUR POINT CONSTRUCTION SOLUTIONS,
LLC and JASON BLAYDES, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00365-
SDD-RLB (M.D. La., April 4, 2018), seeks to recover overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was always paid $19.00
per hour, irrespective of the number of hours he worked. His
actual regular rate of pay was therefore $19.00 per hour. The
Plaintiff's co-workers, largely Hispanic, non-English speaking
laborers, were also paid in accordance with this payroll scheme
in order to make it look as though they were paid overtime for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week (plus a "bonus" to
ensure that their gross pay reflected their promised rate of
pay).

Four Point Construction provides skilled drywall sub-contracting
services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Randall E. Estes, Esq.
          Daniel B. Davis, Esq.
          James R. Bullman, Esq.
          ESTES DAVIS LAW, LLC
          850 North Boulevard
          Baton Rouge, LA 70802
          Telephone: (225) 336 3394
          Facsimile: (225) 384 5419
          E-mail: james@estesdavislaw.com


FSB: Telegram Users File Privacy Class Action in Moscow
-------------------------------------------------------
Crime Russia reports that Telegram users asked the court to
declare the FSB actions, which requires the management of the
service to provide decryption keys to messages, illegal.

The claim on behalf of 35 users of Telegram was filed with the
Meshchansky court of Moscow by lawyers of the Roskomvoboda public
organization, TASS quotes its representative Sargis Darbinyan.

As noted in the statement of the claim, actions of the FSB
violate the rights of plaintiffs to privacy and secrecy of
correspondence.  Also, according to the plaintiffs, it could lead
to access to confidential information of all Telegram users.

The FSB approved the procedure for collecting encryption keys
shortly after the adoption of the anti-terror Yarovaya package.
In 2017, Telegram was included in the register of information
disseminators after threats of blocking by Roskomnadzor.  The FSB
required the service to provide data for decoding messages from
all users of the messenger.

After the refusal of the Telegram management to cooperate with
the FSB, the court fined the service for 800 thousand rubles
($14.050).  The messenger filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court
with a request to cancel the order on decryption of messages. The
lawsuit will be considered on March 20.

In December 2017 Roskomvoboda organization announced the launch
of the Battle for Telegram public campaign, inviting all users of
the service to join a collective lawsuit against the FSB. [GN]


FYRE MEDIA: Judge Consolidates Five Fyre Festival Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Jack Newsham, writing for Law360, reports that U.S. District
Judge P. Kevin Castel, who is overseeing five suits against the
backers of Fyre Festival, a proposed music festival in the
Bahamas that was cancelled at the last minute, consolidated the
cases on March 13 and appointed Geragos & Geragos APC to lead the
class action.

Lawyers for Jeffrey Atkins, the rapper better known as Ja Rule
who allegedly co-owned festival promoter Fyre Media Inc., said
they were nearing a settlement with two individual plaintiffs and
were in talks with others.

The case is IN RE Fyre Festival Litigation, Case No.
1:17-cv-03296 (S.D.N.Y.).  The case is assigned to Judge
P. Kevin Castel.  The case was filed May 3, 2017. [GN]


G. WELDING CONTRACTOR: Sanchez Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARCELINO SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. G. WELDING CONTRACTOR, CORP.,
a Florida Corporation, and ROBERLAY ROMERO, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-21179-FAM (S.D. Fla., March 29,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable attorneys' fees
under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, numerous work weeks between
approximately March 2015 and the present, Defendants have
willfully failed to comply with the requirements of the FLSA by,
inter alia: (a) failing to maintain contemporaneous records of
the actual start times, stop times, and total hours worked each
week by Plaintiff and Defendants' other non-exempt Welders and/or
Installers, however variously titled; and (b) failing to pay
overtime compensation for all of the actual overtime hours worked
by Plaintiff and those employees similarly situated to him as a
result of work being performed which Defendants willfully refused
to credit as compensable work time during -- including but not
necessarily limited to -- the following periods: (i) pick up or
drop off materials from Defendant's warehouse; and (ii) hours
worked on Defendants' job sites for which Defendants did not
credit Plaintiff's time and the other similarly situated to him.

The Defendants had knowledge of the actual hours worked by
Plaintiff and other similarly situated non-exempt employees in
multiple work weeks between March 2015 and the present, all of
which work was for the benefit of Defendants. Nonetheless,
Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to compensate Plaintiff
and the other similarly situated employees with time and one-half
wages for all of their actual overtime hours worked, instead
accepting the benefits of the work performed by Plaintiff and the
others similarly situated to him without paying the overtime
compensation required by the FLSA.

G. Welding Contractor is a full service metal and aluminum
fabricator providing welding and installation services of fences,
doors, decks, stairs, and railings, for residential and
commercial customers throughout the State of Florida, including
but not necessarily limited to in Miami-Dade and Broward County,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Keith M. Stern, Esq.
Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
One Flagler
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 901 1379
Facsimile: (561) 288 9031
E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
        hsolis@workingforyou.com


G&R COLLECTIONS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in "Tiernan"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SHAWNDA TIERNAN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. G&R COLLECTIONS
and MBG, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02602 (M.D.
Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Aleta A. Trauger entered an order:

   1. certifying a Settlement Class of:

      "all Tennessee consumers who were sent an initial
      collection letter from G&R, during the time period of
      September 27, 2015 to present, attempting to collect a debt
      or alleged debt for A-1 Cash Advance that contains the
      language "Unless you notify this office within 30 days
      after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity
      of this debt or any portion thereof, this office will
      obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of a
      judgment and mail you a copy of such judgment or
      verification";

   2. appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing Plaintiff's counsel, Ari Marcus and William
      Kaludis, as Class Counsel.

The Court approves the Parties' proposed Class Notice and directs
that it be mailed to the last known address of the Settlement
Class Members as shown in MBG's business records. The Class
Administrator will cause the Class Notice to be mailed to
Settlement Class members on or before April 23, 2018. The Class
Administrator will have the notice sent by any form of U.S. Mail
providing forwarding addresses. The Court finds that mailing of
the Class Notice is the only notice required and that such notice
satisfies the requirements of due process pursuant to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 23, the United States
Constitution, and any other applicable law.

Settlement Class members have until June 13, 2018, to exclude
themselves from or object to the proposed settlement. Any
Settlement Class members desiring to exclude themselves from the
action must serve copies of the request on counsel for both
Plaintiff and G&R and MBG by that date. Any Settlement Class
members who wish to object to the settlement must submit an
objection in writing to the Clerk of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, and serve copies of
the objection on counsel for both Plaintiff and Defendants by
that date. Any objection must include the name and number of the
case and a statement of the reason why the objector believes that
the Court should find that proposed settlement is not in the best
interests of the class. Objectors who have filed written
objections to the settlement may also appear at the hearing and
be heard on the fairness of the settlement. To be effective, the
request for exclusion or objection must be postmarked by June 13,
2018. If not already filed, Defendants shall file with the Court
proof of compliance with the notice requirements of the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. section 1715(b).

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Dy8YwANi


GLYNN COUNTY, GA: Faces Class Action Over Wealth Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael King, writing for 11alive.com, reports that the ACLU of
Georgia has filed a federal class-action lawsuit against Glynn
County, Georgia, for violating the constitutional rights of
persons arrested for misdemeanors.  The suit names the county
itself, along with the county's sheriff, E. Neal Jump, the
county's chief magistrate judge, Alex Atwood, and court-appointed
public defender, Stephen E. Tillman.

The lawsuit seeks an immediate change to the county's cash bail
system which it says discriminates against persons who are
"financially strapped" and cannot afford to pay bail amounts
determined by the county's bail schedule.  Anyone who cannot
afford those amounts are immediately detained indefinitely, while
those who can are released until trial.  According to the
lawsuit, this means low-income individuals are denied effective
and meaningful representation at bail hearings where an attorney
would be able to argue for their release.

"People who cannot afford to pay bail or hire a private attorney
face an impossible choice -- plead guilty or face loss of their
families, jobs, and homes as they wait for their cases to move
through the system," said Andrea Woods, Equal Justice Works
Fellowship attorney with the ACLU's Criminal Law Reform Project.
"A person's wealth should never decide their freedom, but that's
exactly what's happening in Georgia and across the country.  In
Glynn County, the contract public defender and prosecutors alike
refuse to grant people the presumption of innocence and ignore
the government's due process obligation to ensure that release
upon arrest is the norm."

According to the lawsuit, the Glynn County system of money bail
violates the US Constitution because it keeps people in jail if
they cannot afford to pay bail while allowing those who can to go
home.  The suit was filed on behalf of two plaintiffs
representing a class in the US District Court for the Southern
District of Georgia, accusing county officials of operating a
two-tiered justice system based on wealth, in violation of the
Right-to-Counsel and Due Process clauses of the 6th and 14th
Amendments and the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment
of the US Constitution. [GN]


GOTHAM HALL: Settecasi Seeks OT Compensation under Labor Law
------------------------------------------------------------
VINCENT SETTECASI, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. GOTHAM HALL, LLC; GOTHAM HALL
OPERATING ENTITY, LLC; CORE ZIEGFELD, LLC d/b/a ZIEGFELD
BALROOM; SIMON AUERBACHER; BRUCE A. KURTZ; and any other related
entities, the Defendants, Case No. 152791/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
March 29, 2018), seeks to recover retained gratuities and
overtime compensation pursuant to New York Labor Law.

According, to the complaint, beginning in approximately March
2012 and continuing through the present, Defendants have engaged
in a policy and practice of unlawfully retaining employees'
gratuities at their catering facility in New York. A reasonable
customer would believe that the Service Charge was in fact a
gratuity for Plaintiff and similarly situated employees.
Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of failing to
pay the Service Charge to Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees and instead retained the money for their own benefit in
violation of Labor Law Article.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class:

Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Suzanne Leeds Klein, Esq.
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, New York 11514


GOOGLE INC: CEI's Ted Frank Responds to Cy Pres Argument
--------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that Ted Frank of
the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for Class Action
Fairness believes cy pres -- the practice of distributing class
action settlement money to court-approved charities instead of
class members -- perverts the intention of the federal rules
enabling class actions.

In a petition for U.S. Supreme Court review of a case in which
Mr. Frank is, himself, an objecting class member, his lawyers at
Baker & Hostetler argued that cy pres provisions in class action
settlements highlight the "pathologies of the class action
procedure by facilitating settlements that provide substantial
benefits to defendants and class counsel, at the expense of class
members."  According to Mr. Frank's brief, class action lawyers
like to use cy pres because they can claim a portion of the funds
as fees without going to the work and expense of finding class
members.  Defendants can steer money to favored nonprofits.
Judges may like doling out money to worthy causes.  Everyone is
happy, according to the Frank brief, except for the class members
who should be getting settlement proceeds.

So it would seem to be little wonder, according to the Frank
petition, that cy pres is an increasingly common tactic in class
action settlements.  The petition cited a 2017 Law360 analysis
that found more settlements included cy pres provisions in 2015
and 2016 than in any previous year.

As you may recall, Chief Justice John Roberts also has serious
questions about the use of cy pres in class actions.  In 2013,
the Supreme Court denied review in Marek v. Lane, but the chief
justice suggested in a statement accompanying the denial that the
justices might need to clarify "when, if ever," cy pres payments
are warranted, citing "fundamental concerns surrounding the use
of such remedies in class action litigation."

The chief justice's statement in Marek (in which, Ms. Frankel
should note, Ted Frank represented the class action objector
seeking Supreme Court review) might seem to bode well for Frank's
new petition, which stems from Google's agreement to pay $8.5
million to resolve a class action claiming it violated users'
privacy by sharing search data with other websites.  The
settlement called for all of the money, aside from a $2.25
million fee award for class counsel and token payments to class
representatives, to be disbursed to six groups that study or
advocate for internet privacy.

But in Google's brief opposing Supreme Court review, filed on
March 9, the company's lawyers at Mayer Brown and O'Melveny &
Myers contend that Frank has picked the wrong case for a policy
argument over the appropriate use of cy pres.

According to the company, Mr. Frank and his lawyers failed to
acknowledge adequately that there are different kinds of cy pres
provisions -- those that distribute whatever remains in a
settlement fund after class members have made claims and those in
which charities get all of the money because it's not feasible to
distribute tiny amounts to class members.  The Google settlement
falls into the second category: If the money had been meted out
to all 129 million Google users in the class, each would have
been entitled to four cents.

Google said there's no need for the Supreme Court to review
settlements comprised entirely of cy pres funds because they've
dried up after the chief justice's statement in Marek.  "There is
a complete mismatch between petitioners' assertion that 'cy pres
settlements are increasingly prevalent' and the question
presented, which asks this court to review cy pres-only
settlements," the Google brief said. Citing the same Law360
analysis as the Frank brief, Google argued that between Roberts'
comments in Marek and 2016, 97 percent of the cy pres provisions
in class action settlements address leftover money. Only 3
percent direct all settlement money to charities.

Google posited that these all-cy pres settlements are likely to
become ever rarer because the Supreme Court's ruling in Spokeo v.
Robins will restrict class actions alleging only statutory
damages.  "Spokeo clarifies that Article III requires lower
federal courts to weed out putative class actions seeking
statutory damages in the absence of actual harm," the Google
brief said.  "These are the cases that are most likely to result
in proposed cy pres-only settlements if they make it past the
pleadings stage; settlements are naturally smaller when the
presence of any injury is unlikely." (Google's faith in the power
of Spokeo may stem from the law firm affiliation of its counsel
of record: Donald Falk is a partner at Mayer Brown, which
represented Spokeo at the Supreme Court.)

Since all-cy pres settlements are going extinct -- and since the
federal circuits agree that cy pres can be an appropriate way to
mop up what remains of settlement funds after class members'
claims -- the Supreme Court need not get involved.  For what it's
worth, Ms. Frankel did a Westlaw search for decisions approving
settlements with cy pres provisions and quickly reviewed the most
recent 80 cases, dating back to June 2017.  None involved an all-
cy pres settlement, though I did find a January 2017 decision
from the 9th Circuit in an all-cy pres case.  In Koby v. ARS
National, the appeals court overturned approval of a $35,000
settlement in a class action against a small debt collector,
holding that the cy pres award provided no benefit to 4 million
class members.

Ms. Frankel asked Mr. Frank to respond to Google's argument.  In
an email, he agreed that Chief Justice Roberts' 2013 statement
did put a damper on cy pres settlements, but said the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals' approval of the Google settlement could
revive all-cy pres deals because it enables defendants and class
counsel to claim even large settlements are non-disbursable to
classes containing millions of people. (Data breach cases are a
prime example.) Mr. Frank said he's already seen the 9th
Circuit's Google ruling cited in two cases directing all or most
of the settlement money to charity.  He also said he doubts
Spokeo will have much impact.

"If cert is denied, we will see a lot of forum shopping of cy
pres settlements to the 9th Circuit, because class counsel will
always prefer the glory of a big charitable contribution to a
million anonymous small-dollar checks to ungrateful class
members," Mr. Frank said.

The Supreme Court has not yet scheduled a conference date in the
Google case.  Google counsel Falk did not respond to
Ms. Frankel's email requesting comment. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Defends $8.5-Mil. Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal reports that Google Inc. has told the
U.S. Supreme Court there was nothing unfair or unreasonable about
the tech company's $8.5 million settlement of a class action in
which $5.3 million of the funds go to third parties and none to
members of the class.

In urging the justices to deny review in Frank v. Gaos, Mayer
Brown partner Donald Falk, representing Google, argued the cy
pres-only settlement "will benefit the class as a whole by
funding closely targeted projects that are directly connected to
the internet privacy issues raised by plaintiffs' claims."
Mr. Falk, a partner in the firm's Palo Alto, California, office,
said the "recipient institutions are of the highest quality and
specialize in internet consumer issues."

Google is not the only party in the high court defending a cy
pres settlement provision.  The Trump administration's Justice
Department recently found itself in the awkward position of
urging the justices to deny review of challenges to $380 million
that third parties are set to receive as part of a larger U.S.
government settlement with Native American farmers and ranchers.

The Justice Department's position was awkward because it had
called the cy pres provision "regrettable" in the lower court.
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions in June announced a new
policy that prohibits, with a few exceptions, government
attorneys from entering into settlement agreements that require
so-called "cy pres" payments--funds that are given to persons or
entities that are not direct parties to the dispute.

The Google case in the Supreme Court stems from a class action
claiming that Google illegally shared the search queries of its
users.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in August
affirmed the district court's approval of the settlement and the
trial judge's finding that the settlement fund was not
distributable to a class of an estimated 129 million Google
users.  Distributing the fund would result in each class member
receiving about 4 cents, according to the appellate court -- "a
de minimis amount if ever there was one," the panel remarked.

Instead, the Google settlement directs the funds to be
distributed proportionally to six recipients that are devoted to
web privacy: Carnegie Mellon University; World Privacy Forum;
Chicago-Kent College of Law Center for Information, Society and
Policy; Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society;
Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard
University; and AARP Foundation.

Ted Frank, director of litigation and the Center for Class Action
Fairness at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Melissa Ann
Holyoak were objectors to the settlement in the district court
and in the Ninth Circuit.

In their Supreme Court petition, they argued: "An $8.5 million
class action settlement that awards absent class members no
relief at all in exchange for their claims -- no money, no
alteration of the defendant's allegedly injurious conduct, not
even coupons -- is not 'fair, reasonable, and adequate' by any
measure."

Their high court counsel, Andrew Grossman, partner at Baker &
Hostetler, noted in the petition that Chief Justice John Roberts
Jr., writing in a 2013 case, said cy pres relief raised
"fundamental concerns."

The justices, Judge Roberts suggested then, may need in a
suitable case "to clarify the limits" on use of those remedies.
Grossman contends: "This is that case, and the need for
clarification is acute."

Mayer Brown's Falk disagrees.  All of the circuits agree with the
Ninth, he told the Supreme Court, that "a cy pres-only settlement
is appropriate in the rare circumstance where direct distribution
to class members is infeasible, and all insist on a close nexus
between the cy pres remedy and the interests of settling class
members."

The number of cy pres-only settlements has dropped dramatically,
said Falk, who was once described as "California's class action
killer."  The Google case, he said, is "especially well-suited"
to a cy pres remedy because class members have not alleged any
actual harm from the alleged anti-consumer practices.

"At bottom, then, the petition presents a case-specific
disagreement with the findings below that distribution was
infeasible in this case, with its class estimated at 129 million
members," Mr. Falk wrote.  O'Melveny & Myers partner Randall
Edwards in San Francisco also represents Google in the Supreme
Court.

The three named plaintiffs in the class action against Google
also have urged the justices to deny review.  Like Mr. Falk,
their counsel, Kassra Nassiri of San Francisco's Nassiri & Jung,
argued there is no circuit conflict on the legal standards for
determining the fairness and reasonableness of cy pres
provisions.  He also said the petition challenging the deal
presents a "fact-bound question" that has no significance beyond
the Google settlement itself. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Says $8.5MM Class Action Settlement Not Unfair
----------------------------------------------------------
Edith Roberts, writing for SCOTUS blog, reports that at The
National Law Journal, Marcia Coyle reports that, in a brief
opposing cert in Frank v. Gaos, "Google Inc. has told the U.S.
Supreme Court there was nothing unfair or unreasonable about the
tech company's $8.5 million settlement of a class action in which
$5.3 million of the funds go to third parties and none to members
of the class."  At Reuters, Alison Frankel looks at both sides'
arguments in the case, which asks whether "cy pres -- the
practice of distributing class action settlement money to court-
approved charities instead of class members -- perverts the
intention of the federal rules enabling class actions."

Briefly:

At the Constitutional Accountability Center, Ashwin Phatak looks
at Parker v. Montgomery County Correctional Facility, a cert
petition that "raises a critically important question about
prisoners' ability to access the court system."

At the Whistleblowers Protection Blog, Aaron Jordan highlights an
amicus brief supporting "FBI whistleblower John Parkinson's [cert
petition] seeking review of the Federal Circuit's decision
denying veterans' preference-eligible FBI employees the right to
raise whistleblowing as an affirmative defense in an appeal to
the Merit Systems Protection Board."

At ThinkProgress, Kyla Mandell weighs in on a cert petition in
which "[m]ining groups [have asked] the U.S. Supreme Court to
overturn an Obama-era rule banning uranium mining near Grand
Canyon National Park in the latest push to open up public lands
to industry."

Also at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser calls National Institute of
Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, a First Amendment challenge
by crisis-pregnancy centers to a California law requiring
disclosures about the availability of publicly funded family-
planning services, including contraception and abortion, "a
different kind of abortion case -- one that forces the Court to
untangle a difficult First Amendment web woven by its own
decisions."

At Vinson & Elkins' Lincoln's Law Blog, Ralph Mayrell and John
Elwood monitor the 10 False Claims Act cases currently on the
Supreme Court's docket.

Subscript offers a graphic explainer for Upper Skagit Indian
Tribe v. Lundgren, in which the justices will consider tribal
immunity from state-court actions to adjudicate title to land.
At The World and Everything In It, Mary Reichard analyzes the
oral arguments in Ohio v. American Express Co., which involves
the application of antitrust law to credit-card-network anti-
steering rules, and Rosales-Mireles v. United States, which asks
when erroneous applications of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
should be corrected on plain-error review.

At his eponymous blog, Lyle Denniston reports that the government
has told the lower court that it "wants the controversy over the
'DACA' program for younger undocumented immigrants to be back at
the Supreme Court in time for initial action before the Justices'
summer recess." [GN]


GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS: Faces ERISA Suit by Bator et al.
--------------------------------------------------------
DONALD BATOR, EDMOND W. MOSES, CHRISTOPHER O'MALLEY, MICHAEL
ANTHONY PAPPA and ROGELIO JIMENEZ, JR. on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. THE BOARD
OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTER-LOCAL PENSION FUND of the Graphic
Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters. LOCAL NO. 458-M GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL
UNION, DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 4 GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS CONFERENCE
OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, and THE
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-01770 (N.D. Ill., March 12, 2018), seeks to recover
damages as a result of Defendants' breach of fiduciary duties
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C.
1001-1461, and for state law claims of fraud and breach of
contract.

The Defendant Trustees is named as a fiduciary to the "The Inter-
Local Pension Fund of the Graphic Communications Conference of
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters", in the Fund's Trust
Indenture. Defendant Trustees possesses and exercises the
authority to control and manage the operation and administration
of the Fund. As a fiduciary to the Fund, Defendant Trustees is
obligated and must solely act in the interest of those whom the
Fund was established to benefit; eligible members of local unions
affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, who
are participants in the Fund. Defendant Trustees breached its
fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs and the Class by failing to enforce
the Trust Indenture's terms. Specifically, Defendant Trustees
failed to enforce the terms within the Summary Plan Description
portion of the Trust Indenture that stated all members of a group
that voted to participate in the Fund must become and remain
participants in the Fund. Further, Defendant Trustees failed to
enforce the terms contained in Article IV, Sec 1(c) of the Trust
Indenture, which provided that any participating local union,
that determined by official action of its membership with the
prior approval of Defendant Trustees, that its members'
contributions should be set higher than $5.00 a week, shall apply
that formula to all participating members of the local union.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Union's fraud,
Plaintiffs and the Class have sustained damages and loss
including, but not limited to: a) reductions in future Fund
benefits; b) decreased value of Plaintiffs' and the Class'
investments in the Fund; c) loss of interest; d) loss of use of
their money; e) loss of Union membership and the benefits
associated therewith; f) loss of benefits available to active
Fund participants including but not limited to withdrawal at the
age of 59, a disability benefit, and a death benefit, among
others; and g) active status in the Fund.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Larry D. Drury, Esq.
          Thomas M. Rebholz, Esq.
          LARRY D. DRURY, LTD.
          100 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 346 7950
          E-mail: ldd@larrydrury.com


GUARDIAN CREDIT: Class Certification Sought in "Starkey" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Starkey moves the Court to certify the class described
in the complaint of the lawsuit styled SAMANTHA STARKEY,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
GUARDIAN CREDIT UNION, Case No. 2:18-cv-00411 (E.D. Wisc.), and
further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of
the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the
court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing
of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual
settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision
cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from
representing a class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing
Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App.
LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017).  The Plaintiff
asserts that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by
sending a certified check to the proposed class representative.
Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also
Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No.
15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24,
2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense
when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an
amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


GULLIVER'S TAVERN: Court Grants Class Certification in "Levi"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RUBI LEVI and EMILY CHICOINE, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
GULLIVER'S TAVERN INCORPORATED; SOLID GOLD PROPERTIES, INC.;
THOMAS TSOUMAS; and PATRICIA TSOUMAS; all d/b/a THE FOXY LADY,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00216-WES-PAS (D.R.I.), the Hon.
Chief Judge William E. Smith entered an order on March 30, 2018:

   1. denying Defendants' motion for summary judgment and motion
      to preclude Class or collective certification; and

   2. granting Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment
      and motion for class certification.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mI0ikSA6


HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Faces Class Action in Tenn. Over TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sophia Morris, writing for Law360, reports that a Harley-Davidson
dealership has been hit with a proposed class action in Tennessee
federal court accusing it of making repeated unsolicited calls to
an individual on the Do Not Call Registry in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Harley-Davidson of Cool Springs, part of the Revolution
Motorsports dealer group, is alleged to have made several
unsolicited marketing calls to named plaintiff Foster Billings II
using an automated dialing machine, according to the complaint
filed on March 9.

The case is Billings v. Revolution Motorsports, Case No. 3:18-cv-
00277 (M.D. Tenn.).  The case is assigned to Judge William L.
Campbell, Jr.  The case was filed March 9, 2018. [GN]


HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES: "Garza" Suit Wins Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROCHELLE GARZA, as guardian ad litem to
unaccompanied minor J.D., on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ERIC D. HARGAN, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02122-TSC (D.C.), the Hon. District
Judge Tanya S. Chutkan entered an order on March 30, 2018:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
      Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction as to the
      class of:

      "all pregnant, unaccompanied immigrant minor children (UCs)
      who are or will be in the legal custody of the federal
      government; and

   2. enjoining Defendants Eric Hargan, Steven Wagner, and Scott
      Lloyd (along with their respective successors in office,
      officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and
      anyone acting in concert with them) from:

   3. interfering with or obstructing any class member's access
      to: judicial bypass, medical appointments related to
      pregnancy dating, non-directive options counseling,
      abortion counseling, an abortion, or other pregnancy-
      related care;

   4. forcing any class member to reveal the fact of their
      pregnancies and their abortion decisions to anyone, and
      from revealing those decisions to anyone themselves, either
      before or after an abortion;

   5. retaliating against any class member based on her decision
      to have an abortion; and

   6. from retaliating or threatening to retaliate against
      contractors that operate the shelters where class members
      currently reside for any actions that those contractors or
      shelters have taken or may take in facilitating class
      members' ability to access pregnancy and abortion-related
      medical care and/or an abortion.

Eric D. Hargan is the Deputy Secretary of the Department of
Health and Human Services.

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


HEALTHCARE NATIONAL: Picha Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Picha, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. National Association for Medical
and Dental, Inc. and Healthcare National Marketing, Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00643-AJB-AGS (S.D. Fla., March 29,
2018), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal
actions of the Defendants in negligently, knowingly, and/or
willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone,
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby
invading Plaintiff's privacy.

The TCPA was designed to prevent calls like the ones described
within this complaint, and to protect the privacy of citizens
like Plaintiff. "Voluminous consumer complaints about abuses of
telephone technology -- for example, computerized calls
dispatched to private homes -- prompted Congress to pass the
TCPA." In enacting the TCPA, Congress intended to give consumers
a choice as to how creditors and telemarketers may call them, and
made specific findings that "[t]echnologies that might allow
consumers to avoid receiving such calls are not universally
available, are costly, are unlikely to be enforced, or place an
inordinate burden on the consumer."

According to the complaint, sometime prior to January 1, 2013,
Plaintiff was assigned, and became the owner of, a cellular
telephone number from his wireless provider. Prior to January,
2018, Plaintiff requested that Defendants cease and desist any
and all calls to Plaintiff's cellular number. The Plaintiff also
registered his telephone number on the National Do Not Call
Registry, on July 8, 2017. In fact, to make it more apparent for
Defendants, Plaintiff previously filed a civil action against
Defendants in order to stop any unauthorized calls from
Defendants to Plaintiff's telephone cellular number.

The Defendants' calls or liability as to Plaintiff prior to
January 2018 are not subject to this lawsuit. Despite previously
notifying Defendants that their calls are neither welcomed nor
authorized, Defendants continued calling Plaintiff's cellular
telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system as defined
by, using an "artificial or prerecorded voice" as prohibited by
47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A).

Healthcare National delivers peace of mind by offering quality
insurance products through a multitude of carriers and options to
fit the need of every customer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Joshua Swigart, Esq.
Yana A. Hart, 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
        yana@westcoastlitigation.com

     - and -

Kevin Lemieux, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN LEMIEUX, APC
1775 Hancock Street, Suite 180
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: (619) 488 6767
Facsimile: (619) 488 6767
E-mail: kevin@lawyerkevin.com


HENRY SCHEIN: Faces Class Action, May 7 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A
Professional Corporation, on March 13 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of Henry Schein, Inc. (Nasdaq:HSIC) ("Henry Schein" or
the "Company") securities during the period between February 13,
2013 and February 12, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors who wish to become proactively involved in the
litigation have until May 7, 2018 to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in Henry Schein securities during the Class Period.
Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff
and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff.  No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that Henry Schein was
engaging in anti-competitive behavior through agreements with
Benco Dental Supply Company and Patterson Companies, Inc., in
violation of United States antitrust laws, and these violations
of U.S. antitrust laws would result in heightened scrutiny by the
federal government and a lawsuit filed but the Federal Trade
Commission ("FTC").

According to the complaint, following a February 12, 2018 FTC
announcement that it filed a complaint against Henry Schein,
among others, alleging violations of U.S. antitrust laws, the
value of Henry Schein shares declined significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Henry Schein securities purchased on or after February 13,
2013 and held through the revelation of negative information
during and/or at the end of the Class Period and would like to
learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as
a lead plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please
contact Brower Piven either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com
or by telephone at (410) 415-6616.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s.  If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of
your choice.  You need take no action at this time to be a member
of the class. [GN]


HLADIK ONORATO: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Medina, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. Hladik, Onorato & Federman, LLP, Case No. 5:18-cv-
00955-EGS (E.D. Penn., March 6, 2018), seeks to put a stop to the
Defendant practice of sending collection letters that falsely
represents the legal status of the alleged debt.

Hladik, Onorato & Federman, LLP is engaged, by use of the mails
and telephone, in the business of attempting to collect a debt.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel G. Ruggiero, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL RUGGIERO
      275 Grove Street, Suite 2-400
      Newton, MA 02466
      Telephone: (339) 237-0343
      Facsimile: (339) 707-2808
      E-mail: druggieroesq@gmail.com

HOME DEPOT: Court Certifies Lock-In and Hourly Employee Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOHN UTNE, the Plaintiff, v. HOME DEPOT
U.S.A., INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01854-RS (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. District Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order
on March 30, 2018, granting certification to Lock-In Class and
Hourly Employee Class:

The Hourly Employee Class is defined as:

   "[a]ll individuals employed by Home Depot in hourly-paid or
    non-exempt positions in California at any time since March 8,
    2012."

The Lock-In Class encompasses:

   "[a]ll individuals employed by Home Depot in hourly-paid or
   non-exempt positions in Home Depot stores in California at
   any time since March 8, 2012, and who worked at least one
   shift ending after the time that the Home Depot store was
   scheduled to close to the public for the evening."

The Court said, "With respect to the Hourly Employee Class, Home
Depot's liability may be determined through answers to questions
common to the class. Whether the location of time clocks requires
employees to walk across the store to clock in, and whether that
time is compensable, are questions that are amenable to class
resolution. As to the proposed Lock-In Class, whether the locking
of store doors at closing causes employees to remain under the
control of Home Depot after clocking out and before exiting the
store is a common question that is subject to common proof. For
both proposed classes, the key question of whether the alleged
pre-shift and post-shift time is more than de minimus may be
resolved on a class-wide basis. Although Home Depot argues that
specific amounts of uncompensated time will vary from class
member to class member, the existence of individual inquiries as
to damages is not sufficient to defeat class certification.

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


HOME DEPOT: Averts 4x4 Wood Board Labeling Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
RJ Vogt, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois federal
judge on March 12 shot down a proposed class action against
hardware chain Home Depot over claims it shorted customers who
bought lumber, finding that the use of "4x4" on labels was
literally true because it didn't include inch-mark symbols after
each number.

Brought by shopper Mikhail Abramov, the suit said The Home Depot
Inc. violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, or ICFA, by selling a 6-foot-long 4x4 piece of
wood that was actually only 3´ inches square.

The case is Abramov v. The Home Depot, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-
01860 (N.D. Ill.).  The case is assigned to Honorable Sharon
Johnson Coleman.  The case was filed March 8, 2017. [GN]


HOME DEPOT: Plaintiff Can Still Refile 4x4 Lumber Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal
judge on March 12 dismissed a lawsuit accusing Home Depot Inc of
deceiving shoppers about the size of its four-by-four lumber.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman in Chicago rejected
plaintiff Mikhail Abramov's claim that the largest U.S. home
improvement retailer should be held liable for selling lumber as
4 inches thick by 4 inches wide, when the dimensions were
actually 3-1/2 inches by 3-1/2 inches.

While not persuaded by Atlanta-based Home Depot that the lumber's
actual size was "common knowledge," Coleman said its labels
reading "4X4-6'" would not have misled reasonable consumers.

She said the "4x4" portion lacked any unit of measurement, and
Home Depot never expressly represented that its lumber actually
measured 4 inches by 4 inches.

Mr. Abramov's allegations "describe no more than a label that was
potentially confusing to some consumers," Coleman wrote.

The dismissal was without prejudice, meaning Mr. Abramov can
refile his proposed class-action complaint, which sought
unspecified damages.  His lawyer did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.

Home Depot spokesman Stephen Holmes said on March 12: "We're glad
to have resolved the issue."

In seeking a dismissal, Home Depot said a ruling for Mr. Abramov
would "ignore nearly a century of standardization and disturb an
entire industry's reliance on these lumber names."

U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang, who also sits in Chicago, in
September dismissed a similar lawsuit filed by Mr. Abramov's law
firm against home improvement retailer Menards.

Judge Chang, however, found that "no reasonable consumer would
think that the labels showed the exact dimensions of the lumber."
His decision has been appealed.

The case is Abramov v Home Depot Inc, U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Illinois, No. 17-01860. [GN]


IMPACT HOME: Court Certifies Healthcare Workers Class in "Clark"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DOROTHY CLARK, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LASHONDA S.
WILLIAMSON d/b/a Impact Home Care Services, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-01413-TDS-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. District Judge
Thomas D. Schroeder entered an order on March 30, 2018:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification
      as to the Fair Labor Standards Act collective, defined as:

      "all current and former home healthcare workers (personal
      care aides, certified nursing assistants and in-home aides)
      who worked for LaShonda Swindell Williamson d/b/a Impact
      Home Care Services at any time since January 1, 2015 and
      who were classified as an independent contractor and who
      were not paid time and a half for all hours worked over 40
      in a work week";

   2. approving Plaintiff's proposed notices and extending opt-in
      period to 60 days from the date the notice is mailed to
      putative class members;

   3. authorizing Plaintiff's counsel to send the approved notice
      by first-class U.S. mail to the last known address of each
      putative plaintiff within 14 days of the entry of this
      order;

   4. authorizing Plaintiff's counsel to send electronic copy of
      the approved notice to each putative plaintiff's personal
      email address (for former employees) and work email address
      (for current employees) within 14 days of the entry of this
      order;

   5. authorizing Plaintiff's counsel to re-mail
      notices/postcards that are returned as undeliverable for
      those individuals for whom counsel can find better
      addresses;

   6. permitting Plaintiff's counsel to call any individual whose
      notice is returned as undeliverable for the limited purpose
      of obtaining a current address for re-mailing notice;

   7. permitting Plaintiff's counsel to send by first-class U.S.
      mail, the reminder postcard, in the form approved by the
      court, to potential opt-in plaintiffs who have not returned
      their Consent Form, 30 days before the expiration of the
      opt-in period;

   8. directing Defendant to post the approved notice in a
      conspicuous place in her offices within 14 days of entry of
      the order; and

   9. directing Defendant to provide Plaintiff's counsel, in
      electronically readable/importable form, the names,
      addresses, email addresses, and any employee number or
      unique identifier of all collective members within 7 days
      of the entry of this order.

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


INTEL CORPORATION: Faces "Phillips" Suit Over Defective CPU's
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cole Phillips, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Intel Corporation, Case No. 3:18-cv-00389-HZ (D.
Ore., March 5, 2018), is brought on behalf of all persons or
entities in the United States who purchased one or more Intel
CPUs either from Intel, its authorized retail sellers, or from a
computer retailer or manufacturer who installed an Intel CPU
inside the customer's computer, PC or mobile device, that are
defectively designed.

Specifically, the inherent defect in Intel's CPUs creates
security flaw or vulnerability which allows hackers the ability
to access personal, sensitive, private and secure information in
every computer, PC or Device that uses an Intel CPU which were
designed with features and components to perform "speculative
execution," says the complaint.

Intel Corporation is one of the top-selling semiconductor
companies in the world and manufacturers semiconductor chips of
central processors (CPUs) that are sold as individual components
or sold as components in computers including personal computers
(PCs) and mobile devices. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steve D. Larson, Esq.
      Jennifer S. Wagner, Esq.
      STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.
      209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
      Portland, OR 97204
      Telephone: (503) 227-1600
      Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
      E-mail: slarson@stollberne.com
              jwagner@stollberne.com

         - and -

      Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
      Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
      LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP
      510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Telephone: (215) 592-1500
      Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
      E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com


INTERSTATE HOTELS: Sheraton Workers Win Wage Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Jon Steingart, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that workers at
a Sheraton hotel in San Francisco won class action status for
their claim that the employer created a culture that encouraged
staff to work through breaks without pay.

The class includes approximately 350 employees, according to the
order by Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The company's focus on customer
service pushed staff to work off the clock to keep up with job
demands, Dina Rae Richardson, who cleaned hotel rooms as a room
attendant, said.

The judge's order criticizes the way the hotel company's lawyers
obtained statements from three former employees that were used to
argue against certifying the class.  Lawyers from Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP had the former employees sign declarations the
lawyers drafted based on interviews they conducted with them. The
Morgan Lewis lawyers also represented the former employees in
depositions the lawyers litigating the case against the hotel
operator conducted later.

Judge Alsup ordered the hotel's lawyers to explain why their firm
shouldn't be disqualified from the case for violating conflict-
of-interest rules against representing parties with adverse
interests. "I'm going to order an Order to Show Cause why Morgan
Lewis and Bockius should not be disqualified from this case both
as to Defendant and as to Plaintiffs, because you wound up on
both sides of the case," he told them during an evidentiary
hearing.

The employees' declarations showed they didn't believe the
company committed wrongdoing, meaning the workers who signed them
lacked claims against the company, the Morgan Lewis lawyers said.

"Once the former employees signed their declarations, neither
Interstate nor Morgan Lewis believed there was a conflict between
Interstate and the three former employees or that they remained
putative class members," Jason Mills, a Morgan Lewis lawyer,
wrote in response to the show cause order.  "Interstate should
not be punished by the disqualification of its chosen counsel
because of that counsel's very limited representation of the
three former Interstate employees at their depositions," he
wrote.

"In hindsight, the better practice would have been to obtain, in
an abundance of caution, advance written waivers from Interstate
and the three former employees, or to have offered separate
counsel to the three former employees for representation at their
depositions, or to have simply defended the depositions without
representing the three former employees," Mr. Mills wrote, with
an apology for allowing the issue to arise.  He pledged that
Morgan Lewis wouldn't repeat the conduct in the Northern District
of California or any other court.

That explanation didn't persuade Alsup. Morgan Lewis "plainly
violated" California attorney professional conduct rules, he
concluded.  Although the lawyers disclosed that they worked for
Interstate Hotels & Resorts Inc. and Interstate Management
Company LLC, which operated the Sheraton Fisherman's Wharf, the
employees, whose first language was Cantonese or Vietnamese,
required interpreters and may not have understood their rights
and what they might be agreeing to or giving up by participating,
Alsup said.

A Morgan Lewis representative wasn't immediately available to
respond to Bloomberg Law's request for comment on this issue
March 13.

Hotel's Lawyers Could Be Disqualified

Morgan Lewis' violation could be enough to disqualify it from
continuing to represent Interstate, Judge Alsup said.  He allowed
it to continue representing the company but barred Interstate
from using the employees' declarations and depositions.  He
barred Morgan Lewis from cross-examining the employees if they're
called to testify by Richardson's lawyers.

"Some other firm without taint will have to do so," Judge Alsup
said. "Possibly, the jury will be informed as to the facts
underlying defense counsel's representation of hotel employees."

Attorneys on both sides and a representative for Interstate
didn't immediately respond to Bloomberg Law's request for comment
March 13.

Matthew Matern, Launa Adolph, and Kayvon Sabourian with Matern
Law Group PC in Manhattan Beach, Calif., represent the class.

Morgan Lewis attorneys Jason Mills -- jason.mills@morganlewis.com
-- Hien Nguyen -- hien.nguyen@morganlewis.com -- and
Rebecca Licht Jensen -- rebecca.jensen@morganlewis.com -- in Los
Angeles and Robin Lagorio -- robin.lagorio@morganlewis.com -- in
San Francisco represent Interstate.

The case is Richardson v. Interstate Hotels & Resorts, Inc., 2018
BL 84007, N.D. Cal., No. 3:16-cv-06772, class certified 3/12/18.
[GN]


IYOGI INC: Kobialko Sues over Unsolicited Phone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------
PAUL KOBIALKO, the Plaintiff, v. IYOGI, INC., IYOGI TECHNICAL
SERVICES PVT. LTD., VISHAL DHAR, and UDAY CHALLU a/k/a UDHAYAN
CHALLU, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02319 (N.D. Ill., March
30, 2018), seeks to recover declaratory relief and statutory and
compensatory damages caused by Defendant's violation pursuant to
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Telemarketing and Consumer
Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Practices Act.

According to the complaint, iYogi or iYogi Tech systematically
places unsolicited and harassing scam phone calls to consumers in
Illinois in order to aggressively solicit business to increase
its profitability at the consumers' expense. Placing unsolicited,
unwanted, and harassing scam phone calls to Illinois consumers is
an unfair business practice willfully employed by iYogi and/or
iYogi Tech and is done on a large scale.

Moreover iYogi's and/or iYogi Tech's unlawful and unfair scam
solicitation efforts gives it an unfair competitive advantage
over businesses that solicit lawfully (companies who legally
place calls with prior consent, as authorized, and who lawfully
cease calling upon realizing that they do not have consent to
place such calls). The Plaintiff was substantially harmed by
iYogi's misconduct. Over 40 Illinois residents have been
substantially harmed by iYogi's misconduct. The class can be
provisionally defined as all Illinois residents who were called
on their cellular phones by iYogi and/or iYogi Tech without
providing consent to be called and where the calls placed by
iYogi and/or iYogi Tech resulted in autodialed and/or
predictively dialed calls.

iYogi is a remote technical support firm based in Gurgaon, India
with customers in the United States, the United Kingdom, the
United Arab Emirates, Australia, Canada, and India. iYogi
provides subscription based technical support for personal
computers, connected devices and peripherals, and software
applications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
          Omar T. Sulaiman, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


JUST BORN: White Seeks to Certify 3 Classes
-------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DARYL WHITE, JR., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JUST
BORN, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04025-NKL (W.D. Mo.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying classes:

      a. Missouri Consumer Class defined as:

         "all Missouri residents who purchased a 5-ounce box of
         Hot Tamales candy and/or a 5-ounce box of Mike and Ike
         candy for personal, family, or household purposes within
         the relevant statute-of-limitations period";

      b. Unjust Enrichment (Restatement) Multi-State Class
         defined as:

         "all persons residing in Arkansas, Colorado,
         Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois,
         Iowa, New York, Oklahoma, or West Virginia who purchased
         a 5-ounce box of Hot Tamales candy and/or a 5-ounce box
         of Mike and Ike candy for their personal or household
         use within the relevant statute-of-limitations period";

      c. Unjust Enrichment (Appreciation) Multi-State Class
         defined as:

         "all persons residing in Alaska, Florida, Kansas,
         Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri,
         Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
         Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,
         Washington, or Wisconsin who purchased a 5-ounce box of
         Hot Tamales candy and/or a 5-ounce box of Mike and Ike
         candy for their personal or household use within the
         relevant statute-of-limitations period"

         Excluded from any proposed Class is (i) Defendant, any
         entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest,
         (ii) the Court and its staff, and (iii) Class Counsel
         and their staff;

   2. appointing Plaintiff as representative of the Classes;

   3. appointing David L. Steelman of Steelman, Gaunt &
      Horsefield, Scott A. Kamber of KamberLaw LLC, and
      Christopher D. Moon of KamberLaw LLP as Class Counsel;

   4. directing parties to meet and confer regarding the form of
      the proposed notice to potential Class members; and

   5. granting such other relief as the Court deems necessary and
      appropriate.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZER668WL

Attorneys for Daryl White, Jr. and the putative Class:

          David L. Steelman, Esq.
          Stephen F. Gaunt, Esq.
          STEELMAN, GAUNT &HORSEFIELD
          901 Pine Street, Suite 110
          Rolla, MO 65401
          Telephone: 573 458 5231
          Facsimile: 573 341 8548
          E-mail: dsteelman@steelmanandgaunt.com
                  sgaunt@steelmanandgaunt.com

               - and -

          Christopher D. Moon, Esq.
          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW LLP
          9404 Genesee Avenue, Suite 340
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (310) 400 1053
          Facsimile: (858) 800 4277
          E-mail: cmoon@kamberlaw.com
                  skamber@kamberlaw.com


KAYAFAS CONTRACTING: Jaigua Seeks Unpaid Overtime & Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
WALTER JAIGUA and JOHN DOE, on behalf of themselves, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, the Plaintiffs, v. KAYAFAS
CONTRACTING CO. INC., and ANTHONY KAYAFAS, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-01941 (E.D.N.Y., March 30, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime, unpaid wages due to time-shaving, spread of
hours premium, compensation due to improper wage deductions,
liquidated damages and statutory penalties and attorneys' fees
and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs brings claims for relief as a collective action
pursuant to FLSA Section 16(b), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on
behalf of all non-exempt employees, including, but not limited
to, drivers, laborers, installers, helpers, construction workers,
machine operators and painters employed by Defendants on or after
the date that is six years before the filing of the Complaint in
this case. The Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are and
have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job
requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subjected
to Defendants' decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices,
procedures, protocols, routines, and rules, all culminating in a
willful failure and refusal to (i) pay them overtime compensation
at the rate of one and one half times the regular hourly rate for
work in excess of 40 hours per workweek, (ii) pay them for all
hours worked due to a policy of time shaving, and (iii) improper
wage deductions.

Kayafas Contracting is in the painting and paper hanging
business.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs:

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


KEEFE COMMISSARY: Micko Seeks Certification of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GEORGE MICKO, Plaintiffs, et a1. v. JULIE
L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Dept. Of Corrections and KEEFE
COMMISSARY NETWORK, LLC. (d/b/a) ACCESS CORRECTIONS, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-21242-JEM (S.D. Fla.), Mr. Micko
asks the Court for an order certifying class action and appoint
class counsel.

Mr. Micko further asks that the court order the United States
Marshall to serve Defendant's summons and order mutual
participation in discovery.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YreJfD5J

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


KISWANI TRUCKING: Permitted to Notify Plaintiff Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Brian Haggerty, the Plaintiff, v. Kiswani
Trucking Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06662
(N.D, Ill.), the Hon. Judge Charles P. Kocoras entered an order
granting Plaintiff's unopposed motion to begin notice to the
Plaintiff class.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on April 5, 2018,
Plaintiff's motion to dismiss party defendants Kholood Mohammad,
Azi Kiswani, and Steve Kiswani without prejudice [17] is granted.
The Plaintiff's unopposed motion to begin notice to the Plaintiff
class is granted. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file amended
complaint is granted. Status hearing is set for Sep. 16, 2018 at
9:30 a.m.

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


LAKEMOOR, IL: Knutson Files Prelim. Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled BRIAN KNUTSON, and HEATHER
BENDL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VILLAGE OF LAKEMOOR, a Municipal Corporation, Case
No. 1:18-cv-01804 (N.D. Ill.), file with the Court their
preliminary motion for class certification and request for
discovery on certification issues.

Brian Knutson and Heather Bendl, who both received notices of
violation of Lakemoor's automated traffic enforcement system, and
paid those violation notices, seek to certify this class:

     All individuals or entities to whom the Village of Lakemoor
     issued an automated traffic law enforcement system violation
     notice and who paid that violation notice (the "Class").

The Plaintiffs bring this action against the Village of Lakemoor
for issuing automated traffic law enforcement system notices in
violation of the specific, express terms of the Village's own
Municipal Code.  Specifically, the Plaintiffs contend, Lakemoor
enacted an ordinance providing that the Village may issue
violation notices for violation of Section 11-306(c) of the
Illinois Vehicle Code captured on the Village's automated traffic
law enforcement system cameras (red light cameras).

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to enter and continue the
present Motion, so that the parties have an opportunity to
conduct discovery on class certification issues, after which the
Plaintiffs will amend this Motion and file a Memorandum of Law in
support of the Amended Motion.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark D. Roth, Esq.
          Robert Fioretti, Esq.
          Kenneth Hurst, Esq.
          ROTH FIORETTI, LLC
          311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 2470
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 922-6262
          E-mail: mark@rothfioretti.com
                  rwf@rothfioretti.com
                  ken@rothfioretti.com

               - and -

          James J. Eccleston, Esq.
          Stephany D. McLaughlin, Esq.
          Roman Sankovych, Esq.
          ECCLESTON LAW, LLC
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 610
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 332-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 332-0003
          E-mail: jeccleston@ecclestonlaw.com
                  smclaughlin@ecclestonlaw.com
                  rsankovych@ecclestonlaw.com


LJM FUNDS: Faces "Nosewicz" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Nosewicz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LJM Funds Management, Ltd., Two Roads
Shared Trust, Northern Lights Distributors, LLC, Mark D. Gersten,
Mark Garbin, Neil M. Kaufman, Anita K. Krug, Andrew B. Rogers,
James Colantino, Anthony J. Caine and Anish Parvataneni, Case No.
1:18-cv-01589 (N.D. Ill., March 2, 2018), alleges that the
Defendants made false and misleading Registration Statements and
Prospectuses, as well as failed to disclose material adverse
facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Specifically, the complaint says, the Fund's Registration
Statements and Prospectuses were materially false and misleading
because rather than pursuing capital preservation in a down
market and having risk mitigation techniques to preserve capital
regardless of the market direction, the Fund was overexposed to
the risk of volatility and a down market, as reflected in its
losing 80% of its value in just two days as markets dropped and
volatility spiked.  While the Preservation Fund purportedly
sought to preserve capital and obtain growth by betting against
market volatility, the Fund actually made massive and unmitigated
bets which exposed investors to excessive risks and catastrophic
losses of capital, even in only a moderately down market of less
than 5%, adds the complaint.  The Preservation Fund was
overexposed to the risk of volatility through leveraged options
that, once exercised, required the Fund to liquidate its capital
to pay off its positions, it notes.

LJM Funds Management, Ltd. is the investment advisor to the
Preservation Fund.  LJM is responsible for managing the Fund's
investments, executing transactions, and providing related
advisory services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James E. Barz, Esq.
      Frank A. Richter, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
      Chicago, IL  60606
      Telephone: (312) 674-4674
      Facsimile: (312) 674-4676
      E-mail: jbarz@rgrdlaw.com
              frichter@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
      JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
      600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
      San Diego, CA  92101
      Telephone: (619) 230-0063
      Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
      E-mail: FrankJ@JohnsonFistel.com


LOBLAW: Judge Awards Carriage of Bread Price-Fixing Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Robinson, writing for Law Times, reports that an Ontario
judge has awarded carriage of a proposed class action against
bread sellers for an alleged price-fixing scheme to a consortium
led by Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP.

Two different groups of law firms were vying to represent
potential class members in the proposed lawsuit, brought against
Loblaw, Sobeys, Metro and other Canadian retailers.

The group led by Strosberg was made up of four law firms that
have filed actions in five different provinces and the Federal
Court.  Sotos LLP and Siskinds LLP led the other consortium,
which only launched an Ontario action.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Ed Morgan found that the Strosberg
group's approach would be in the best interests of a potential
national class and fairer to the defendants, despite the fact the
defendants favoured the Sotos group.

"The Strosberg approach to the multijurisdictional problem is to
accomplish in advance what the Sotos Team says that it will
eventually do if awarded carriage," Morgan wrote in David v.
Loblaw; Breckon v. Loblaw.

"That is, in forming the Strosberg Consortium it has negotiated
with counsel for the other existing actions."

Lawyers say the decision could have implications for multi-
jurisdictional litigation, which is a hot topic in the plaintiff
class action bar.

While Strosberg had brought together firms that had started
actions in different jurisdictions, Sotos said it would enter
negotiations with firms that brought actions in other provinces
after it was awarded carriage.

The Sotos consortium had agreed to provide an undertaking to the
defendants that it would not start actions in other
jurisdictions.  The defendants argued this undertaking would be a
way of containing the multi-jurisdictional nature of the matter
and that the Strosberg group's refusal to provide such an
undertaking should count against them in the carriage battle.

Judge Morgan found that the undertaking had prevented the Sotos
group from being proactive in other jurisdictions and that it had
"ham-strung" the consortium in a way Strosberg had not.

The judge also found that the use of such an undertaking by the
defendants, who favoured the Sotos group, was unusual.

"I take defendants' counsel at their word, but the embrace of a
mechanism that is unlikely to aid their clients here is an
unusual approach," Judge Morgan said.  "A more cynical person
might think that the defendants simply prefer the more passive of
the two competing class counsel groups over the more proactive
group."

Jay Strosberg -- jay@strosbergco.com -- of Strosberg Sasso Sutts
LLP, says the undertaking would not achieve the objective of
limiting multi-jurisdictional litigation, as Merchant Law Group
LLP, which was not part of either consortium, had launched
actions in several western provinces.

He says that if the Strosberg consortium had agreed to the
undertaking, it would shut down its own actions in those
provinces but would leave Merchant's actions.

"It didn't achieve what they wanted," he says.

Morgan noted that Sotos could not compete with Merchant in other
provinces because of the undertaking, whereas Strosberg's ability
to compete would help ensure uniformity of actions.

David Sterns -- dsterns@sotosllp.com -- a partner with Sotos LLP,
however, says the decision means firms that take the approach of
filing in the jurisdiction in which they intend to move forward
are going to be at a disadvantage to those that file in multiple
jurisdictions.

"What this means is that the arms race of multiple jurisdictional
filings is back on," he says.

Margaret Waddell -- marg@waddellphillips.ca -- of Waddell
Phillips PC, says she finds it troubling that the decision seems
to suggest that starting actions in multiple jurisdictions is
seen as a good thing.

She says this is completely contrary to what other decisions have
said for years, which is that it is an abuse of process to start
actions in jurisdictions in which one does not intend to pursue.

"For the judge to weigh that as a plus I find troubling and
concerning, when it's purely strategic and has been frowned on
repeatedly," says Ms. Waddell, who was not involved in the case.

She says the courts should consider both the undertaking not to
start competing actions and Strosberg's actions to bring other
firms into the fold that have already started actions as positive
factors. The primary goal in these cases should be to avoid the
multiplicity of actions, she says.

Another factor at issue was the fact that the Sotos group
included the claims of potential class members called umbrella
purchasers in its action.  The Strosberg group did not include
umbrella purchasers in its action.

Umbrella purchasers are potential class members who did not
purchase bread directly from the defendants but suffered higher
prices because of the alleged price-fixing scheme.

The issue of whether umbrella purchasers have a cause of action
is making its way up through the courts at the moment, and it is
likely headed to the Supreme Court of Canada as judges in
different provinces have ruled differently on the topic.

The Strosberg consortium argued that including umbrella
purchasers in the action would be a "problematic distraction"
that could potentially threaten to derail the case with a
challenge from the defendants.  The Sotos group countered by
saying not including umbrella purchasers in the action would be
problematic as it would cause an obstacle when counsel inevitably
tries to add them later.

Given the unsettled nature of the law around the issue, Morgan
found that the inclusion or exclusion of umbrella purchasers was
a neutral factor and did not favour either group on the issue.

Ms. Wadell says this finding is troubling as she thinks the
interests of umbrella purchasers should not have been excluded
and should have been given more consideration by the court.

Lawyers representing the defendants in the proposed class action
declined to comment.

Mr. Sterns said the Sotos consortium had not decided yet whether
it would look to appeal the carriage decision. [GN]


LOOK INTERNATIONAL: Saleh Sues over Marketing Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yazan Saleh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Look International, Inc., d/b/a/ Sin
Pin, a Florida Corporation, SIN PIN, Inc., a Florida Corporation,
Assad Ibrahim, a natural parson and Majd Ibrahim, a natural
parson, the Defendants, Case No. 0:18-cv-60693-RNS (S.D. Fla.,
March 31, 2018), seeks to recover injunctive relief, statutory
damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant LIC and SIN PIN are both telecommunications company
that sell "minutes" to consumers seeking to place international
calls at a discounted rate. LIC holds itself out being "the
easiest and cheapest way to make domestic and international calls
to anywhere in the world."

In efforts to increase the sales of their "minutes" from the
public at large, Defendants made consumers' cellular phones
constantly ring by sending tens of thousands of illegal marketing
text messages which solicited several types of discounts and
promotions for future purchases of "minutes" without first
obtaining express written consent to send such marketing text
messages as required to do so under the TCPA. These messages were
sent using mass-automated technology either directly or through a
third-party company hired by Defendants to send marketing text
messages on Defendants' behalf en masse. In sum, Defendants
knowingly and willfully violated the TCPA, causing injuries to
Plaintiff, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation,
annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC.
          110 SE 6th Street
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907 1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529 9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


MAZUMA CREDIT: Initial Approval of "Bowens" Settlement Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOY L. BOWENS, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MAZUMA CREDIT
UNION, and DOES 1-10, the Defendant, Case No. 4:15-cv-00758-DW
(W.D. Mo.), Ms. Bowens moves the Court for entry of an Order:

   1. preliminarily approving Settlement Agreement reached
      between Plaintiff and Defendants to the Declaration of
      Taras Kick in support of the unopposed motion for
      preliminary approval;

   2. appointing Garden City Group, LLC, as the Settlement
      Administrator and approving the proposed notice plan; and

   3. scheduling a hearing for final approval of the settlement.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KM9Qiitz

Attorneys for Joy L. Bowens and the Putative Class:

          Matthew Lee Dameron, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 876-2600
          Facsimile: (816) 221-8763
          E-mail: matt@williamsdirks.com

               - and -

          Taras Kick, Esq.
          Robert Dart, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
          815 Moraga Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Telephone: (310) 395-2988
          Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
          E-mail: taras@kicklawfirm.com
                  robert@kicklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          Jae (Eddie) Kim, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
          3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
          Ontario, CA 91761
          Telephone: (909) 557 1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557 1275
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
                  jkk@mccunewright.com


MDL 2818: "Pitre" Suit vs. General Motors Moved to E.D. Mich.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Eric Pitre, Richard Northcutt,
and Richie Ainsworth, On behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, General Motors Company,
General Motors Holdings LLC, and General Motors LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02484, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) on
March 19, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-
cv-10957-MFL to the proceeding.

The Pitre case is being consolidated with MDL 2818 in re: General
Motors Corp Air Conditioning Marketing And Sales Practices
Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on February 2, 2018.

The Plaintiffs allege that certain components in the air
conditioning system are too weak to hold the pressure of the
coolant, which builds up when the system is on. This, in turn,
leads to cracks and leaks during normal operation, which allow
air conditioning refrigerant to escape and eventually lead to the
premature failure of the air conditioning system. Centralization
will eliminate duplicative discovery; avoid inconsistent pretrial
rulings, particularly on class certification; and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

In its February 2, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that the
actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact, and
that centralization in the Eastern District of Michigan will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote
the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The actions
involve common factual issues arising from three similar putative
nationwide class actions and one putative California statewide
class action that concern the design, manufacture and performance
of the air conditioners in several models of GM vehicles,
spanning model years from 2014-2017. Presiding Judge in the MDL
is the Hon. District Judge Matthew F. Leitman.

General Motors Company, commonly abbreviated as GM, is an
American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit that
designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and
vehicle parts, and sells financial services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Dennis C. Reich, Esq.
REICH & BINSTOCK, LLP
4265 San Felipe, Suite 1000
Houston, TX 77027
Telephone: (713) 622 7271
Facsimile: (713) 623 8724

     - and -

Richard M. Schechter, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD SCHECHTER, P.C.
1 Greenway Plaza, Suite 740
Houston, TX 77046-0102
Telephone: (713) 623 8919
Facsimile: (713) 622 1680
E-mail: richard@rs-law.com


MENARD'S: Faces Class Actions Over FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
Bruce Murphy, writing for Urban Milwaukee, reports that
John Menard, Jr. has become the poster boy for the greed of
America's super wealthy.

Menard, 77, the chief executive of Eau Claire-based Menard's
company, now ranks as the 95th richest person in the world, with
an estimated net worth of $13.9 billion, according to Bloomberg's
ranking of the world's top billionaires.

Menard ranks near the top of the world's richest 1 percent, a
group "who have seen their share of the globe's total wealth
increase from 42.5% at the height of the 2008 financial crisis to
50.1% in 2017," rising to $140 trillion, as The Guardian reports.
They have amassed "the greatest concentration of wealth since the
US Gilded Age at the turn of the 20th century, when families like
the Carnegies, Rockefellers and Vanderbilts controlled vast
fortunes," the publication notes.

Menard has prospered by building his privately owned chain of 300
big-box hardware and home repair stores in 14 states, but also by
chiseling his workers, a series of class action suits claim.  As
the Dayton Daily News has reported, two law firms are suing the
company in federal court in Columbus, Ohio "on behalf of workers
who say they weren't properly paid wages and overtime."  The suit
alleges "that Menards failed to properly pay about 160 current
and former hourly Menards employees in 13 states, violating the
Fair Labor Standards Act . . .  and state wage and hour laws."

The suit claims that Menards has violated this law by not paying
overtime of 1.5 times the regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per work week, by not paying workers for
short breaks lasting 20 minutes or less, not paying them for
attending certain store meetings and for job training required of
workers.  "The fact that an employer as large as Menards required
their employees to clock out to use the restroom is
unacceptable," Bob DeRose, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said
in a statement quoted by the newspaper.

The lawsuit comes just months after three similar suits were
filed last fall in Indiana and Ohio, as the Minneapolis weekly
City Pages reported.  A suit by Maurice Bradley, "formerly an
hourly worker" for Menards, alleged the company required workers
"to clock out for any amount of time spent in breaks, including
the mere minutes it takes to use the bathroom, get a drink of
water, or smoke a cigarette.  Menards would then subtract wages
accordingly."

"Ohio retail worker Carrie Santti alleged she would lose about
$50 every work week due to the same company-wide policy," the
story reported.  "And another Ohio suit, filed by distribution
center worker Lyndsey Neal, complains that Menards failed to pay
full overtime for workers who routinely averaged 45- or 50-hour
work weeks, and did not compensate employees for the time they
spent attending mandatory warehouse safety meetings."
In reponse to the lawsuits, "Menards denied it broke any federal
labor laws," the story noted.

As I've previously written, a columnist for the Minneapolis Star
Tribune once described Menards' manner of handling an employee as
"something exhumed from the Bronze Age with all its primitive
logic intact."

In 2015, a copy of Menards employment agreement for all managers
was leaked to Bill Lueders and The Progressive magazine: it
stipulates that "The Manager's income shall be automatically
reduced by sixty percent (60%) of what it would have been if a
union of any type is recognized within your particular operation
during the term of this Agreement."

Longtime labor reporter and Urban Milwaukee contributor Dominique
Paul Noth did a follow-up story for People's World with some
interesting analysis by experts on labor law.  Prof. Paul
Secunda, head of Marquette University's Labor and Employment Law
Program, told Noth that Menard's demand on management was on its
face blatantly illegal interference with worker rights outlined
in Section 7 of NLRB law and may also involve portions of Section
8 dealing with discrimination and interference.  He noted that
"blaming supervisors for not being anti-union enough not only
interferes with their right as individual employees but also is a
derivative violation of their employees' rights to organize since
they will inevitably be coerced and intimidated as a result of
the company policy."

Seth Goldstein, a New York City-based organizer for the Office
and Professional Employees International Union, called Menard
"one of the worst union busters I've ever seen," adding "I can't
find anyone who likes him or likes working for him."

Mr. Goldstein noted that Menards' contracts for employees don't
have an end date and the binding arbitration clause it long
imposed lasts years after a worker leaves, with direct warnings
not to work for a competitor.

The National Labor Relations Board, in response to the
Progressive story, found in 2016 that Menards committed multiple
violations of federal labor law.  It determined that the clause
threatening a 60 percent cut in pay for a manager who lets a
union be established was a violation, but took no action, as
Menard's had already removed this language from the agreements.
The NLRB also found Menards was violating labor law by requiring
employees to sign arbitration agreements that preclude them from
engaging in legal action, including class action suits. But
Menards also agreed to stop requiring this of employees.

However, in response to the recent class action suits, the
company responded that any workers' disagreements must be handled
through private mandatory arbitration, without the right to
appeal, rather than in public courts, City Pages reported.  But
"the workers pushed back, pointing out that Menards had agreed"
as part of the NLRB settlement "that it wouldn't force employees
to waive their rights to sue."

All of which leaves a question as to whether Menards has actually
stopped requiring such contracts, as it promised the NLRB.  That
issue may be revisited in these class action suits. [GN]


MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Gender Bias, Sexual Harassment Complaints
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Levine and Salvador Rodriguez, writing for Reuters, report
that women at Microsoft Corp working in U.S.-based technical jobs
filed 238 internal complaints about gender discrimination or
sexual harassment between 2010 and 2016, according to court
filings made public on March 12.

The figure was cited by plaintiffs suing Microsoft for
systematically denying pay raises or promotions to women at the
world's largest software company.  Microsoft denies it had any
such policy.

The lawsuit, filed in Seattle federal court in 2015, is
attracting wider attention after a series of powerful men have
left or been fired from their jobs in entertainment, the media
and politics for sexual misconduct.

Plaintiffs' attorneys are pushing to proceed as a class action
lawsuit, which could cover more than 8,000 women.

More details about Microsoft's human resources practices were
made public on March 12 in legal filings submitted as part of
that process.

The two sides are exchanging documents ahead of trial, which has
not been scheduled.

Out of 118 gender discrimination complaints filed by women at
Microsoft, only one was deemed "founded" by the company,
according to the unsealed court filings.

Attorneys for the women described the number of complaints as
"shocking" in the court filings, and said the response by
Microsoft's investigations team was "lackluster."

Companies generally keep information about internal
discrimination complaints private, making it unclear how the
number of complaints at Microsoft compares to those at its
competitors.

In a statement on March 13, Microsoft said it had a robust system
to investigate concerns raised by its employees, and that it
wanted them to speak up.

Microsoft budgets more than $55 million a year to promote
diversity and inclusion, it said in court filings.  The company
had about 74,000 U.S. employees at the end of 2017.

Microsoft said the plaintiffs cannot cite one example of a pay or
promotion problem in which Microsoft's investigations team should
have found a violation of company policy but did not.

U.S. District Judge James Robart has not yet ruled on the
plaintiffs' request for class action status.

A Reuters review of federal lawsuits filed between 2006 and 2016
revealed hundreds containing sexual harassment allegations where
companies used common civil litigation tactics to keep
potentially damning information under wraps.

Microsoft had argued that the number of womens' human resources
complaints should be secret because publicizing the outcomes
could deter employees from reporting future abuses.

A court-appointed official found that scenario "far too remote a
competitive or business harm" to justify keeping the information
sealed. [GN]


MICROSOFT CORP: Documents Unsealed in Gender Bias Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Weise and Alistair Barr, writing for Bloomberg Law, report
that Microsoft Corp.'s investigators concluded that fewer than 1
percent of gender-discrimination complaints made internally were
"founded," according to data unsealed in an ongoing class-action
lawsuit.

The disclosure covers almost 120 complaints made from 2010 to
2016 by U.S. female employees working in technical roles and
shows the company only sided with one accuser.  Employees also
lodged 108 complaints of sexual harassment, eight complaints of
retaliation, and three complaints of pregnancy discrimination.

The documents were unsealed in a 2015 lawsuit brought by three
female employees alleging systemic disparities in the pay and
promotion of women in technical and engineering roles at
Microsoft.  The women are seeking class action status, and their
attorneys have been jousting with Microsoft over what documents
can be made public.  An earlier round of documents disclosed one
of three cases where an employee alleged rape by a co-worker.

Microsoft is fighting the lawsuit, arguing the allegations are
based on individual circumstances and not indicative of any
systemic problems.  "Diversity and inclusion are critically
important to Microsoft," the company said in a statement, adding
it encourages employees to speak up with complaints.  "We take
all employee concerns seriously and have a fair and robust system
in place to investigate employee concerns and take appropriate
action when necessary."

The women who sued contend that the team at company headquarters
in Redmond, Washington, that investigates harassment and related
complaints has "no policies or procedures," such as automatically
flagging "repeat offenders" who had multiple cases against them.
The court files include several memos from the Employee Relations
Investigations Team that found substantive evidence of improper
behavior but no violation of company policy.  Managers, not human
resources or the legal department, have "'final say' in any
corrective action," according to the plaintiffs.

In one 2013 memo, an internal investigator documented a complaint
by four female employees about inappropriate touching by a male
co-worker at a party.  One said the man "moved his hand up and
down, approaching her right armpit and bra strap," two said he
grabbed them around the waist and moved them closer, and another
said he moved his hand "up and down her back" in a manner so
obviously inappropriate that it prompted a colleague to ask "This
is how we're going to say 'Hi?'" The investigator ruled the male
employee displayed "poor judgment" but didn't violate company
policy.

In court documents, Microsoft said each internal investigator "is
a licensed attorney with years of investigation experience and
training."  It also said the internal investigations are not
directly related to the pay inequity claims at the heart of the
lawsuit.

"Despite protesting that the ERIT team determined only one
gender-related concern was 'founded' during the relevant time
frame, they cite not one example of a pay/promotion concern for
which they contend ERIT should have found a violation of company
policy," the company said in a filing.

The unsealed data were first reported by the Seattle Times. [GN]


MISSOURI: Brown, et al. Seek to Certify Prisoners Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled NORMAN BROWN, et al., the Plaintiff, v.
ANNE L. PRECYTHE, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04082-
NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order to:

   1. certify a class of plaintiffs defined as:

      "individuals in the custody of the Missouri Department of
      Corrections who were sentenced to life without parole under
      a mandatory sentencing scheme and who were under 18 years
      of age at the time of the offense";

   2. appoint Norman Brown, Ralph McElroy, Sidney Roberts, and
      Theron Roland as class representatives; and

   3. appoint Amy E. Breihan, Matthew D. Knepper, Sarah L.
      Zimmerman, Denyse L. Jones, and Jordan T. Ault as class
      counsel.

Anne L. Precythe is the Director of the Department of
Corrections.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amy E. Breihan, Esq.
          RODERICK AND SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER
          3115 South Grand Blvd., Suite 300
          St. Louis, MO 63118
          Telephone: (314) 254 8540
          Facsimile: (314) 254 8547
          E-mail: amy.breihan@macarthurjustice.org

               - and -

          Denyse L. Jones, Esq.
          Matthew D. Knepper, Esq.
          Sarah L. Zimmerman, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 480 1500
          Facsimile: (314) 480 1505
          E-mail: Matt.Knepper@huschblackwell.com
                  Sarah.Zimmerman@huschblackwell.com
                  Denyse.Jones@huschblackwell.com

               - and -

          Jordan T. Ault, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          235 East High Street
          P.O. Box 1251
          Jefferson City, MO 65102
          Telephone: (573) 635 9118
          Facsimile: (573) 634 7854
          E-mail: Jordan.Ault@huschblackwell.com


MONAT: Class Actions Pile Up Over Hair Care Products
----------------------------------------------------
Darcy Spears, writing for KTNV, reports that two hundred million
dollars -- that's how much money Monat Global says it made
selling hair care products in 2017 through multi-level marketing.

YouTube videos show the family behind Monat luxuriating in
mansions and driving fancy cars. But many in an ongoing class-
action lawsuit are considering it a pyramid scheme.

Three recently filed class action lawsuits accuse Monat of fraud
and deception.

"An inherent design and/or manufacturing defect in Monat hair
care products causes significant hair loss and scalp irritation
to many consumers," one lawsuit alleges.

"I'm devastated with what my hair looks like right now," said
Heather Fox, a Monat customer in Phoenix.

"I had to cut off my hair," said Monat Market Partner Erin Ostby.

Both women say Monat did them more damage than good.

"My dad used to always say I was like Samson from the Bible -- I
got my power from my hair, so it was really upsetting and I
couldn't do that to someone else," said Ms. Ostby, who recently
stopped selling Monat.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has received and is in the
process of assessing 187 adverse event reports related to Monat
products. The FDA received these reports between 8/29/17 and
3/9/18.

And more than 500 complaints have been filed with the Better
Business Bureau in South Florida where Monat is based.

"Any reputable lab will tell you there's nothing in the products
that would cause this kind of reaction in a large population --
there just isn't.  You can rub it in your skin, you can drink it
if you like, within reason.  It's not going to cause this kind of
reaction," Monat Spokesperson Gene Grabowski said in a phone
interview.

But the company's repeated response to BBB complaints reads,
"Although Monat's ingredients are naturally-based, safe, pure and
sustainable, we understand that some may experience a reaction
and should discontinue use."

The class action lawsuits claim the products use numerous "harsh
chemicals" and "known human allergens."

One controversial ingredient the suit highlights is Capixyl --
containing red clover -- which some say should be on a warning
label.

"Yes, there should be a warning label, but only if the amount was
higher," Mr. Grabowski said.

The University of Maryland Medical Center says women with a
history of breast cancer should avoid red clover due to its
estrogen-like effects in the body.  It also says red clover may
interfere with the liver's ability to process some drugs.

"The amount of red clover used (red clover extract) is so small
that it would have no effect," said Mr. Grabowski.

According to the FDA, cosmetic companies are responsible for
ensuring the safety of their own products, which in most cases
don't require government approval before they go on the market.

"We do tests before we send them to market and we know they're
safe," said r. Grabowski.  "I mean, those aren't clinical tests."

Monat's website shows the clinical tests they did utilized one
active ingredient per study.

As the class action lawsuits were recently filed, Monat has not
yet responded to the claims in court. [GN]


MONAT: Accused of Using Legal Tactics to Silence Critics
--------------------------------------------------------
Darcy Spears, writing for KTNV, reports that Erin Ostby said "So
I tried it and I really loved it! Like I was like, oh my gosh! My
hair feels really good! They have a men's line and a kids' line
so the whole family can use it -- like I was very excited!"

But Ms. Ostby's excitement quickly faded when she says her hair
began falling out after using the Monat hair products she'd been
selling.

"I was crying to my husband, not just over my hair, but what had
I done?"

She's what Monat calls a Market Partner -- someone who sells
their shampoo and other hair care products on the company's
multi-level marketing platform, which is mostly through social
media.

But the young mother had to walk away from an increasingly
lucrative business when she says she could no longer stand by the
products.

"I was very nervous to say anything because of the backlash I
have seen of other people that spoke out about what was
happening."

In three recently filed class action lawsuits against Monat, the
company is accused of using strong-arm legal tactics to silence
critics.

"We have to do that to protect ourselves from defamation," said
Monat spokesperson Gene Grabowski, who would only agree to a
phone interview.

Las Vegan Toni Miller, whose daughter works at 13 Action News, is
one of the stylists Monat is suing for defamation.

"What I am seeing with this product in particular, it's not
normal," Ms. Miller observed after working with clients who'd
used Monat.

Monat claims people like Toni Miller are engaged in a smear
campaign designed to promote competing products.

In their suit against her, they report 1,000 order cancellations
in the last two months.

"When we tried to reason with our attackers who were bullying
people online, bullying some of our market partners, bullying
other customers and ridiculing them for using our product, we had
to file a lawsuit to protect ourselves from the attacks,"
Mr. Grabowski said.

But Ms. Miller says Monat is the bully.  The company sent a
letter to Posare Salon, threatening to sue the owner if she
didn't silence Toni or fire her.

As for consumers, Mr. Grabowski says, "Everyone is entitled to
their opinion.  By the way, there is not a constitutional right
to complain about a company.  A company has a right to respond
any way it wants to."

The Federal Trade Commission's Consumer Review Fairness Act
"Protects consumers' ability to share their honest opinions about
a business' products, services or conduct in any forum, including
social media."

But that's not enough.  This request for a restraining order
against Monat was filed March 7 in South Florida, asking a court
to protect consumers against Monat's "Threats, harassment and
intimidation."

Monat says one stylist has agreed to pay them to settle its
claims against her.

Toni Miller is still fighting.

Monat sent this statement for consumers: "If a consumer feels
that he or she is having a negative reaction to MONAT products,
we encourage them to speak with their Market Partner to obtain an
intake form.  The consumer can also contact MONAT Customer
Service." [GN]


MOUNT KISCO BAGEL: "Tapia" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERTO TAPIA, the Plaintiff, v. MOUNT KISCO BAGEL COMPANY
INC. d/b/a MOUNT KISCO BAGEL, and JAMES FLEMING, individually,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02864-KPF (S.D.N.Y., March 30,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and notice
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged in their
unlawful conduct pursuant to a corporate policy of minimizing
labor costs and denying employees compensation. Defendants'
unlawful conduct has been intentional, willful and in bad faith,
and has caused significant damage to Plaintiff and the FLSA
Collective. The FLSA Collective would benefit from the issuance
of a court-supervised notice of the present lawsuit and the
opportunity to join the present lawsuit. Those similarly situated
employees are known to Defendants, are readily identifiable and
locatable through their records. These similarly situated
employees should be notified of and allowed to opt into this
action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).

The lawsuit contends the position of baker is not exempt and has
never been exempt. Employees, though, are not paid overtime for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The FLSA and
NYLL require that employers pay all employees at least one and
1.5 times the employee's wage for all hours worked in excess of
40 during any workweek, unless they are exempt from coverage. The
Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and members of the FLSA
Collective at one and one-half times the employee's wage for all
hours worked in excess of 40 during any workweek. The exact
accounting of such discrepancy can only be determined upon
completion of discovery. The Plaintiff and members of the FLSA
Collective were not given notice containing the rate or rates of
pay and basis thereof, whether paid by the hour, shift, day,
week, salary, piece, commission, or other; allowances, if any,
claimed as part of the minimum wage, including tip, meal or
lodging allowances; the regular pay day designated by the
employer in accordance with NYLL section 195(1); and any anything
otherwise required by law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
          225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 323 6980
          E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com


MYER: Has Until May 18 to Settle Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Financial Review reports that as activist investor
Solomon Lew prepares his next attack, Myer has been given two
months to settle a multimillion-dollar class action from
shareholders who claim they lost money when the department store
chain missed profit forecasts in 2015.

The Federal Court has ordered Myer and TPT Patrol into mediation,
giving the two parties until May 18 to settle the case or go to
trial.  A three-week hearing has been set down for August.

TPT Patrol is trustee for the Amies Superannuation Fund and
launched the class action in December 2016, alleging shareholders
suffered loss and damage because of statements made by Myer
regarding its 2014 full-year results.

TPT Patrol has alleged that Myer engaged in misleading or
deceptive conduct and failed to abide by its continuous
disclosure obligations by providing profit guidance without a
reasonable basis and by failing to inform the market about
information that had a material impact on the value of its
shares.

The class action covers shareholders who bought Myer shares on or
after September 11, 2014, and held those shares until March 19,
2015.

On September 11, former Myer chief executive Bernie Brookes said
he expected Myer's profit in 2015 to exceed the $98.5 million
earned in 2014.  On March 19, Mr Brookes revealed that profits
were expected to fall as much as 24 per cent to between $75
million and $80 million.

Myer shares fell 20õ on the day to $1.28 and are now trading at
record lows around 41.5õ following three profit downgrades over
the last 12 months.

Myer's former chief executive Richard Umbers warned in February
that first-half net profit would fall as much as 41 per cent to
between $37 million and $41 million following an unprecedented
6.5 per cent drop in sales during the January clearance sales.

A week later Mr Umbers was shown the door by new chairman Garry
Hounsell, who has been appointed executive chairman while the
company hunts for a new chief executive.

Stake's value plunges
Myer faces more legal action if its largest shareholder, Solomon
Lew's Premier Investments, follows through with threats to take
the department store chain to court for misleading shareholders
about its prospects last year.

Premier bought a 10.8 per cent stake in Myer last March for $101
million, or $1.15 a share, and has seen the value of its stake
fall by more than $60 million.

The losses, worth about 40õ per Premier share, will cloud
Premier's first-half results, which are due to be released on
March 9.

Citigroup analysts expect Premier's sales to rise 7.7 per cent to
$634 million and retail earnings to rise 9.4 per cent to $102
million, with strong growth from Smiggle and Peter Alexander
expected to offset a 16 per cent decline in earnings from the
mature clothing brands -- Portmans, Dotti, Jacqui E, Just Jeans
and Jay Jays.

Citigroup analyst Bryan Raymond said Premier shareholders would
be looking for more detail about Premier's strategy for its
investment in Myer.

"Premier intends to be an activist investor in Myer rather than a
potential acquirer in the near term," he said.

Mr Lew is expected to use the results announcement to ramp up his
campaign for an extraordinary general meeting to oust the entire
Myer board and seek the appointment of three of its own nominees.

Mr Lew claimed in February that Myer was in "peril" and needed a
totally new board in order to have any sustainable future.

"It is time for all Myer shareholders to unite to save their
company," he said. [GN]


NATIONSTAR MORRTGAGE: 4 Classes Certified in "McNamer" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CHARLES D. MCNAMER, et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:14-cv-
01948-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algengon L. Marbley
entered an order granting the motion to certify these classes:

a. Class 1 (Nationwide) as to the Issues of the Fair Debt
   Collection Practices Act Liability and Statutory Damages:

   "any person who (i) received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge
   case filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts on or after January
   1, 2012 and or before January 31, 2015; (ii) who filed and
   served a Statement of Intention herein pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
   section 521(a)(2)(A) stating an intention to surrender
   residential real property were mailed by Nationstar one or
   more Mortgage Loan Statements";

b. Class 2 (Nationwide) as to the Issues of the Fair Debt
   Collection Practices Act Liability and Statutory Damages:

   "any person who (i) received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge
   case filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts on or after January
   1, 2012 and or before January 31, 2015; (ii) who filed and
   served a Statement of Intention herein pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
   section 521(a)(2)(A) stating an intention to surrender
   residential real property were mailed by Nationstar, at least
   one Force-Placed Insurance letter";

c. Class 3 (S.D. Ohio) as to the Issues of Whether Nationstar
   Violated 11 U.S.C. section 524(a):

   "any person who (i) received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge
   case filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts on or after January
   1, 2012 and or before January 31, 2015; (ii) who filed and
   served a Statement of Intention herein pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
   section 521(a)(2)(A) stating an intention to surrender
   residential real property that was/is security for a debt
   serviced by Nationstar; and (iii) who after vacating the real
   property, were mailed by Nationstar, one or more Mortgage Loan
   Statements";

d. Class 4 (S.D. Ohio) as to the Issues of Whether Nationstar
   Violated 11 U.S.C. section 524(a):

   "any person who (i) received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge
   case filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts on or after January
   1, 2012 and or before January 31, 2015; (ii) who filed and
   served a Statement of Intention herein pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
   section 521(a)(2)(A) stating an intention to surrender
   residential real property that was/is security for a debt
   serviced by Nationstar; and (iii) who after vacating the real
   property, were mailed by Nationstar, at least one Force-Placed
   Insurance letter".

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


NEIGHBORHOOD GARAGE: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action lawsuit against
Neighborhood Garage Door Services, Inc., alleging that the
company failed to lawfully calculate and pay their employees the
correct minimum and overtime wages.  The class action lawsuit
against Neighborhood Garage Door Services, Inc. is currently
pending in the San Diego County Superior Court, Case No. 32-2018-
00007885-CU-OE-CTL.

The lawsuit filed against Neighborhood Garage Door Services, Inc.
alleges that from time to time, employees are unable to take off
duty meal and rest breaks and are not fully relieved of duty for
their meal periods.  Allegedly, the company employees are
required to perform work as ordered by Employee Retention
Services for more than five (5) hours during a shift without
receiving an off-duty meal break.  California labor laws require
an employer to provide an employee required to perform work for
more than five (5) hours during a shift with, a thirty (30)
minute uninterrupted meal break prior to the end of the
employee's fifth (5th) hour of work and a second uninterrupted
meal break when employees are required to work ten (10) hours.

Additionally, the class action lawsuit alleges that DEFENDANT
failed to pay all minimum wages due to PLAINTIFF for compensable
time worked.  DEFENDANT also allegedly failed to pay PLAINTIFF
overtime wages for all overtime worked, thereby uniformly
resulting in PLAINTIFF being underpaid for all time worked during
his employment, including overtime worked.

For more information about the class action lawsuit against
Neighborhood Garage Door Services, Inc. call (858) 952-0354 to
speak to an experienced California employment attorney today.

Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is a labor law firm
with law offices located in San Diego County, Riverside County,
Los Angeles County, Sacramento County, and San Francisco County.
The firm has a statewide practice of representing employees on a
contingency basis for violations involving unpaid wages, overtime
pay, discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination and other
types of illegal workplace conduct. [GN]


NEW ORLEANS MILLWORKS: FLSA Class Certified in "Maldonado" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Carl J. Barbier grants the Motion for Conditional Class
Certification, Judicial Notice, and for Disclosure of the Names
and Addresses of Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs filed in the lawsuit
styled OSMAN MALDONADO v. NEW ORLEANS MILLWORKS, LLC, ET AL.,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01015-CJB-MBN (E.D. La.).

The class is defined as:

    "All individuals who worked or are working performing manual
     labor for O&G Construction, LLC during the previous three
     years, and who are eligible for overtime pay pursuant to the
     FLSA, 29 U.S.C Section 207 and who did not receive full
     overtime compensation."

The collective action is filed by Plaintiffs Osman Maldonado,
Josue Nunez, Mauricio Hernandez and Marvel Guerrero, under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.  The Plaintiffs brought this
suit on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated to
recover allegedly unpaid overtime wages for manual work they
performed for Defendants O&G Construction, LLC, Olan David Del
Arca Sabat, New Orleans Metalworks, Inc., and David Waldheim.

According to the Court's Order & Reasons, the Defendants shall
have 14 days from the entry of this Order to produce the full
names, dates of employment, and last known addresses of all
potential opt-in plaintiffs.

The time period within which the potential opt-in plaintiffs may
opt-in is 90 days.  The 90-day opt-in period will begin to run on
the date that the Defendants provide a complete list of the
names, dates of employment, and last known addresses of all
potential opt-in plaintiffs.

A copy of the Order & Reasons is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SasMH0RG


NRA GROUP: Class Certification Under Damasco Sought in "Bartz"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Bartz moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit styled CRYSTAL BARTZ, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NRA GROUP, LLC
D/B/A NATIONAL RECOVERY AGENCY, Case No. 2:18-cv-00410-DEJ (E.D.
Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for
class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the
Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing
schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be
filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of
the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the
court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing
of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual
settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision
cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from
representing a class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing
Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App.
LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017).  The Plaintiff
asserts that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by
sending a certified check to the proposed class representative.
Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also
Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No.
15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24,
2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense
when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an
amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


OHIO: Class Certification Bid in "Ball" Suit Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled PHYLLIS BALL, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
JOHN KASICH, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00282-EAS-
EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Edmund A. Sargus entered an order
on March 30, 2018, granting in part and denying in part
Plaintiffs' motion for Class Certification.

The Court held that the following revision of the class
definition will ensure that a Rule 23(b)(2) class is properly
constituted:

   "all Medicaid-eligible adults with intellectual and
   development disabilities residing in the state of Ohio who, on
   or after March 31, 2016, are qualified for home and community-
   based services, and after receiving options counseling express
   that they are interested in community-based services."

Mr. Kasich is the Governor of Ohio.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FePw124p


OPAL AGED: Shine Lawyers File Class Action Over Care Home Fire
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Weekly Source reports that Shine Lawyers have lodged the
class action against the home's owners Opal Aged Care in the NSW
Supreme Court on behalf of nine relatives of victims.

Court documents allege Opal was negligent in its employment of
Roger Dean, the nurse convicted of 11 counts of murder over the
2011 fire, and failed to have any or any adequate, sprinkler
system in place.

A coroner's inquest had found that Opal did not check Dean's
references before hiring him.

He had previously been investigated for workplace misconduct and
was suspended from a former role because of drug problems.

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

"The family members feel that not all accountable parties have
taken responsibility for their actions and are looking for
justice to be delivered for their deceased family members.  It's
clear that more should have been done to protect these vulnerable
nursing home residents," Shine Lawyers NSW General Manager James
Chrara said.

Opal is roughly owned 47.6% by GK Goh Holdings (Singapore), a
similar % by AMP Capital and 2% by ex-CEO Gary Barnier.

Opal currently has 71 aged care facilities in QLD, NSW, VIC and
WA. [GN]


ORACLE AMERICA: Fails to Pay Wages, Williams Says
-------------------------------------------------
BRANDON WILLIAMS, an individual, on behalf of herself and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
ORACLE AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation conducting business
in the State of California, and DOES 1 to 10, the Defendant, Case
No. 18CIV01599 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 4, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid wages under the California Labor Code.

Plaintiff and other class members are former employees of Oracle
whose employment terminated sometime during the class period. Per
Oracle's policy, upon termination of employment, Oracle forced
Plaintiff and other class members to forfeit accrued commissions
for work they performed in the final quarter of their employment.
By failing to pay Plaintiff and other class members commissions
earned during the last quarter of their employment, Oracle
unlawfully withheld wages earned by Plaintiff and other class
members that were due to them.

Oracle America designs, manufactures, and markets network
computing infrastructure solutions. The Company offers a range of
services including data storage products, microprocessors,
software desktop systems, developer software, and infrastructure
management software.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David R. Markham, Esq.
          Maggie Realin, Esq.
          Michael Morphew, Esq.
          THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
          750 B Street, Suite 1950
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 399 3995
          Facsimile: (619) 615 2067
          E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com
                  mrealin@markham-law.com
                  mmorphew@markham-law.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
          Telephone: 888 474 7242
          Facsimile: 562 256 1006
          E-mail: walterhaines@yahoo.com


OWL INC: Court Denies Motion for Issuance of Notice in "Perez"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOSE PEREZ, ALFREDO SANTOS and DOUGLAS
RICHEY, the Plaintiffs, v. OWL, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
6:17-cv-01092-CEM-GJK (M.D, Fla.), the Hon Judge Carlos E.
Mendoza entered an order on March 30, 2018:

   1. adopting the Report and Recommendation in part and made a
      part of this Order to the extent it is consistent with, in
      all other respects, the R&R is rejected;

   2. denying Plaintiffs' motion for issuance of notice; and

   3. on or before April 13, 2018, directing Plaintiffs to file a
      renewed motion for issuance of notice consistent with this
      Order.

The Court said, "Judge Kelly recommended denying Plaintiffs'
Motion because the hourly employees and the salaried employees of
Defendant were not subject to a similar pay provision. See Dybach
v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 942 F.2d 1562, 1567-68 (11th Cir. 1991)
(noting that to issue a notice to employees wishing to opt-in to
the litigation, those employees must be "'similarly situated'
with respect to their job requirements and with regard to their
pay provisions"). The Court agrees with Judge Kelly's analysis
and that the hourly employees and the salaried employees are not
subject to the same or similar pay provision. However, in their
Objection, Plaintiffs argue that instead of denying their Motion,
the Court should divide the proposed class into two distinct
classes: one for salaried employees and one for hourly employees.
(Doc. 81 at 7-10). The Court finds Plaintiffs' argument regarding
the creation of a subclass persuasive.1 In Dice v. Weiser
Security Services, Inc., the court found that it was "not
prohibited from creating a subclass" and that "the creation of
such a subclass would best serve considerations of convenience,
cost, judicial economy, and expeditious trial process." No. 06-
61133-CIV, 2008 WL 249250, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 29, 2008)
(collecting cases). Although that case involved a motion for
decertification, the court acknowledged that "the district court
creates an opt-in class, and certifies the class, in its sound
discretion. Id. (citing Hipp v. Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 252
F.3d 1208, 1219 (11th Cir. 2001)). Similarly, this Court finds
that it is not prohibited from creating a subclass on a motion
for issuance of notice and that the creation of such a subclass
furthers the twin purposes behind Sec. 216(b): "(1) reducing the
burden on plaintiffs through the pooling of resources, and (2)
efficiently resolving common issues of law and fact that arise
from the same illegal conduct." Morgan v. Family Dollar Stores,
Inc., 551 F.3d 1233, 1264 (11th Cir. 2008). Without a clear
definition of the two classes and an updated notice, however, the
Court declines to grant Plaintiffs' Motion at this time. Instead,
Plaintiffs are encouraged to file a renewed motion that provides
the Court with a clear definition of each class and an updated
notice that reflects that definition."

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


PGA INC: Class of Workers Certified Under FLSA in "Schilling"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William M. Conley enters an opinion and order in the
lawsuit titled ERIC SCHILLING, BLAINE KROHN, and ERIK SINCLAIR v.
PGA INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-00202-wmc (W.D. Wisc.):

   1) granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
      The Court certifies this class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of
      the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

      All persons who were employed by PGA, Inc., on or after
      March 31, 2014, who (i) did not receive overtime pay equal
      to 1.5 times both their base rate of pay and their cash
      fringe rate, (ii) were paid overtime based on the rate of
      pay for the work completed during overtime hours, rather
      than the average straight time hourly rate earned during
      the workweek, or (iii) both.

   2) appointing Eric Schilling, Blaine Krohn, and Erik Sinclair
      as the class representatives;

   3) appointing Attorney Yingtao Ho, Esq., and The Previant Law
      Firm, S.C. as class counsel;

   4) denying Defendant's motion for decertification;

   5) ruling that on or before April 4, 2018, the parties should
      submit a joint proposed form and method of notice, or if
      unable to agree, plaintiffs should submit their own
      proposed notice, with defendant to respond by April 11,
      2018; and

   6) ruling that the Court will hold oral argument on the
      parties' cross motions for summary judgment on April 26,
      2018, at 10:00 a.m.

The Plaintiffs assert claims against their employer, PGA Inc., a
company specializing in air comfort systems in central Wisconsin,
for allegedly calculating overtime wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin state labor laws.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that: (1) PGA's policy of not
including the "cash fringe rate" in calculating overtime violates
both the FLSA and state law; and (2) PGA's policy of paying
overtime based on the rate for the work performed during overtime
hours, rather than on a "straight-time hourly rate," violates
state law.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KAQ4Yah7


PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Ohigashi" Suit Over Penn Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Ohigashi, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc., Anthony M. Sanfilippo,
Carlos Ruisanchez, Charles L. Atwood, Stephen Comer, Ron
Huberman, James L. Martineau, Jaynie Miller Studenmund, and
Desiree Rogers, Case No. 2:18-cv-00387 (D. Nev., March 2, 2018),
is brought on behalf of all public stockholders of Pinnacle
Entertainment, Inc., to enjoin the vote on a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which Pinnacle will be acquired by Penn
National Gaming, Inc., through its wholly-owned subsidiary
Franchise Merger Sub, Inc. for approximately $2.8 billion.

According to the complaint, Pinnacle filed a Definitive Proxy
Statement on Schedule 14A with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, which recommends that Pinnacle stockholders vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction.  However, the Proxy omits or
misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things: (i) Pinnacle's financial projections, relied upon by
Pinnacle's financial advisor J.P. Morgan Securities LLC in its
financial analyses; (ii) the data and inputs underlying the
financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion
provided by J.P. Morgan; (iii) Pinnacle insiders' potential
conflicts of interest; and (iv) the background process leading to
the Proposed Transaction.  The failure to adequately disclose
such material information constitutes a violation of the Exchange
Act, as Pinnacle stockholders need such information to cast a
fully-informed vote in connection with the Proposed Transaction
or seek appraisal, says the complaint.

Located at 3980 Howard Hughes Parkway, Las Vegas, Nevada 89169,
Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. owns and operates 16 gaming,
hospitality, and entertainment businesses. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Martin A Muckleroy, Esq.
      MUCKLEROY LUNT
      6077 S. Fort Apache Rd., Ste 140
      Las Vegas, NV 89148
      Telephone: (702) 907-0097
      Facsimile: (702) 938-4065
      E-mail: martin@muckleroylunt.com

         - and -

      Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
      BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
      885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 308-5858
      Facsimile: (212) 214-0506
      E-mail:  fortunato@bespc.com

         - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
      Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
      Alexandra E. Eisig, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 682-3025
      Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
      E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com
              mrogovin@weisslawllp.com
              kkeenan@weisslawllp.com
              aeisig@weisslawllp.com


PIONEER CREDIT: Toney-Adkins Withdraws Bid to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on March 14, 2018, in the case
entitled Charmaine Toney-Adkins v. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-04770 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held
before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiff's agreed motion for protective order is granted;

   -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is withdrawn
      without prejudice;

   -- Defendant agrees not to make a tender or an offer to settle
      this case on an individual basis or serve an Offer of
      Judgment that contemplates an individual recovery unless it
      gives plaintiff written notice of its intention to serve an
      individual offer as set forth in the stipulation;

   -- Status hearing is set for May 2, 2018, at 9:00 a.m.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VjRO2lKG


PNC: Wants Suit Over Job Applicants' Arrest Records Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patty Tascarella, writing for Pittsburgh Business Times, reports
that Pittsburgh's largest bank asked a federal judge to dismiss
claims that it violated Pennsylvania law by considering job
applicants' arrest records, even in situations where there was no
conviction, Reuters reported.

PNC Financial Services Group Inc. said a proposed class action
suit is trying to hold it liable for actions the bank took to
comply with federal law, according to the article. [GN]


PRESTIGE AUTO: Lopez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PRESTIGE AUTO TOWING CORP., a Florida
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-21204-JAL (S.D.
Fla., March 31, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney fees, pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff was not paid time and one-
half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 per work week. The records, if any, concerning the number of
hours actually worked by Plaintiff and all other similarly
situated employees and former employees and the compensation
actually paid to such employees are in the possession, custody,
and control of Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Terri Gutman Valdes, Esq.
          TERRI GUTMAN VALDES LLC
          151 Venera Avenue, Suite 300
          Miami, FL 33146
          Telephone: (305) 740 9600
          Facsimile: (305) 740 9202
          E-mail: tgvaldez@aol.com


PODS ENTERPRISES: Faces "Ellenburg" Suit in Cal. Super. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PODS Enterprises
LLC. The case is captioned as Kristin Ellenburg, On behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Does 1-500 and PODS
Enterprises LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00228848-CU-NP-
GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., March 12, 2018).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A Kearney, Esq.
          KEARNEY LITTLEFIELD, LLP
          633 West 5th Street, 28th Floor
          Los Angeles CA 90071
          Telephone: 1 213 473 1900
          Facsimile: 1 213 473 1919
          E-mail: tak@kearneylittlefield.com


PURDUE PHARMA: New Castle Class Suit Removed to E.D. Philadelphia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on February 13, 2018 styled The
City of New Castle, on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma Inc., The Purdue
Frederick Company, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-Mcneil-Jansen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., Endo Health Solutions, Inc.,
Allergan PLC, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Cephalon, Inc.,
Case No. 180201036 was removed from the Court Of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia County to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The District Court Clerk assigned 2:18-
cv-00952-TJS to the proceeding.

The case asserts personal injury claims.

The Defendants own and operate pharmaceutical companies in the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
      LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
      510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Harvey Bartle IV, Esq.
      MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
      1701 Market St
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 963-5000
      E-mail: hbartle@morganlewis.com


RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Rafferty Seeks to Certify Florida Consumers
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CHERYL RAFFERTY, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RETRIEVAL-
MASTERS CREDITORS BUREAU, INC., d/b/a RMCB Collection Agency, a
foreign corporation, and John Does 1 through 25, the Defendants,
Case No. 5:17-cv-00426-PGB-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to certify a class of:

   "all Florida consumers who received RMCB's form Collection
   Letter that contained at least one of RMCB's alleged
   violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5jYG5wLG

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Sechrest, Esq.
          D. Marc Warner, Esq.
          Sean G. Hipworth, Esq.
          WARNER, SECHREST & BUTTS, P.A.
          5200 SW 91st Terrace, Suite 101
          Gainesville, FL 32608
          Telephone: (352) 373 5922
          Facsimile: (352) 373 5921
          E-mail: Sechrest@fbswlaw.com
                  Marc@fbswlaw.com
                  KimHart@fbswlaw.com
                  Lisa2@fbswlaw.com
                  shipworth@fbswlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Carolos A. Ortiz, Esq.
          Westley A. Holden, Esq.
          HINSHAW LAW
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 4th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 358-7747
          E-mail: cortiz@hinshawlaw.com
                  wholden@hinshawlaw.com


REVENUE GROUP: Illegally Collects Debt, "Mormon" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Shana Mormon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Revenue Group and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00491-DCN (N.D. Ohio, March 2, 2018), arises out of the
Defendants' practice of sending a collection letter attempting to
collect a consumer debt that imposed an additional service fee
for credit card and check by phone payments.

Revenue Group owns and operates a debt collection company at 4780
Hinckley Industrial Pkwy, Ste 200, Cleveland, OH 44109. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROSELAND RESIDENTIAL: "Conley" Suit Moved to Fed. District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ioana Conley and Alexander
Conley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. Roseland Residential Trust and NWP Services
Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 1781-CV-03719, was removed
from the Middlesex Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts (Boston) on April 4, 2018. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-10629-WGY to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William G.
Young.

Roseland is a premier real estate development and management
company with a reputation for visionary excellence and
exceptional customer service.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          David J. Relethford, Esq.
          Michael C. Forrest, Esq.
          FORREST, LAMOTHE, MAZOW, MCCULLOUGH, YASI & YASI
          2 Salem Green, Suite 2
          Salem, MA 01970
          Telephone: (415) 579 9481
          E-mail: drelethford@forrestlamothe.com
                  mforrest@forrestlamothe.com

               - and -

          Robert E. Mazow, Esq.
          MAZOW & MCCULLOUGH
          10 Derby Square, 4th Floor
          Salem, MA 01970
          Telephone: (978) 744 8000
          Facsimile: (978) 744 8012
          E-mail: rem@helpinginjured.com

Attorneys for Roseland Residential Trust:

          Thomas H. Wintner, Esq.
          Mathilda McGee-Tubb, Esq.
          MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, PC
          One Financial Center, 42nd Flr.
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 348 1625
          E-mail: twintner@mintz.com
                  msmcgee-tubb@mintz.com


RUSHMORE LOAN: Bid to Certify Class Denied Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Williams, the Plaintiff, v. Rushmore Loan
Management Services, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-
00538-RNC (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Robert N. Chatigny entered
an order on March 31, 2018:

   1. denying without prejudice to renewal after the conference
      Plaintiff's motions to certify the class and compel initial
      disclosures;

   2. granting Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to
      file dispositive motions, a schedule for filing dispositive
      motions will be discussed at the conference;

   3. denying Defendants' motions to dismiss;

   4. granting motions to stay and denying as moot motions for
      extensions of time;

   5. denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to certify
      the class and to compel initial disclosures, and granting
      Plaintiff's motion to extend the time for filing
      dispositive motions and

   6. granting motions to dismiss and, motions seeking to stay
      discovery and other activities pending ruling on the
      motions to dismiss.

The Court said, "The complaint in this putative class action
alleges that on July 21, 2016, Rushmore caused McCalla to bring a
foreclosure lawsuit in the name of GMAT 2013 against the
plaintiff, and on August 2, 2016, Rushmore sent him a payoff
statement listing late fees added after his loan was accelerated.
Count one claims that the defendants violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) because the debt they sought to
collect through the foreclosure action and payoff statement
included payment of late fees for periods after the loan had been
accelerated in violation of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692e, e(2), e(10),
1692f and 1692f(1). Count two claims that the foreclosure
complaint included a validation notice that would confuse a
consumer because it suggested a means of responding to the
complaint other than as specified in the summons in violation of
section 1692e. All three defendants move to dismiss on various
grounds. They contend that the complaint fails to allege concrete
injury because the plaintiff received a discharge in bankruptcy
prior to the alleged violations; they further contend that
attempts to enforce a security interest do not constitute debt
collection activities and thus fall outside the scope of the
FDCPA. Plaintiff responds that these arguments are unavailing at
this stage. I agree. Taking the allegations of the complaint as
true, plaintiff may be able to prove that he sustained a concrete
injury in that the defendants violated the FDCPA by making
demands for payment of invalid late charges, as alleged in count
one, and by including the validation notice in the foreclosure
complaint, as alleged in count two. To the extent the defendants
rely on matters outside the complaint, those matters are either
not properly considered or do not support a ruling dismissing the
complaint. All three defendants contend that dismissal is proper
under the prior pending action doctrine and in light of
plaintiff's improper claim-splitting. They contend that both
counts in the complaint should have been included in the
complaint in Williams II, Case No. 3:16-cv-517. Plaintiff does
not dispute that the violation alleged in count one overlaps with
a violation alleged in Williams II. Nor does he dispute that the
violation alleged in count two could be addressed in Willams II.
I conclude that it may be appropriate to require plaintiff to
include both counts in Williams II. A telephone conference with
counsel will be scheduled to discuss this possibility."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WLx1Ue


S.A.S. SERVICES: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Elkhouly Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABDELRAHMAN ELKHOULY, an Individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. S. A. S. SERVICES
GROUP, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC697737 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
March 12, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wages and minimum
wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, with regard to Defendants' California
based non-exempt, hourly paid current and former employees that
worked at Defendant S. A. S. Services Group locations in
California, Defendants have established a rounding policy which
does not compensate said employees for the time they actually
worked and as a result Defendants have failed to pay all wages
due including overtime wages for all hours worked and failed to
pay the required minimum wage for all hours worked. Further
Defendants have failed to provide uninterrupted 30 minute meal
periods; failed to provide paid rest periods; failed to timely
furnish accurate itemized wage statements; violated Labor Code
section 203; and conducted unfair business practices.

S.A.S. has been providing services to airline partners since
2004.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce Kokozian, Esq.
          KOKOZIAN LAW FIRM, APC
          9440 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 510
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (323) 857-5900


SAFE HAVEN: Response to Class Certification Motion due by May 3
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Jose Atilano, Plaintiff, v. A Safe Haven
LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00758 (N.D. Ill.),
the Hon. Judge John J. Tharp Jr. entered an order directing
briefing schedule to the plaintiff's motion to conditionally
certify class:

     a. Response to the motion is due by May 3, 2018.

     b. Reply is due by May 24, 18.

According to docket entry made by the Clerk on April 5, 2018,
once the motion is fully briefed, the court will rule via CM/ECF
notice and set a further date as appropriate.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zWZB8v3x


SAFEMARK SYSTEMS: Court Denies Class Certification in Gorss Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GORSS MOTELS, INC. and E & G, INC., the
Plaintiffs, v. SAFEMARK SYSTEMS, LP, the Defendant, Case No.
6:16-cv-01638-GAP-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Gregory A.
Presnell entered an order on April 5, 2018, denying Plaintiffs'
motion to certify class.

Class A - 2013 Faxes

   "all persons or entities successfully sent one or more
   facsimiles on or about September 4, 2013, and September 6,
   2013, stating "Free month (average value $500 per 100 rooms,"
   "Free Battery replacement every 18 months for initial term of
   contract (3 times)," and "1 Free Safe for Office."

Class B - 2015 Fax

   "all persons or entities successfully sent a facsimile on or
   about December 1, 2015, stating "Attention owners and hotel
   employees: Increase Cash Flow at NO COST!" and "Learn more
   today at Safemark.com."

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


SE INDEPENDENT: Colon Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RICHARD COLON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SE INDEPENDENT
DELIVERY SERVICES INC., a Florida Corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. 8:17-cv-01578-JDW-MAP (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff moves
the Court for an order:

   1. certifying this matter to proceed as a class action;

   2. appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing the Plaintiff's lawyers as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=m4NlkUvk

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher R. Turner, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER R. TURNER, PLLC
          1305 E. Robinson St.
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 796 2278
          E-mail: eservice@crtlegal.com

               - and -

          William G. Osborne, Esq.
          WILLIAM G. OSBORNE, P.A.
          1305 E. Robinson St.
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 894 1534
          E-mail: Service@osborneattorneys.com


SEALY INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Sarmiento" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS SARMIENTO and JUAN CHAVEZ, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public,
Plaintiffs, v. SEALY, INC. and SEALY MATTRESS MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, LLC., the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01990-DMR (N.D.
Cal., March 31, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wage, secret
wage, and all wages due upon termination under the California
Labor Code.

During their employment, Plaintiffs worked shifts that exceeded
twelve hours a day. Defendants failed to pay and other putative
class members and aggrieved employees overtime time pay at twice
their regular hourly rate when they worked more than 12 hours a
day.  Since Defendants often paid Plaintiffs and other putative
class members and aggrieved employees at a lower regularly
overtime rate than which they were entitled, Defendants also paid
them less overtime than was required when they worked over 8
hours a day and 40 hours a week.

Sealy is a brand of mattresses marketed and sold by Tempur Sealy
International.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Jocelyn Burton, Esq.
          Scott Nakama, Esq.
          BURTON EMPLOYMENT LAW
          1939 Harrison Street, Suite 400
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 350 7025
          Facsimile: (510) 473 3672
          E-mail: jburton@burtonemploymentlaw.com
                  snakama@burtonemploymentlaw.com


SHORE CONSTRUCTION: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Magana"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Nannette Jolivette Brown denies the Plaintiff's Motion
for Conditional Class Certification, Judicial Notice, and for
Disclosure of the Names and Addresses of the Potential Opt-In
Plaintiffs filed in the lawsuit titled MAGANA v. SHORE
CONSTRUCTION, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01896-NJB-KWR (E.D.
La.).

Magdaleno Magana filed this putative class action on March 6,
2017, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  He
states that he worked for Defendants Shore Construction, LLC, and
Kristi Caton as a "rigger" unloading barges in Gibson, Louisiana.
He was paid a regular rate of $9 per hour, an overtime rate of
$13.50 per hour, and a $50 per diem.  Thus, he alleges that the
Defendants wrongfully did not include the $50 per diem in the
calculation of his overtime premium pay.

Judge Brown notes that the Plaintiff does not provide any
affidavits from any potential opt-ins stating that similarly
situated individuals are interested in the suit to support his
"Putative Class."

The Plaintiff asserts that copies of his paychecks illustrate the
Defendants' policy, but his paychecks alone do not establish that
Defendants had a policy of widespread violations affecting
similarly-situated employees, as Plaintiff fails to present an
affidavit or even the name of a single similarly-situated
employee, Judge Brown opines.  Since the Plaintiff fails to
present such evidence, he fails to meet this lenient standard,
Judge Brown adds.

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


SOUTH CAROLINA: Class Action Seeks Hep C Testing for Inmates
------------------------------------------------------------
John Monk, writing for Greenville News, reports that a lawsuit
that could require the S.C. Department of Corrections to spend
tens of millions of dollars to treat possibly thousands of prison
inmates with Hepatitis C, a potentially fatal liver disease, was
filed on March 13 in federal court.

The lawsuit was filed by inmate Russell Geissler, 34, of
Greenville, who is serving a roughly 10-year sentence for charges
including armed robbery.  It claims that up to 6,000 of the
state's inmates may have Hepatitis C, a liver infection
especially prevalent among prison inmates..

The lawsuit alleges a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution, which bars cruel and unusual punishment.  It
seeks class-action status and asks a federal judge to order
immediate testing of the prison system's approximately 19,000
inmates. S.C. prisons do not now systematically test inmates for
Hepatitis C, the lawsuit says.

A similar federal suit was brought against the Florida prison
system.  In that case, a federal judge last fall ordered that
state's prison system to diagnose and treat the most infected
inmates.

The judge in that case found that Florida had "a long and sordid
history of failing to treat Hepatitis C-infected inmates." Not
treating them amounted to a violation of the Eighth Amendment,
showing "deliberate indifference" to inmates' serious medical
needs.

The state of Massachusetts tentatively settled another similar
federal lawsuit, agreeing to begin testing and treating its
prison inmates.  Similar class-action lawsuits are pending in a
dozen other states.

Prison inmates have a constitutional right to appropriate and
timely medical treatment. Inmates have no other access to medical
care other than what the state allows or provides.

There is effective treatment for Hepatitis C.  New drugs to treat
it began to come on the market in 2013, and treatment nearly
always is successful, according to medical authorities.  If the
infection is untreated, it can lead to liver cancer, liver
failure or other severe ailments.

The biggest barrier to treatment is cost of the anti-viral
treatment drugs -- which can cost from $25,000 to $50,000 for
each prisoner.  However, Hepatitis C progresses in stages, and
not everyone who has the infection needs to be treated at once.

Hepatitis C is spread by exposure to blood or blood products.
The most common ways to contract the disease are through
intravenous drug use, but people also can be affected through
tattooing or blood transfusions. Persons affected with Hepatitis
C can suffer weakness, pain, liver cancer and bleeding from any
part in the body.

Prison officials were not immediately available to comment on the
suit. However, the S.C. Department of Corrections is aware of the
dangers of Hepatitis C.

"We have begun to treat Hepatitis C inmates with a new drug
regimen that has over a 95 per cent cure rate," prisons director
Bryan Stirling wrote in his department's annual report last fall.

Last fiscal year, the department treated four inmates with the
new drugs, Mr. Stirling said.

But that isn't anywhere near what is needed, the lawsuit says.

The S.C. prison system's program "will serve only 16 inmates,
despite the fact that the number of infected inmates likely
numbers in the thousands," the lawsuit said.

The prison system now has a partnership with the S.C. Department
of Environmental Control and the University of South Carolina
Infectious Disease Program, Mr. Stirling wrote.  Two doctors are
on contract to work with various infectious diseases, including
Hepatitis C, he wrote.

Mr. Geissler, an inmate since 2011, was diagnosed as having
Hepatitis C in January 2014 after having his blood tested for an
unrelated health issue.  The prison system repeatedly has denied
his requests for treatment, and he has exhausted "all available
administrative remedies," his lawsuit says.

Christopher Bryant, the Charleston lawyer who brought the lawsuit
on Mr. Geissler's behalf, said on March 13 the prison system's
position is that Mr. Geissler and other inmates with Hepatitis C
are "not yet sick enough for treatment.  This is contrary to
accepted medical standard of care and unacceptable in a civilized
society."

Inmates with untreated Hepatitis C are being released when they
finish their sentences, Mr. Bryant said.  Outside prison, they
may spread the disease.  If they are tested, treated and taught
about prevention inside prison, that benefits the public as a
whole, Mr. Bryant said.

"Treat and educate in the prisons," Mr. Bryant said.  "It will
help to slow the spread outside prisons."

Mr. Bryant acknowledged some people may not be sympathetic to
giving expensive treatment to inmates.

But inmates deserve medical treatment, he said.  "If someone
breaks their arm in prison, we don't say, 'Hey, don't get a
cast'."

Also, he said, Geissler is not asking for an unproven
experimental drug. The drugs in use to treat Hepatitis C have a
nearly 100 percent cure rate, he said.

Mr. Bryant is working with lawyers in the Harpootlian law firm of
Columbia, which has experience in class-action litigation, and
the Guttman Buschner law firm in Washington, D.C., experienced in
medical and class-action issues, in the lawsuit. [GN]


SPARCO LLC: Faces "Rudisel" Suit in South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sparco LLC. The
case is styled as Roy Martin and David Rudisel, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sparco
LLC and AMOS Franchise Systems Inc doing business as: Advanced
Maintenance, Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-00916-BHH (D. S.C.,
April 4, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Labor: Fair Standards.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   John G Reckenbeil, Esq.
   John G Reckenbeil Law Office
   PO Box 1633
   Spartanburg, SC 29306
   Tel: (864) 582-5472
   Fax: (864) 582-7280
   Email: john@johnreckenbeillaw.com

      - and -

   Lawrence Everett McNair, III, Esq.
   John Reckenbeil Law Office
   215 Magnolia Street
   Spartanburg, SC 29306
   Tel: (864) 582-5472
   Email: lee@johnreckenbeillaw.com


STUCKY LAUER: Maloy Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SAMUEL MALOY, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. STUCKY, LAUER &
YOUNG, LLP, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00336-TLS-PRC (N.D.
Ind.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to enter an order:

   1. preliminarily certifying a class of individuals for
      settlement purposes as set forth in the parties' proposed
      settlement agreement;

   2. preliminarily approving the Agreement pursuant to Rule 23
      of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

   3. conditionally certifying Plaintiff as the named-
      representative of the Class;

   4. conditionally certifying Plaintiff's counsel as counsel for
      the Class;

   5. approving the form of the proposed class notice and the
      parties' proposed method of distribution of the Notice to
      the Class; and

   6. setting a final fairness hearing to determine whether the
      proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.

The parties' Agreement defines the settlement Class under Rule
23(b)(3) comprising:

   "all individuals in the state of Indiana to whom Defendant
   sent a letter based on the Template1 in connection with the
   collection of a consumer debt on or after August 9, 2016
   through August 9, 2017."

In addition to the Plaintiff, the parties identified 925 other
class members through discovery. Class members who do not exclude
themselves from the settlement will receive a pro-rata share of
the $5,000 set aside in the settlement fund. Thus, if no class
member opts out, each class member would receive approximately
$5.40. Class members will not need to submit a claim form, or any
other documentation, to receive a settlement payment. To the
extent any settlement checks go uncashed after reasonable steps
are taken to forward checks to any forwarding addresses, such
funds will be redistributed to Indiana Legal Services, Inc. --
the cy pres recipient selected by the parties. None of the funds
will revert back to Defendant. In addition, Defendant will
separately pay $1,000 to Plaintiff in statutory damages and for
his service to the Class. Defendant also will separately pay the
costs of notice and administration of the settlement, plus an
award of attorney's fees and expenses to class counsel, subject
to Court approval. The Agreement requires direct mail notice to
the Class. Defendant has in its possession the names and recent
addresses of each class member, and will provide the foregoing
information to Plaintiff's counsel, who will serve as the Class
administrator, and will take all reasonable steps necessary to
ensure that each Class member receives direct mail notice,
including updating addresses for any mail returned as
undeliverable.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Panvini, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
          5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: 602 388 8875
          Facsimile: 866 317 2674
          E-mail: jpanvini@consumerlawinfo.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Briane M. House, Esq.
          SKILES DETRUDE
          150 East Market Street, Suite 200
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          E-mail: bhouse@skilesdetrude.com


SUPERVALU INC: Faegre Baker Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Justman, Esq., of Faegre Baker Daniels, in an article for
JDSupra, reports that on March 7, 2018, the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed a putative
data breach class action against SuperValu, Inc., because the
plaintiffs did not have standing and could not state claims upon
which relief could be granted.  The Court's opinion in In re
SuperValu, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation
identifies a successful path for companies seeking to dismiss
data breach class actions: seek dismissal not only for defects in
standing, but also for failure to state a claim.

Case Background
In June 2014, hackers installed malicious software on SuperValu's
payment processing network.  Sixteen SuperValu customers
subsequently brought or joined putative class actions, alleging
that they had used credit or debit cards at SuperValu and that
their personal identifying information (PII), including their
account numbers, expiration dates, and card verification value
codes, had been stolen.  Plaintiffs brought a number of claims,
including for negligence, breach of contract, and under state
consumer protection statutes.

The Hon. Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota, first granted a motion to dismiss the case
in January 2016.  Judge Montgomery dismissed the case at that
time because Plaintiffs had not alleged facts sufficient to
establish standing under Article III of the Constitution.  In
particular, Plaintiffs had failed to allege that their PII had
been misused, and had not alleged facts that plausibly suggested
a substantial risk of future harm.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part.  It affirmed
dismissal of the lawsuits of 15 of the 16 Plaintiffs because none
of them had alleged that their PII had been misused; they had
only alleged a "mere possibility," rather than a "substantial
risk," of future injury.  The Eighth Circuit reversed as to one
remaining plaintiff, David Holmes, because he had alleged that
his PII was stolen and misused in a single fraudulent charge.
The Eighth Circuit remanded so Judge Montgomery could consider
whether Holmes's allegations satisfied more rigorous standards
under Rule 12(b)(6).

The Court's Reasoning
On remand, SuperValu renewed its motion to dismiss, alleging that
Holmes had not alleged that he shopped at SuperValu during the
operative period or that he had suffered economic injury as
required under governing law.  Judge Montgomery agreed and
granted SuperValu's motion to dismiss each of Holmes's claims:

  1. Holmes's negligence claim did not survive dismissal because
under governing law, a plaintiff must allege actual out-of-pocket
loss, not just an unauthorized charge.  Holmes did not allege the
date he shopped at a SuperValu store, the amount of the
unauthorized charge, or that the charge was not reimbursed by his
credit card company.  Because he didn't do any of those things,
he did not establish the requisite elements of causation or
injury for his claim to survive dismissal.  In the alternative,
the Court also concluded that the economic loss doctrine, which
prohibits recovery for purely economic claims sounding in
negligence, barred Holmes's negligence claim.

  2. Holmes's breach-of-contract claim failed because Holmes
never alleged that he was a party to a contract with SuperValu,
and also did not allege that he had suffered an actual injury.

  3. Holmes's claims under Illinois consumer protection statutes
failed because Holmes did not allege that he suffered actual
monetary loss.  Thus, similar to Holmes's negligence claim, the
allegation of an unauthorized charge was insufficient to survive
dismissal.

  4. Holmes's unjust enrichment claim failed because Holmes did
not allege that the goods he purchased from SuperValu were
defective or that their value was somehow diminished by the data
breach.

Finally, Judge Montgomery denied the Plaintiffs' request to amend
their complaint, both because it was untimely, and because it
would have been futile.  As to the latter reason, Judge
Montgomery held that new allegations did not establish the
substantial risk of future harm as required to establish standing
under Article III of the Constitution.

Defense Strategy: Move to Dismiss for Both Lack of Standing and
Failure to State a Claim

This case shows the benefit of a multi-front attack to data
breach class actions: motions to dismiss (1) for lack of
standing; and (2) for failure to state a claim. Both approaches
attack allegations of a plaintiff's injury, but a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim can be particularly
valuable, because even where an alleged injury will establish
standing under the Constitution (for example, an allegation that
the plaintiff incurred an unauthorized charge), the law governing
the merits of the claims might require more (as it did here,
where it required actual, out-of-pocket loss, and allegations
linking that monetary loss to the data breach). [GN]


SYNGENTA: $1.51BB GMO Cor Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hare Wynn Newell & Newton, LLP on March 12 disclosed that a $1.51
billion settlement has been reached in the nationwide class
action lawsuit filed in Kansas federal court over Syngenta's
genetically modified corn seed.  It is believed to be the largest
agricultural litigation settlement in U.S. history.  The
settlement covers all U.S. corn producers -- farmers and crop
share landlords -- as well as grain handling facilities and
ethanol plants nationwide who sold corn priced after September
15, 2013.

A motion for preliminary approval has been filed.  The settlement
must be approved by the Honorable John W. Lungstrum, a United
States District Judge for the District of Kansas.

The litigation has been led by four lawyers who were appointed
Co-Lead and Class Counsel by the Court - William Chaney of Gray
Reed & McGraw LLP, Patrick Stueve of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP,
Don Downing of Gray, Ritter & Graham, P.C., and Scott Powell of
Hare Wynn Newell & Newton.

The four co-lead counsel issued a statement: "We are very pleased
with this outcome. America's corn farmers and related businesses
were hurt economically and this settlement will provide fair
compensation for their damages.  It is an equitable result for
all involved."

Who is Covered Under this Syngenta Corn Class Action Settlement?

All corn growers, grain handling facilities and ethanol plants
across the country -- as defined in the settlement and who choose
to stay in the settlement -- are covered by this settlement,
including any U.S. farmers who opted out of previous Syngenta
litigation.

However, all class members must submit a claim form to receive
settlement funds.

Next Steps

If preliminarily approved, the settlement terms and claims
process information will be set forth in notices mailed to class
members and published in various media outlets across the
country, as well as in a settlement website.

Members of the class then will have a period of time to submit a
claim form, opt out of the settlement, or object to the terms of
the agreement.

Judge Lungstrum then will decide on whether to finally approve
the $1.51 billion settlement.  If the settlement is ultimately
approved, it is anticipated that funds could be distributed to
class members in the first half of 2019.

The Syngenta Genetically Modified Corn Seed Litigation

Judge Lungstrum certified the nationwide class action lawsuit in
September 2016.

Eight state class action lawsuits were also certified in the
multi-district litigation.  The four co-lead plaintiff's counsel
in the nationwide class action lawsuit also represented more than
7,000 Kansas farmers in the first and only state class action
lawsuit to be tried to a verdict.  In June 2017, a Kansas jury
returned a $217.7 million verdict in favor of the Kansas grown
growers.

These farmers, as well as all corn farmers nationwide, will be
covered under this class action settlement and must submit a
claim form to receive compensation.

For more information, visit www.syngentacornlitigation.com [GN]


TELECHECK SERVICES: Bid for Class Certification Denied as Moot
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JAMES HUFF, the Plaintiff, v. TELECHECK
SERVICES, INC., TELECHECK INTERNATIONAL, INC., and FIRST DATA
CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 3:14-cv-01832 (M.D. Tenn.),
the Hon. Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr. entered on order on March 30,
2018:

   1. granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment; and

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

The Court said, "Plaintiff does not face a substantial risk of
harm, nor has he incurred any mitigation costs. Plaintiff admits
that he has not "suffer[ed] any psychological harm" or "emotional
distress" as a result of the missing information in his report.
(ECF No. 78-2 at 1329.) Plaintiff also did not "lose money
because of the contents of this report." (Id.) Indeed, the
missing information had "[no] effect on [Plaintiff] whatsoever."
(Id.) Plaintiffs' personal information in Galaria had "already
been stolen and [was] now in the hands of ill-intentioned
criminals." Galaria, 663 F. App'x at 388. The missing information
in Plaintiff's TFR has not been stolen and has "never affected,
altered, or influenced a single consumer report on Plaintiff."
(ECF No. 81 at 1569.) Because the two missing transactions in
Plaintiff's TFR were accurate, their communication to third
parties would have conferred no harm on Plaintiff. Having failed
to identify a concrete harm or risk of harm that Congress sought
to prevent by requiring disclosure, Plaintiff "is left with a
statutory violation divorced from any real world effect." Dreher,
856 F.3d at 347. Defendants' failure to include two transactions
in Plaintiff's TFR had no practical effect on Plaintiff. A
statutory violation, by itself, is insufficient to confer
standing. Because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he has
suffered a concrete injury sufficient to confer Article III
standing, "the court cannot proceed at all." "[T]he only function
remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and
dismissing the cause."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RXH4mdWD


TIGER BRANDS: 50 Families of Listeriosis Victims to Join Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mia Lindeque writing for Eyewitness News, reports that
Richard Spoor Incorporated Attorneys says 50 families of victims
of listeriosis have made contact requesting to be represented in
what could be a class action lawsuit.

More than a 180 people have died of listeriosis since the
outbreak last year and just less than a thousand people have
become ill.

Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi has identified polony from
Enterprise and Rainbow Chickens as the source of the deadly
bacteria.

Listeria was found at Enterprise's Germiston and Polokwane
factories.

Human rights lawyer Richard Spoor says that a team is collecting
affidavits from affected families and finalizing documents.

"Mothers of small children who contracted this disease and
pregnant women and their babies and the complications that go
with it of those that have come past my desk in the last few
days.  But there may be others, they're coming."

Mr. Spoor says a proper investigation through the Labour
Department is needed.

The firm is now hoping to speak to the union representing workers
at the affected factories to assist with more information. [GN]


TIGER BRANDS: Suits Expected to Pile Up Over Listeriosis Outbreak
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gemma Ritchie, writing for Mail & Guardian, reports that while
still denying culpability in the deaths of at least 183 people
and 479 counts of illness as a result of the listeriosis
outbreak, Tiger Brands is now the subject of several lawsuits and
criminal charges.

Forensic investigator Paul O'Sullivan and Forensics for Justice
plan to open a criminal docket against Tiger Brands, with the
hope of charging the company with attempted murder and culpable
homicide.

Over and above Mr. O'Sullivan, attorney Richard Spoor and the
Economic Freedom Fighters have independently confirmed that they
plan to file lawsuits against Tiger Brands whose Enterprise Food
facility in Polokwane has been identified the source of the
epidemic.

If the lawsuits are successful, they could potentially result in
hundreds of millions of rands awarded to victims and the families
of those killed.

Mr. O'Sullivan said he will work closely with National Institute
for Communicable Diseases (NCID) to work out the exact number of
listeriosis-linked deaths, which the investigator believes will
rise to 500.

Even though Tiger Brands may face litigation, its chief executive
Lawrence MacDougall has said that the company's primary concern
continues to be food safety and, in response to the health
department's announcement and the findings by the NCID, it has
began a voluntary recall of all its processed-meat products.

Mr. Spoor, who is putting the class action together on behalf of
victims, has blamed the outbreak of LST6, the specific strain of
listeriosis, on health officials.  Nearly all of the victims who
were tested showed strains linked to the Polokwane factory.

"That looks to us to be an overwhelmingly strong case, it's like
a fingerprint, or the marks on a bullet fired from a gun," said
Spoor.

The government has promised to support communities intending to
take court action, saying that it will provide information and
expertise.

"Laws are available to take people to account and they are going
to be punished in terms of the available legislation," Health
Minister Aaron Motsoaledi told the National Assembly.

Mr. Spoor, who spearheaded and won a suit against gold producers
over the fatal lung disease silicosis, will join forces with US
lawyer Bill Marler who won $110-million in compensation for
victims of an ecoli outbreak in the United States which
originated from fast-food chain Jack in the Box.

Countries around the continent have already placed a ban on Tiger
Brand imports processed meats from South Africa were set alight
in several locations in Malawi. [GN]


TIGER BRANDS: To Contest Listeriosis Class Action Aggressively
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg's Paul Burkhardt and Fin24 report that the share price
of Tiger Brands [JSE:TBS] dipped by more than 5% in early trade
on Monday, March 12, 2018, before recovering to trade a touch
over 3% down on news that South African listeriosis victims plan
to file a class action case against the group.

Richard Spoor, known in South Africa for his work for mineworkers
seeking compensation for lung damage, is teaming up with Seattle-
based firm Marler Clark on the listeriosis case, he said on
March 12.

The suit could be brought within the next two weeks.

The group's shares were trading down 3.3% at R355.95 at 15:46 on
the JSE after reaching an intra-day low of R348.52.

Tiger Brands' Enterprise unit has closed two factories and
recalled ready-to-eat meat products after government tests linked
one of its facilities to the outbreak.

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

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

The Department of Health traced the outbreak, in which more than
180 people have died, to Tiger Brands' Enterprise factory in
Polokwane, in Limpopo province, and said it would support anyone
intending legal action.

While the department showed Tiger Brands confirmation that the
ST6 strain of listeria, which has been linked to the deaths, was
found at the facility, tests haven't shown the strain in the
company's products, Mr. Naicker said.

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

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

Tiger Brands on March 9 said that its Polokwane and Germiston
factories would remain closed while it conducts a "deep cleaning
process".

"Tiger Brands acknowledges that it is dealing with a national
crisis which has impacted customers, consumers and the industry.
Tiger Brands intends being at the forefront of finding a
solution, and to this end, we have appointed a team of local and
international scientific experts to attempt identify the root
cause of LST6," it said. [GN]


TIGER BRANDS: Spoor Optimistic on Success of Listeriosis Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chisom Jenniffer Okoye, writing for The Citizen, report that
the class action won't cost victims a cent, as 'we will recover
the money from Tiger Brands,' human rights lawyer Richard Spoor
says.

Preparations for a listeriosis-related class action against Tiger
Brands have begun and attorneys representing those affected are
so confident of success they will conduct the case pro bono.

Richard Spoor Incorporated Attorneys has a "sufficient number" of
victims to pursue a class action case in order to hold Tiger
Brands accountable for the outbreak, that affected hundreds of
consumers and led to 180 deaths.

The law firm has teamed up with Marler Clark, a US food safety
firm, and is confident it has strong evidence and experience to
win a multimillion-rand case against Tiger Brands.

Human rights lawyer Richard Spoor said: "We have no intention of
recovering the money from our clients.

"We will litigate on our own expense and recover the money from
Tiger Brands."

According to Mr. Spoor, a class action case allows for the
victims to be represented by a strong team of advocates and one
record file of evidence that will not only strengthen the case,
but enable the firm to do "a better job".

"The big advantage about class cases is that it will benefit
everyone involved," said Mr. Spoor.  "This is especially true for
people with smaller cases who are usually not given much
attention because their cases are deemed much smaller in
comparison to other cases dealing with deaths or diseases caused
by the defendant.

"In this case, people with smaller cases benefit more because
they get the opportunity to get their justice as well."

The case could also assist people who are unable to afford the
legal fees essential to pursue such a case.  Mr. Spoor said his
firm would have to apply and wait for the court to grant them
with the relevant certification to pursue the case before they
can issue an official notice for all victims to participate.

Although victims are encouraged to join the class action, Spoor
says they were not obligated to join and were free to pursue
their own cases.

Mr. Spoor said his firm was confident they would bring justice to
the victims of the listeriosis outbreak and that their clients
would not have to pay the firm's legal fees from any money they
might be awarded. [GN]


TONE HOUSE: Faces "Martinez" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tone House Fitness,
LLC. The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Tone House Fitness, LLC doing business as: Tone
House, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02002 (E.D. N.Y., April 3,
2018).

Tone House Fitness LLC operates athletic-based group fitness
studios.[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


TRUECAR INC: Milbeck Sues over Securities Fraud
-----------------------------------------------
LEON D. MILBECK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. TRUECAR, INC. and MICHAEL GUTHRIE,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02612 (C.D. Fla., March 30,
2018), seeks to recover damages caused by the Defendants'
securities fraud in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

TrueCar develops and publishes an online automobile information
and communication platform. The Company provides data and price
reports for new and used cars, and provides a platform for car
dealers to communicate with consumers.

TrueCar operates a company-branded platform that can be accessed
directly, and also customizes and operates its platform on a co-
branded basis for many affinity group marketing partners,
including financial institutions, such as the United Services
Automobile Association, membership-based organizations such as
Consumer Reports, and employee buying programs for large
enterprises such as IBM and WalMart.  Its platform enables users
to obtain market-based pricing data on new and used cars, and to
connect with its network of TrueCar Certified Dealers. The
platform also enables automobile manufacturers, or OEMs, to
connect with TrueCar users during the purchase process to deliver
targeted incentives to consumers.

The Company's single largest source of unique visitors and unit
sales from affinity group marketing partners is from its
relationship with USAA, a related party that currently owns
approximately 9% of TrueCar's outstanding common stock.
Therefore, USAA has a significant influence on TrueCar's
financial performance. USAA is an institution that serves current
and former military members and their families.

The majority of TrueCar's revenues (over 90%) are transaction
revenue that is either based on a fee per vehicle sold or in the
form of a subscription arrangement. The subscription arrangements
can be a flat rate subscription or a subscription for which
TrueCar guarantees a dealer a minimum number of sales or
introductions. If the minimum is not met TrueCar gives a credit
to the dealer. During the Class Period the Company made numerous
positive statements concerning the Company's prospects and
growth, while failing to disclose negative developments related
to USAA, its largest source of revenue.

On November 6, after missing on guidance, the Company disclosed
that USAA had made significant changes to its website during the
Class period that had a material adverse effect on the volume of
purchases generated by USAA. On this news, TrueCar's shares
declined by $5.76 per share, or 35.25%, to close at $10.58 per
share on November 7, 2017 on heavy trading volume. As a result of
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's common stock,
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant
losses and damages.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          Mario M. Choi, Esq.
          Justin B. Farar, Esq.
          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
          Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
          Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
          Jason A. Uris, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772 4700
          Facsimile: (415) 772 4709
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
                  mchoi@kaplanfox.com
                  jfarar@kaplanfox.com
                  rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
                  ffox@kaplanfox.com
                  jcampisi@kaplanfox.com
                  juris@kaplanfox.com


TWITTER INC: Two Men Want to Lead Stock Fraud Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Jack Newsham, writing for Law360, reports that two men and their
lawyers at Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer PA and Cherundolo Law Firm
PLLC asked a New York federal judge on March 13 to let them lead
a proposed class action against an imprisoned fraudster and the
companies and individual that allegedly worked with him.

Steven Amerio and Andrew Goldberg say they lost $300,000 in
Gregory W. Gray's scheme, in which the central New York
businessman bought less Twitter Inc. stock ahead of its initial
public offering than he told investors he would.

The case is Goldberg v. Gray, Jr. et al, Case No. 5:15-cv-00538
(N.D.N.Y.).  The case is assigned to Judge David N. Hurd.  The
case was filed April 30, 2015. [GN]


U.S. GEOTHERMAL: Young Balks at Merger Deal with Ormat Tech
-----------------------------------------------------------
JULIE YOUNG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. U.S. GEOTHERMAL, INC., JOHN H.
WALKER, PAUL LARKIN, LELAND MINK, JAMES C. PAPPAS, RANDOLPH J.
HILL, ALI HEDAYAT, DOUGLAS J. GLASPEY, ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
ORMAT NEVADA, INC., and OGP HOLDING CORP., the Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-00145-CWD (D. Idaho, March 30, 2018), seeks to
recover damages caused by U.S. Geothermal's Board of Directors
for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the proposed sale of the Company to Ormat
Technologies, Inc.

On January 24, 2018, U.S. Geothermal entered into an agreement
and plan of Merger with Ormat Nevada Inc., and OGP Holding Corp.,
a wholly owned subsidiary of Ormat, pursuant to which Ormat will
purchase each issued and outstanding share of the Company's
common stock in exchange for $5.45 in cash. Upon consummation of
the proposed transaction OGP Holding will merge with and into the
Company.

On March 20, 2018, the Company filed a proxy statement. The proxy
statement omits material information regarding the proposed
transaction, thereby rendering it false and misleading in
violation of Securities Exchange Act of 1934.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Eric B. Swartz, Esq.
          JONES & SWARTZ PLLC
          LANDMARK LEGAL GROUP TM
          623 West Hays Street
          Boise, ID 83702
          Telephone: (208) 489 8989
          Facsimile: (208) 489 8988
          E-mail: eric@jonesandswartzlaw.com


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller") on March 13
disclosed  that a class action has been commenced on behalf of
purchasers of Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. ("Ubiquiti") (NASDAQ:UBNT)
common stock during the period between August 3, 2017 and
February 20, 2018 (the "Class Period").  This action was filed in
the Southern District of New York and is captioned Kho v.
Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., No. 18-cv-02242.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from February 22, 2018.  If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
David C. Walton of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-
1058, or via e-mail at davew@rgrdlaw.com.  If you are a member of
this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/ubiquitinetworks/. Any member of
the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Ubiquiti and certain of its officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Ubiquiti
develops technology platforms for hi-capacity distributed
Internet access, unified information technology, and next-
generation consumer electronics for home and personal use.
Ubiquiti claims that the key to keeping costs disruptively low is
eschewing a traditional sales force in favor of the "Ubiquiti
Community," explaining that its "business model is driven by a
large, growing and highly engaged community of service providers,
distributors, value added resellers, systems integrators and
corporate IT professionals, which [the Company] refer[s] to as
the Ubiquiti Community."

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations
and prospects.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that during
the Class Period, Ubiquiti had been inaccurately reporting its
operating metrics and using improper accounting practices,
including overstating the number of actual registered users
participating in the Ubiquiti Community, as well as the levels
and importance of their engagement with the Ubiquiti Community;
overstating accounts receivable; and overstating the profits
derived from the Company's U.S. operations and thus its U.S.
operations profit margins. In addition, much of Ubiquiti's
distributor network was made up of overseas entities and
individuals who were doing business in sanctioned countries and
in jurisdictions identified by the Financial Action Task Force as
"noncooperative jurisdictions" with regard to anti-money
laundering regulations.  As a result of these false statements
and/or omissions, the price of Ubiquiti common stock was
artificially inflated to as high as $81.74 per share during the
Class Period.

On September 18, 2017, Citron Research issued a report detailing
a series of "alarming red flags" indicating that the Company had
been deceiving investors and was engaged in "fraud," including,
among other things, misrepresenting the size of its purported
"Ubiquiti Community," as well as its levels of accounts
receivable.  This partial disclosure caused Ubiquiti's stock
price to fall $4.33 per share, or nearly 8%, to close at $50.62
per share on September 18, 2017.

On November 9, 2017, Ubiquiti acknowledged it had inflated the
size of the Ubiquiti Community due to a purported "reporting
error" and admitted in an SEC filing that it had only about
609,000 registered users, not the 4 million it had repeatedly
reported in its SEC filings.  Then, on February 20, 2018, the
Company filed a Form 8-K disclosing that on February 13, 2018,
the SEC had issued subpoenas to Ubiquiti and certain of the
Company's officers requesting documents and information regarding
a range of topics, including metrics relating to the Ubiquiti
Community and the Company's accounting practices, financial
information, auditors, international trade practices, and
relationships with distributors and various other third parties.
Following the disclosure that the SEC had served subpoenas on the
Company, the price of Ubiquiti common stock plummeted, falling
$18.76 per share, or more than 25%, from its close of $74.04 per
share on February 16, 2018, to close at $55.28 per share on
February 20, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Ubiquiti common stock during the Class Period (the "Class").  The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including
actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is a law firm
advising and representing U.S. and international investors in
securities litigation and portfolio monitoring.  With 200 lawyers
in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history.  For the third
consecutive year, the Firm ranked first in both the total amount
recovered for investors and the number of shareholder class
action recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 Report.  Robbins Geller
attorneys have shaped the law in the areas of securities
litigation and shareholder rights and have recovered tens of
billions of dollars on behalf of the Firm's clients.  Robbins
Geller not only secures recoveries for defrauded investors, it
also implements significant corporate governance reforms, helping
to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. [GN]


UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Taubenfliegel" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Collection
Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Menachem Taubenfliegel, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers,
Plaintiff v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-02005 (E.D. N.Y., April 4, 2018).

United Collection Bureau, Inc. provides debt collection services
for companies (government, healthcare, utility, financial
service, communication, and student markets) and individuals in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam Jon Fishbein,Esq.
   Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
   735 Central Avenue
   Woodmere, NY 11598
   Tel: (516) 668-6945
   Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


UNITED STATES: Ramos et al Sue Homeland Security over TPS Rule
--------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTA RAMOS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated; CRISTINA MORALES; BENJAMIN ZEPEDA, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated; ORLANDO ZEPEDA; JUAN EDUARDO
AYALA FLORES, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated; MARIA JOSE AYALA FLORES; ELSY YOLANDA FLORES DE AYALA;
HNAIDA CENEMAT, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated; WILNA DESTIN; RILYA SALARY, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated; SHERIKA BLANC; IMARA AMPIE; MAZIN
AHMED; and HIWAIDA ELARABI, the Plaintiffs, v. KIRSTJEN NIELSEN,
in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security;
ELAINE C. DUKE, in her official capacity as Deputy Secretary of
Homeland Security; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-01554-EMC (N.D. Cal., March 12, 2018), challenges the
Department of Homeland Security's new rule for deciding whether
to terminate Temporary Protected Status designations for
countries facing armed conflict, natural disasters, or other
crises that make the return of people from those countries
untenable.

The Plaintiffs comprise U.S. citizen children, their non-citizen
parents, and other non-citizen adults who are in the United
States legally, and who have lived in the U.S. lawfully for
years, in some cases decades.

According to the lawsuit, since President Donald J. Trump took
office in January 2017, the Administration has announced four TPS
terminations, each one for a country in Latin America, the
Caribbean, or Africa -- El Salvador, Nicaragua, Haiti and Sudan.
As a result of the Department of Homeland Security's unlawful
actions, more than 200,000 individuals who hold TPS face the
imminent loss of their right to live and work lawfully in this
country.  In addition, more than 200,000 U.S. citizen children,
each of them with a parent or parents who are TPS holders, face
an impossible choice between leaving the only home they have ever
known, and growing up without one or both parents.

TPS is a form of humanitarian immigration relief that allows
individuals from designated countries to live and work lawfully
in the United States when they cannot return safely to their
country of origin due to armed conflict, natural disaster or
other "extraordinary circumstances." See 8 U.S.C. section 1254a.
Congress created TPS to establish formal criteria and procedures
to replace more ad hoc practices the Executive Branch had used
for decades to provide similar relief. Although some countries
are designated for TPS only for short periods, others have been
designated for many years, including El Salvador (designated
since 2001), Nicaragua (designated since 1999), Sudan (designated
since 1997), and Haiti (designated since 2010).

Under previous administrations, DHS regularly considered natural
disasters and social or economic crises that occurred after a
country was originally designated for TPS in deciding whether to
continue or instead terminate a country's designation. But after
President Trump took office, DHS -- without any formal
announcement or other explanation -- adopted a new, novel
interpretation of the TPS statute that eschews consideration of
any intervening country conditions.

The Administration's new legal rule has dramatically altered the
lives of many Americans. More than 270,000 U.S. citizen children
have at least one parent with TPS. Many of them are still in
school. This country is their home in every legal and practical
sense of that word. Yet their parents will shortly lose the right
to continue living and working lawfully in this country.

Currently, more than 400,000 individuals from ten different
countries have TPS. Whether or not they have children, many TPS
holders came to this country at a young age and have lived here
for most of their lives. They have homes, spouses, jobs, and
other profound social ties to their communities that now entwine
their lives with this country. Since President Trump took office,
DHS has applied its new rule for making TPS determinations to
terminate the TPS designations of El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua,
and Sudan.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ahilan T. Arulanantham, Esq.
          Jennifer Poon, Esq.
          ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          1313 West 8th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977 5211
          Facsimile: (213) 977 5297
          E-mail: aarulanantham@aclusocal.org
                  jpoon@aclusocal.org

               - and -

          Emilou MacLean, Esq.
          Jessica Karp Bansal, Esq.
          NATIONAL DAY LABORER
          ORGANIZING NETWORK
          674 S. La Layette Park Place
          Los Angeles, CA 90057
          Telephone: (213) 380-2214
          Fax: (213) 380-2787
          E-mail: emi@ndlon.org
                  jbansal@ndlon.org

               - and -

          Mark E. Haddad, Esq.
          Alycia A. Degen, Esq.
          Sean A. Commons, SBN 217603
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896 6000
          Facsimile: (213) 896 6600
          E-mail: mhaddad@sidley.com
                  adegen@sidley.com
                  scommons@sidley.com

               - and -

          Nicole M. Ryan, Esq.
          Ryan M. Sandrock, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 California Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772 1200
          Facsimile: (415) 772 7400
          E-mail: nicole.ryan@sidley.com
                  rsandrock@sidley.com

               - and -

          Amanda R. Farfel, Esq.
          Andrew B. Talai, Esq.
          Marisol Ramirez, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896 6000
          Facsimile: (213) 896 6600
          E-mail: afarfel@sidley.com
                  atalai@sidley.com
                  marisol.ramirez@sidley.com


UNITED STATES: Opposes Class Action in Guam Over H-2B Visas
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Kerrigan, writing for The Guam Daily Post, reports that the
federal government has filed a motion opposing the class-action
status sought by the Guam Contractors Association and 11 other
plaintiffs in their lawsuit over the denial of H-2B visas for
skilled foreign laborers.

The U.S. Justice Department's motion argues that the Guam
businesses that filed the lawsuit "lack standing" because no
relief can be granted since the periods of need for all the H-2B
worker petitions that were denied have now expired.  In addition,
the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services contends the
request for class action status is "unripe," or not ready, for
judicial review because there aren't any current H-2B petitions
at issue.

2016 lawsuit

A group of Guam businesses filed the lawsuit against USCIS in
October 2016.  They accused USCIS of an about-face by imposing a
new interpretation of the "temporary need" requirement for an H-
2B application.  They called the agency's "new interpretation" of
the requirements "arbitrary and capricious," and charged USCIS
with damaging their businesses and the economy of Guam.

In January, Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood of the District
Court of Guam issued a preliminary injunction against ordering
the agency to reverse its previous denials of H-2B worker
petitions, and to stop the blanket denial of future petitions --
at least temporarily -- until the merits of the case have been
decided.

The Guam plaintiffs are seeking class-action status to cover all
Guam employers who need skilled foreign labor, and they want the
judge's temporary injunction made permanent.

Motion 'not a surprise'

John Robertson, the chairman of the committee overseeing the Guam
Contractors Association's lawsuit over the H-2B denials, called
the opposition motion "bad news," but "not a surprise."

Mr. Robertson said from the beginning, their case was filed "on
the basis that all those businesses similarly affected by the
cessation of work-visa approvals would benefit."

"Class certification is a vital aspect of the case," said
Robertson, who said he is confident "our legal team of
Jeff Joseph, Jenn Davis and Melinda Swavely will put forth the
winning argument in this case." [GN]


UNITED STATES: Aguilar's Bid to Certify Taken Under Advisement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on March 14, 2018, in the case
captioned Rony Chavez Aguilar, et al. v. U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement Chicago Field Office, et al., Case No. 1:17-
cv-02296 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Robert M. Dow Jr.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is terminated as
      moot, as it is superseded by Plaintiffs' amended motion for
      class certification, which is taken under advisement; and

   -- Status hearing set on March 19, 2018, is stricken and no
      appearances are necessary.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qK7Y3UN6


UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Sauder Schelkopf Files Suit Over Lost Eggs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa M. Krieger, writing for The Mercury News, reports that when
"S.M." sought to save her eggs for future motherhood, the San
Francisco woman was assured that they would be safely frozen
until she needed them.

But those precious eggs, along with the eggs and embryos of
hundreds of other patients, were stored in malfunctioning Tank
No. 4 at Pacific Fertility Center's lab on Francisco Street --
and are now presumed damaged.

In this first suit to be filed after a rare malfunction that
remains under investigation, the woman, who remains anonymous for
privacy, is seeking compensation for negligence and breach of
contract from the Prelude Fertility, where she received treatment
in 2016, and Pacific Fertility Center, which stored her eggs.

The  law firm, Sauder Schelkopf of Berwyn, PA, is asking the
court to certify the case as a class action, saying that at least
400 individuals may have been harmed by the incident.  The suit
was filed late Tuesday in the U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California, San Francisco Division.

"We have been contacted by many people who have been impacted by
this heartbreaking incident and we look forward to getting them
answers and a meaningful resolution," said attorney Joseph
Sauder.

"The value of the eggs and embryos that Plaintiff and other class
members entrusted to Defendants -- and for which Defendants
accepted legal responsibility to store, preserve, and protect --
is substantial," according to the complaint.

"For some families, these fertility services provide their only
opportunity to conceive a child," it asserts.

The fertility clinic breakdown was one of two refrigeration
failures -- thought to be the first of their type -- to happen
nearly simultaneously on March 4.  The other clinic, in Ohio's
University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, estimates that
2,00 eggs and embryos may have been damaged or destroyed.

At least two lawsuits have been filed against the Cleveland
clinic.

The first is on behalf of Amber and Elliot Ash, who live just
west of Cleveland.  The couple, infertile after Elliott's cancer
treatment, said that their doctor confirmed that two embryos had
been in the affected tank and were unusable.

Another Cleveland-based patient, Kate Plants, is suing for the
loss of five embryos.  She had sought fertility treatment
following ovarian and uterine cancer.

Although no one yet knows what went wrong, experts suspect there
were leaks in the seals of the tank that holds liquid nitrogen,
where frozen embryos are stored.

The San Francisco center states that its system is equipped with
a sensor, and an alarm.

But the problem was discovered only when the clinic's laboratory
director was performing a routine check of the steel storage
tanks -- and saw that the level of liquid nitrogen in one tank
was too low, according to the center.

It's not known whether the failure damaged the eggs and embryos;
even if liquid nitrogen levels fall, the storage tanks are slow
to warm.

But there's no way to know until the eggs and embryos are thawed
-- and they can't be safely re-frozen.

Retrieving eggs is not a simple medical procedure, and Pacific
Fertility's egg-freezing services are not cheap.  One cycle of
freezing and retrieval, including storage for a year, costs
$8,345.  A second cycle costs $6,995.  Additional costs arise
from other of Pacific Fertility's services, such as new patient
consultations, lab work, and continuing tissue storage, as well
as from needed medications. Pacific Fertility charges an annual
fee of $600 for storing human reproductive tissue.  Embryo
freezing services similarly involve significant costs.
S.M's insurance company paid for a portion of Defendants'
services and necessary medications. She paid the remaining costs
-- totaling approximately $10,000 -- herself.

The suit alleges that the center was negligent by failing to
adequately maintain, inspect, monitor, and/or test their liquid
nitrogen storage tanks, in accordance with industry standards,
including through a functional electronic tank monitoring system
capable of detecting a rise in temperature or a drop in liquid
nitrogen levels and promptly alerting staff to the immediate
problem. [GN]


UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Clinic Malfunction Case May Face Challenges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James F. McCarty, writing for The Plain Dealer, reports that the
longest-serving judge in Cuyahoga County history said on March 13
the plaintiffs in the University Hospitals fertility clinic
malfunction likely will have a high mountain to climb before
resolving their lawsuits.

"They could be going down a very extensive road," Judge Richard
McMonagle said on March 13.  "And they could be facing tremendous
expenses."

Judge McMonagle served for 36 years on the Common Pleas Court
before retiring in 2014. He presided over some of the most
complex court cases filed during those decades.

About 2,000 eggs and embryos belonging to about 700 people may
have been damaged when the temperature rose in a liquid nitrogen
freezer at UH's Ahuja Medical Center fertility clinic in
Beachwood on March 3-4, according to the hospital.

Since then, at least eight lawsuits have been filed against UH,
and dozens of others are being prepared for filing in Cuyahoga
County Common Pleas Court, according to lawyers.

Several hurdles lie ahead, Judge McMonagle said.  They include
the need to consolidate all of the cases under a single judge.
Later, the plaintiffs would have to obtain class action
certification based on the uniformity of causes for the clinic's
malfunction, and the similarity of damages suffered by the
couples who lost eggs and embryos.

"Every family may have different reasons for having these in
vitro fertilization procedures done," Judge McMonagle said.
"There are dozens of reasons, and they're not all the same case.
The damages could be different."

Judge McMonagle surmised that University Hospitals would probably
file joinder proceedings, potentially adding as defendants in the
cases the manufacturer of the liquid nitrogen freezer that
malfunctioned, as well as any outside contractors or inspectors
hired to monitor the facility.

Attorney William Craig Bashein, who filed a lawsuit against UH on
March 12 on behalf of Jasen and Sandra Alexa Miller of Newbury
Township, is confident he will be able to meet the eligibility
requirements for class action status.

"Clearly, in this case we have a common set of underlying facts
that lead to liability," Mr. Bashein said.  "Those facts make
class certification appropriate.  The fact that different class
members' claims may vary in circumstances does not defeat class
certification."

Of the potential 700 victims, perhaps less than half are likely
to hire lawyers to file lawsuits on their behalf, Mr. Bashein
said.  That's where a class action suit could provide damage
rewards for all of the members of the class, he said.

"How do you deal with damages suffered by those without legal
representation?" Mr. Bashein asked.  "The beauty of a class
action is that you can compensate all of the victims, even those
not represented by counsel."

Several of the plaintiffs' lawyers mentioned the possibility of
enlisting Richard McMonagle's brother, James, as a mediator in
the case.  A former judge, he previously served as a senior vice
president and lead lawyer at University Hospitals, and also as a
mediator and arbitrator in complex civil litigation.

If James McMonagle was considering offering his services to the
court, he wasn't saying so on March 13.

"My answer is no comment," he said when contacted by The Plain
Dealer.  "I only know what I've read in the paper." [GN]


UPMC: Cole's Wexford Moves to Certify Class of Highmark Insureds
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled COLE'S WEXFORD HOTEL, INC.,
On its own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. UPMC and HIGHMARK, INC., Case No. 2:10-cv-01609-JFC (W.D.
Pa.), moves the Court for an order certifying this Class:

     All persons, whether natural or fictitious, who purchased
     small group health insurance coverage in Western
     Pennsylvania from, or otherwise paid any small group plan
     premiums to, Highmark Health Insurance Co. ("HHIC") or a
     similar for-profit subsidiary of Highmark, Inc.
     ("Highmark") between July 1, 2010 and March 21, 2012.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Fy5YOcuT

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew M. Stone, Esq.
          STONE LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Frick Building, Suite 1806
          437 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 391-2005
          Facsimile: (412) 391-0853
          E-mail: astone@stone-law-firm.com

               - and -

          Arthur H. Stroyd, Jr., Esq.
          Steven J. Del Sole, Esq.
          Patrick K. Cavanaugh, Esq.
          DEL SOLE CAVANAUGH STROYD LLC
          3 PPG Place, Suite 600
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 261-2393
          Facsimile: (412) 261-2110
          E-mail: astroyd@dscslaw.com
                  sdelsole@dscslaw.com
                  pcavanaugh@dsclaw.com

               - and -

          Scott M. Hare, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT M. HARE
          The Frick Building, Suite 1806
          437 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 338-8632
          Facsimile: (412) 338-6611
          E-mail: scott@scottlawpgh.com

               - and -

          Hamish Hume, Esq.
          Melissa Felder Zappala, Esq.
          Joshua Riley, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          1401 New York Ave. N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 237-2727
          Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
          E-mail: hhume@bsfllp.com
                  mzappala@bsfllp.com
                  jriley@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          David Stone, Esq.
          STONE & MAGNANINI LLP
          100 Connell Drive, Suite 2200
          Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922
          Telephone: (973) 218-1111
          Facsimile: (973) 218-1106
          E-mail: dstone@stonemagnalaw.com


USA GATEWAY: Faces "Argamaso" Suit in California Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against USA Gateway, Inc.
The case is styled as Violeta Argamaso, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. USA Gateway,
Inc., a Texas Corporation and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
CGC18565448 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 3, 2018).

USA Gateway, Inc., doing business as GTT International, operates
as an air ticketing consolidator.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Kevin F. Woodall, Esq.
   Woodall Law Offices
   100 Pine St Ste 1250
   San Francisco, CA 94111
   Tel: (415) 413-4629
   Fax: (866) 937-4109
   Email: Kevin@kwoodalllaw.com


USF REDDAWAY: "Gomez" Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RICARDO I. GOMEZ, Individually and on
Behalf of Other Members of the Public Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. USF REDDAWAY, INC., a OREGON Corporation, and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-05572-
JAK-FFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on July
13, 2018, for an order:

   1. certifying classes:

      California Residents Class:

      "all California residents employed as non-exempt pick-up
      and delivery truck drivers by Defendants in the State of
      California at any of Defendants' California terminals
      during the relevant time period who have performed work
      within California.

      Waiting Time Subclass:

      "all Class Members whose employment was terminated at any
      time within three years prior to the filing of the
      complaint in this action until resolution of this lawsuit";
      and

   2. appointing James Hawkins, APLC, as class counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          JAMES R. HAWKINS, APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: 949 387 7200
          Facsimile: 949 387 6676
          E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com


WAL-MART STORES: "Phipps" Suit Seeks to Certify Employees Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CHERYL PHIPPS and SHAWN GIBBONS, the
Plaintiffs, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
3:12-cv-01009 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order on March 30, 2018:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all women below the level of Store Manager and excluding
      Pharmacists and Co-Managers, employed at any retail store
      in Wal-Mart Region 43 at any time from December 26, 1998 to
      February 23, 2009, who were subject to: (a) the
      compensation system for hourly retail sales positions; (b)
      the compensation system for Management Trainees and
      Assistant Managers; or (c) the promotion system into
      Management Trainee/Assistant Manager positions";

   2. appointing Cheryl Phipps and Shawn Gibbons as class
      representatives;

   3. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel to serve as counsel for the
      class; and

   4. authorizing notice to the class of the action and their
      right to opt out.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9M1zLPzy

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          Christine E. Webber, Esq.
          Joseph Sellers, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          1100 New York Ave NW, Suite 500 West
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408 4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408 4699
          E-mail: JSellers@cohenmilstein.com
                  CWebber@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Scott P. Tift, Esq.
          Seth M. Hyatt, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Bank of America Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244 2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252 3798
          E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                  stift@barrettjohnston.com
                  shyatt@barrettjohnston.com

               - and -

          Jocelyn D. Larkin, Esq.
          THE IMPACT FUND
          125 University Avenue, Suite 102
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 845 3473
          Facsimile: (510) 845 3645
          E-mail: jlarkin@impactfund.org


WALGREENS BOOTS: "Polsky Suit Moved to S.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Larry Mark Polsky, and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Walgreens
Boots Alliance, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2018-DCL-889-G, was
removed from the 404th District Court, Cameron County, Texas, to
the U.S. District Court for Southern District of Texas
(Brownsville) on Mar. 12, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:18-cv-00046 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Andrew S. Hanen.

Walgreens Boots is an American holding company headquartered in
Deerfield, Illinois that owns Walgreens, Boots, and a number of
pharmaceutical manufacturing, wholesale and distribution
companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry Mark Polsky, Esq.
          5 Cactus Wren
          Laguna Vista, TX 78578
          Telephone: (956) 943 7717
          Facsimile: (956) 943 7709
          E-mail: mossad1947@sbcglobal.net

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Seth M. Isgur, Esq.
          Michael A. Swartzendruber, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77010-3095
          Telephone: (713) 651 5440
          Facsimile: (713) 651 5246
          E-mail: seth.isgur@nortonrosefulbright.com
                  michael.swartzendruber@nortonrosefulbright.com


WARREN COUNTY, OH: Certification of Adoptive Parents Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned ADOPTIVE FAMILY #1 AND
THEIR DAUGHTER A. And ADOPTIVE FAMILY #2 AND THEIR CHILDREN B.
AND C., Individually and on Behalf of Class of Similarly Situated
Children and Parents v. WARREN COUNTY, OHIO/WARREN COUNTY BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS, Case No. 1:18-cv-00179-SJD (S.D. Ohio), move
for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

The class will be defined as: all current and potential adoptive
parents, and their adopted children, who are eligible to receive
subsidies under Title IV-E of the Adoption Assistance and Child
Welfare Act and who fall under the jurisdiction of Warren County
Children Services.  There are two sub-classes: those who are
receiving between $0 and $250 in adoption assistance subsidies,
and those who are receiving more than $250 in adoption assistance
subsidies.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to designate them as class
representatives, and to designate Alphonse A. Gerhardstein, Esq.,
Jennifer L. Branch, Esq., M. Caroline Hyatt, Esq., and Barbara
Thornell Ginn, Esq., to serve as class counsel.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Barbara Thornell Ginn, Esq.
          GINN LAW OFFICE, LLC
          8595 Beechmont Avenue, Suite 103
          Cincinnati, OH 45255
          Telephone: (513) 277-1478
          Facsimile: (513) 426-7335
          E-mail: Barbara@GinnLLC.com

               - and -

          Alphonse A. Gerhardstein, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Branch, Esq.
          M. Caroline Hyatt, Esq.
          GERHARDSTEIN & BRANCH CO. LPA
          441 Vine St., Suite 3400
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 621-9100
          Facsimile: (513) 345-5543
          E-mail: agerhardstein@gbfirm.com
                  jbranch@gbfirm.com
                  chyatt@gbfirm.com


WELLS FARGO: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SIL VIA HERNANDEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, a national association; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 18CV324548 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
March 12, 2018), seeks to recover penalties and/or damages for
violations of the California Labor Code, including without
limitation, failure to pay overtime based on the correct regular
rate of pay and for restitution.

The Plaintiff began working for Defendants in or around July 2008
until in or around 9 2013/2014, at which point Plaintiff left
employment with Defendant. In or around January 2015,
10 Plaintiff returned to work for Defendant. On or about March
28, 2016, Plaintiff was terminated.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class were and
are employed by Defendant as non-exempt employees and, thus,
Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to overtime wages. During
their employment with Defendant, Plaintiff and the Class worked
overtime hours. Specifically, Plaintiff and the Class worked more
than 8 hours in a workday and/or 40 hours in a workweek, without
being paid the proper amount of overtime pay.

Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services
company headquartered in San Francisco, California, with central
offices throughout the country.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488 6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488 6554

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531 4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634 0333

               - and -

          Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
          HYUN LEGAL, APC
          515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488 6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488 6554


WINES TIL SOLD: DOJ's Move to Oppose Settlement Challenged
----------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that in February, on
her way out of her high-ranking Justice Department post, Rachel
Brand disclosed a new DOJ priority at a luncheon speech to the
Federalist Society.  The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
requires defendants to notify the Justice Department of proposed
settlements. Because of a mailroom snafu, Ms. Brand said, DOJ
hadn't been receiving notices in time to review the settlements
before they were approved. But the systems had been fixed, Brand
said, and the Justice Department was ready to stand up.

"If a settlement isn't fair or reasonable under CAFA, DOJ may
file a statement of interest saying so," Ms. Brand said.  "Be on
the lookout in the coming days for the first example."

Sure enough, on the very next day, the Justice Department filed a
statement of interest opposing final approval of a $10.8 million
consumer class action in federal court in Camden, New Jersey.
DOJ's filing marked the first time in more than a decade -- and
apparently only the third time since CAFA's enactment -- that the
Justice Department has followed up on a CAFA notice by urging a
court to reject a settlement.

Class counsel in the case, Cannon v. Ashburn, responded on
March 12 to the Justice Department, a coalition of state
attorneys general and a handful of objecting class members.  The
brief, from Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello and
Giskan Solotaroff Anderson, mentions some changes in the proposed
settlement.

The Justice Department and other objectors had complained the
deal entitled class members -- consumers who bought wine from the
website Wines Til Sold Out -- only to coupon-like "redemption
codes" discounting the price of future purchases from the
website.  The new proposed deal adds a $500,000 cash fund for
class members who don't redeem their discounts.  It also extends
the time in which wine purchasers can use the discounts and, at
the judge's suggestion, postpones consideration of plaintiffs'
lawyers' $1.7 million fee request until class members have
received their recoveries.

Most notably, the brief accuses the Justice Department of
unjustified ideological meddling with a settlement that has
proven popular with the allegedly deceived consumers who benefit
from it.  Class counsel said DOJ has no business interfering in
this case -- or, for that matter, in any class action in which
the United States does not have an interest.

If, as Rachel Brand hinted, the Justice Department plans to step
up its policing of class action settlements, the Wines Til Sold
Out case could be an important test of DOJ's authority.  The
class brief contends CAFA provides the federal government a right
to be notified about proposed class deals, but not to influence
the settlement approval process.

"DOJ selectively cherry picks language in CAFA's legislative
history which simply states that 'the committee believes that
notifying appropriate state and federal officials of proposed
class action settlements will provide a check against inequitable
settlements in these cases' and 'will also deter collusion
between class counsel and defendants to craft settlements that do
not benefit the injured parties,'" the brief said.  "But that
language does not convey a right to object to settlements.  The
policy is to check abuses through the obligation to report, not
through an unstated right to object.  DOJ essentially asks that
such a right to object be inferred, which is wrong."

The brief cited several cases, including the BP Deepwater Horizon
litigation, in which federal courts have held CAFA does not
confer constitutional standing on state AGs who want to object to
class settlements.  The brief does not mention precedent on CAFA
and DOJ's standing, but that's to be expected given the novelty
of DOJ's filing in the wine case.

Class counsel said the Justice Department can't claim an interest
in a case asserting a violation of New Jersey consumer laws,
particularly because the federal government has failed to protect
consumers from deceptively advertised discounts. (The Justice
Department argued that consumers weren't injured by Wines Til
Sold Out's allegedly inflated reports of the original prices of
wines it sold at a purported discount because consumers
ultimately got exactly what they purchased at the price they
agreed to pay.  Plaintiffs' lawyers said DOJ ignored the "real,
quantifiable economic value," under New Jersey law, of ending a
so-called reference pricing scheme.)

"There are . . . no 'interests of the United States,' at stake in
the application of state consumer fraud laws and state common
laws, and DOJ identifies none," the brief said.

Class counsel accused the Justice Department of making an
ideological statement instead of acting in the best interests of
consumers, who have already claimed $3 million in benefits.  The
claims rate, according to the brief, is so far 15 percent -- much
higher than average rates in consumer cases. "DOJ's statement
appears to be based on little more than an ideological hostility
to collective litigation," the brief said.  "This is not the
forum for airing such grievances.  DOJ's statement does not
reasonably explain the government's views of the laws and the
facts, but instead simply presents its own self-serving and
imagined set of facts to further an ideological crusade against
class actions."

In an interview, class counsel (and former federal prosecutor)
James Cecchi of Carella Byrne said the Justice Department should
have reached out to him before using this case to launch its new
class action activism.  "They filed an objection without gaining
an understanding of the facts or the case, as clearly reflected
in the huge take rate to date," he said.  "The most important
voice, other than the court, is the class, and the class here has
said clearly and unambiguously that they want the relief provided
by this settlement."

One potentially significant point: DOJ fashioned its filing in
the wine class action not as an objection but as a statement of
interest.  Class counsel's brief argues that under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, only class members can file objections
to proposed settlements.  "The rule and the case law thus doom
DOJ's ill-considered venture here," the brief asserts. But
technically, the Justice Department isn't appearing as an
objector. [GN]


WOOD GROUP: Pipeline Inspectors Class Certified in "Fenley" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TOMMY L. FENLEY, et al., the Plaintiff, v.
WOOD GROUP MUSTANG, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-00326-
GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge George C. Smith entered an
order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of:

      "all current and former employees of [WGM] who were
      classified with the pay code "DAY - Non Exempt Day Rate,"
      and who worked in WGM's Pipeline Services Inspection
      Department as an inspector (or an equivalent position) in
      the United States in any workweek between three years prior
      to the date of the Court's Order and the present
      (Inspectors)";

   2. denying WGM's motion to decertify; and

   3. denying WGM's motion to exclude.

The Court recommends that the parties engage in mediation to
resolve the claims at issue. If the parties wish to participate
in mediation, they may contact Judge Smith's chambers at (614)
719-3220 or Judge Jolson's chambers at (614) 719-3470 to schedule
a mediation through the Court. The Clerk shall remove Documents
108, 110, and 119 from the Court's pending motions list.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yW89UzXq


YAHOO INC: Must Face Class Action Over Data Breaches
----------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Yahoo must face a raft of civil claims relating to the largest
data breach in history, a federal judge ruled on March 9.

U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh denied Yahoo's attempt to
dismiss a variety of claims that it failed to protect its users'
data while hiding the nature of its flimsy digital security
practices and taking too long to notify customers of the threats
to their information.

"The sole argument raised in defendants' motion to dismiss is
unpersuasive," Judge Koh wrote in the 43-page order issued on
March 9.

Judge Koh's order represents a significant legal defeat for
Yahoo, recently purchased by Verizon.  In addition to advancing
negligence claims, Judge Koh said users can seek punitive damages
under California law relating to their claims Yahoo knew it had
an inadequate security apparatus, but did little to address it
and did not inform users immediately when the hacks occurred.

The judge also chided Yahoo's legal strategy of blaming its
customers for continuing to use its email services after learning
of data breaches.

"(Yahoo) also criticize plaintiffs for continuing to use Yahoo
Mail and taking no remedial actions after learning of defendants'
allegedly inadequate security," Judge Koh wrote.  "However,
defendants fail to acknowledge that defendants' delayed
disclosures are likely to have harmed plaintiffs in the interim."

The case began in 2016, after a number of plaintiffs sued the web
services provider following a disclosure that more than 1 billion
email accounts had been hacked three times over a three-year
period beginning in 2013.

Discovery has since revealed the estimate was too conservative:
all 3 billion users of Yahoo's various web service platforms were
exposed to hackers.

The first hack occurred in 2013, when Yahoo used an encryption
technology that was widely acknowledged within the data-security
industry to be outdated and inadequate.

Yahoo also failed to alert customers about the breach and when it
finally disclosed the cyberattack three years later, it
underestimated the scope, according to the plaintiffs.

Hackers hit the company again in 2014, this time using a spear-
phishing scheme in which one or more Yahoo executives voluntarily
entered usernames and passwords to give hackers access to a vast
amount of privileged data.

In 2016, the last hack used the forged-cookie technique.  Cookies
allow users to stay signed into various websites.  Hackers forged
cookies through which users unwittingly gave hackers prolonged
access to vulnerable data.

All told, Yahoo's 3 billion users suffered exposure of privileged
information including names, email addresses, social security
numbers, bank accounts, home addresses, ZIP codes, occupations,
birth dates and personal preferences.

Lead plaintiff Kimberly Heines says hackers used information
stolen from her Yahoo emails to pilfer her Social Security
payments, causing her to fall behind on bills and incur late
fees.

New Jersey couple Matthew and Deana Ridolfo say hackers took out
several lines of credit in their names, and they spent
significant time addressing the fallout from the identity theft
besides paying monthly fees for identity theft services.

Several of the other plaintiffs experienced similar issues.

Many of the plaintiffs claim they would have behaved differently
had they known in 2013 that their private information had been
compromised.  They say Yahoo's failure to promptly disclose the
depth and breadth of the hack created direct financial harm.

Judge Koh sided with them at the motion to dismiss stage and
advanced the case.

"Plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to show that they would
have behaved differently had defendants disclosed the security
weaknesses of the Yahoo Mail System," Judge Koh wrote.

U.S. prosecutors have charged four individuals -- two Russian
intelligence agents and two hackers -- in connection with the
data breach.

Karim Baratov, a Canadian national hired by the Russian
government to perform various hacks, pleaded guilty last November
to various computer hacking and conspiracy charges.

Three other suspects, Dmitry Aleksandrovich Dokuchaev, Igor
Anatolyevich Sushchin and Alexsey Alexseyevich Belan, remain at
large in Russia, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
[GN]


YOUNG ADULT INSTITUTE: Khan Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
FAYYAZ KHAN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. YOUNG ADULT INSTITUTE, INC. d/b/a NATIONAL
INSTITUTE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-02824 (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wage and overtime compensation, liquidated damages on
those amounts, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and
attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was routinely working
hours in excess of 40 hours per week for which he was not
compensated according to state and federal overtime law. In
December 2017, after nearly a decade of faithful service, and
after routinely working in excess of 80 hours per week, YAI
abruptly terminated Plaintiff for allegedly not showing up to
work.

The Plaintiff is a covered employee within the meaning of the
FLSA and NYLL. YAI did not pay Plaintiff the proper overtime
wages as required by law for all hours worked over 40 in a
workweek.

The Defendant did not keep accurate records of wages or overtime
hours worked by Plaintiff. YAI inaccurately reported the number
of hours Plaintiff worked each week. YAI knowingly and willfully
operated their business with a policy of not paying Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees either the federal or New York
State minimum wage, the FLSA overtime rate (of time and one-
half), and the New York State overtime rate (of time and one-
half), in direct violation of the FLSA and New York Labor Law and
the supporting federal and New York State Department of Labor
Regulations.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Fayyaz Khan and the Putative Class:

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


ZAPPOS.COM: 9th Cir. Revives Data Breach Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Brandon C. Ge, Esq. -- bge@crowell.com -- Nathanial J. Wood, Esq.
-- nwood@crowell.com -- and Jeffrey L. Post, Esq. --
jposton@crowell.com -- of Crowell & Moring, reported that the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit revived a class
action lawsuit related to a 2012 data breach, determining that
the future risk of identity theft suffices to establish Article
III standing, even where there has been no actual harm.  At issue
in the case, In re Zappos.com, was whether the plaintiffs had
standing to bring claims based on a January 2012 data breach
where hackers allegedly stole the personal information of more
than 24 million Zappos.com Inc. customers -- names, account
numbers, passwords, email addresses, billing and shipping
addresses, telephone numbers, and credit and debit card
information.

The decision is likely to have a significant impact on data
breach litigation given the number of such cases filed in the
Ninth Circuit.  The circuits are currently split on the standard
for establishing Article III standing in data breach litigation,
a split that will likely continue until the Supreme Court
addresses the issue.

The Ninth Circuit's decision also creates a need for companies to
revisit their standard breach notification language, as the court
revived the claims against Zappos in part because Zappos warned
its customers in its notice that they should consider changing
their passwords due to the breach, which the court considered
evidence that consumers were at risk of harm from the incident.
[GN]


* Cohen Milstein Files Class Action Over VIX Index Manipulation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC on March 12 disclosed that as
controversy surrounding the CBOE Volatility Index ("VIX Index")
continues to grow, a new federal class action lawsuit filed on
March 9 alleges widespread manipulation of the VIX futures and
options market, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in
losses for investors across the country.  The litigation, filed
on behalf of investors damaged by this manipulation, is the first
lawsuit concerning this market manipulation to allege violations
of the Commodity Exchange Act, which prohibits market
participants from improperly influencing the price of commodity
futures.  Furthermore, the named plaintiff and its counsel
signaled their intention to issue a third-party subpoena to the
Chicago Board Options Exchange, publisher of the VIX index and
the only source of information for identifying the unnamed
traders and transactions involved in the alleged market
manipulation.  The named plaintiff is being represented by
Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP and Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC.

"The health of our financial system and the stability of our
markets depends on the trustworthiness of their institutions,"
said Michael Eisenkraft -- meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com -- co-
counsel for the named plaintiff and putative class and a Partner
in Cohen Milstein's Securities Litigation and Investor Protection
practice.  "By manipulating the VIX derivative market, the
defendants not only profited off their deceit at the expense of
honest investors, but damaged the integrity of an entire
industry."

According to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, unnamed traders were able to
rig the market for VIX futures and options by manipulating the
process in which the contract's settlement price -- used to
determine their value at settlement -- was calculated at the time
of the contract's expiration.  The lawsuit alleges this was done
by aggressively transacting in a key determinant of a VIX
derivative's settlement value -- S&P 500 Index (SPX) options --
ahead of the settlement auction, thereby manipulating the value
of VIX futures and options.

"By bringing this case forward and seeking to expose those who
were involved in this scheme, we hope to bring a measure of
justice to all those impacted and restore confidence in our
financial infrastructure," said Anthony Fata, co-counsel for the
named plaintiff and putative class and a Partner at Cafferty
Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP.

Published by the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE), the
Volatility Index (VIX Index) -- often referred to as the "fear
gauge" -- attempts to measure the 30-day implied volatility of
the market. The VIX Index is based on the S&P 500, the core index
for U.S. equities, and calculates expected volatility by
averaging the price of put and call options over a wide range of
contract terms.  In 2004, CBOE introduced the first futures and
options for the VIX Index, fueling a dramatic rise in trading
volume that continues to this day.

However, according to the lawsuit, the unique and complex way in
which the settlement price -- and therefore the value -- of an
expiring VIX future or option is determined has left the market
extremely susceptible to manipulation.  The complaint cites
research from University of Texas academics which points out
that, unlike other index derivatives which derive their value
from the price of their underlying assets, VIX futures and
options are subject to a hybrid auctioning process on expiration
date that is largely affected by another class of instruments,
namely SPX options.  The unique structure, according to the
researchers, leaves the market much more vulnerable to
manipulation, as traders can influence the final settlement price
of VIX derivatives by making transactions that distort the value
of relatively thinly traded SPX options.

The lawsuit alleges the manipulation scheme identified by the UT
researches was put into effect no later than 2011.  It also cites
recent settlement prices reportedly showing abnormal spikes in
VIX future and options prices, including one session in January
2018 in which the settlement price jumped from $11.76 to $12.81
in the final day of trading before expiration, marking the fourth
largest price swing over more than 160 days of trading.
According to the lawsuit, this market manipulation led to the
transfer of more than $42 million among contract holders.

The lawsuit calls for the certification of a class to represent
all similarly-situated investors as well as damages and relief
related to losses sustained as a result of market manipulation
and legal fees.  The named plaintiff is being represented by
Anthony Fata and Daniel Herrera of Cafferty Clobes Meriwether and
Sprengel LLP as well as Michael Eisenkraft, Carol Gilden --
cgilden@cohenmilstein.com -- and Times Wang --
twang@cohenmilstein.com -- of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

                      About Cohen Milstein

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC --
http://www.cohenmilstein.com-- is recognized as one of the
premier law firms in the country handling major, complex
plaintiff-side litigation.  With more than 90 attorneys, Cohen
Milstein has offices in Washington, D.C., Chicago, Ill., Denver,
Colo., New York, N.Y., Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., Philadelphia,
Pa., and Raleigh, N.C.

                     About Cafferty Clobes

Founded in 1992, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP --
http://www.caffertyclobes.com-- focuses on representing
plaintiffs, such as investors, employees, consumers and
companies, in complex civil litigation throughout the country.
The firm has offices in Chicago, Philadelphia, and Ann Arbor,
[GN]


* Cyber-Related Securities Fraud Class Action on the Rise
---------------------------------------------------------
Cara Peterman, writing for Law360, reports that while significant
consumer litigation has become increasingly common following the
announcement of a large data breach, cyber-related investor suits
have historically been limited to the intermittent shareholder
derivative action alleging that the breached company's board
failed to properly oversee the organization's cyberrisks.  And
those few sporadic derivative suits filed over the last several
years have universally been dismissed in the earliest stages of
the litigation

But after almost a decade of relative calm, the past 12 months
saw a flurry of substantial securities fraud class action. [GN]


* Locke Lord Attorney Discusses Independent Contractor Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Reibstein, Esq. -- rreibstein@lockelord.com -- of Locke
Lord LLP, in an article for JDSupra, provided a Independent
Contractor Misclassification and Compliance News Update for
February 2018.  February was a busy and important month for IC
misclassification and compliance law. Featured among the ten
cases summarized below are the first-ever trial of an IC
misclassification case in the on-demand, sharing economy (Lawson
v. GrubHub Holdings, Inc.); oral argument before a state's
highest court over the test to be applied in IC misclassification
cases (Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court); and the U.S.
Supreme Court accepting for review a case that may have far-
reaching implications for companies operating across state lines
that enter into IC agreements containing arbitration clauses with
individuals classified as ICs (New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira).

In addition, there were three IC misclassification cases where
the courts certified cases as class actions (involving
educational consultants and trainers, cable technicians, and
distributors of baked foods); one case where class action status
was denied (involving delivery drivers); a decision compelling
arbitration in an IC misclassification case where a client of a
staffing company was able to piggy-back on the staffing company's
arbitration agreement; and filings of two new IC
misclassification cases (involving port truckers and exotic
dancers).

The cases reported below from February 2018 demonstrate that
class action IC misclassification cases remain a thorn in the
side of companies who use ICs either to supplement their
workforce or as an integral part of their business model. But,
that is because, with the exception of GrubHub, too many
companies using ICs do so without the attention needed to
structure, document, and implement their IC relationships in a
manner that maximizes compliance with federal and state IC laws.
And in the GrubHub case, the decision may well have turned out
differently if the plaintiff was sympathetic instead of one whom
the judge found to have engaged in "dishonest conduct" and
"claimed ignorance of his dishonest conduct [was] not credible."

How can companies minimize their exposure to IC misclassification
liability? There are several ways, as more fully described in the
latest White Paper posted on this blog, including restructuring,
re-documenting, and re-implementing; re-distributing; and
reclassifying.  The only choice that is not recommended is
standing still.  Even companies like GrubHub, as we noted in our
blog post reporting on its win at trial, could have tightened up
its IC compliance even more -- despite the fact that it was able
to endure the judge's close scrutiny.  Thus, companies that feel
that their IC relationships will likewise survive a legal
challenge would be well advised to consider further enhancing
their IC compliance.  And for those businesses that have yet to
upgrade their IC compliance, the GrubHub decision should be a
positive signal that they, too, can structure, document, and
implement their IC relationships in a lawful manner.

In the Courts (10 cases)

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT CONSIDERING WHETHER TO KEEP ITS CURRENT
TEST FOR IC STATUS OR ADOPT A MORE WORKER-FRIENDLY TEST.  Oral
argument was heard on February 6, 2018 in a key California
Supreme Court case to determine if the courts in that state
should continue a long-standing test in California for
determining independent contractor status in cases involving wage
and hour issues.  As discussed in detail in our blog post of
February 5, 2018, the case, involving the trucking company
Dynamex, addressed the issue of whether the Supreme Court should
continue to follow its time-honored holding from 1989 in S.G.
Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep't of Industrial Relations (which is
roughly akin to a common law / economic realities test for
determining IC status) or apply a far more rigorous standard as
set forth in the 2010 holding in Martinez v. Combs.   The
California Supreme Court had asked the parties to file
supplemental briefs addressing whether the test for IC status in
California should embody the standard set forth in 2015 by the
New Jersey Supreme Court in Hargrove v. Sleepy's LLC, where the
courts in New Jersey were instructed to apply in wage and hour
cases the same three-pronged "ABC" test formulated by the
New Jersey legislature for IC status in unemployment cases.  That
decision is regarded as employee-friendly because, unlike most
other IC tests including Borello, which consider and weigh a
number of different factors when determining IC status, an ABC
statute requires that each and every one of the three prongs of
the ABC test be proven by a business to establish IC status.

While it is difficult, even for the most experienced
practitioners, to predict how a court may rule based on questions
and answers at oral argument, one of the most important exchanges
was a question posed to the principal lawyer for the worker, who
is a driver for Dynamex: would the worker be an employee or
independent contractor under the Borello test?  The driver's
counsel, without any hesitation or equivocation, responded that
the driver would be an employee under Borello.  This signifies
that there is no need for the court to consider changing the test
for IC status in California in this case. Generally, courts are
reluctant to alter long-standing legal standards where the result
in the case would not change. This may be one reason that the
California Supreme Court chooses not to modify Borello at this
time.  If a majority of judges feel that the Borello test should
continue, they may choose not to "punt" at this time and instead
affirmatively re-endorse Borello and reject any notion that
California should join New Jersey and adopt an ABC test. The two
most likely reasons for upholding Borello are that ABC tests are
promulgated by legislatures, not by courts; and that Borello
already includes all three prongs of the ABC test, but allows
courts flexibility in applying all relevant factors when
determining IC status. While the case has been on appeal for over
three years, a decision is expected by or before this summer.
Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court (No. S222732).

GRUBHUB PREVAILS IN FIRST ON-DEMAND, SHARING ECONOMY CASE THAT
HAS BEEN TRIED. GrubHub, Inc., an on-demand food delivery
company, prevailed in an IC misclassification case that was tried
this past fall in a California federal court.  The case was
brought by a gig worker who made restaurant deliveries for the
sharing economy company.  The worker alleged that GrubHub
misclassified him as an independent contractor. As noted in our
blog post of February 8, 2018, the case drew sustained media
attention during a non-jury trial in September 2017 because it
was the first IC misclassification trial involving a gig economy
business.  In her lengthy opinion, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline
Scott Corley, applying the Borello test, stated that while there
were some facts that indicated some control by GrubHub over the
manner and means by which the driver, Lawson, rendered his
services, there were more facts that, in the judge's view,
supported the conclusion that GrubHub did not control the details
of how Lawson accomplished his work. Among other factors
supporting IC status, Judge Corley noted that GrubHub did not
dictate the vehicle the driver used for deliveries or its
condition and the driver did not have to have GrubHub signage on
his vehicle, although the company made sure the vehicle was
registered and insured and that Lawson had a valid driver's
license; GrubHub did not control the driver's appearance while
making deliveries; GrubHub did not require the driver to engage
in any training or orientation, and did not provide the driver
with a script to follow when interacting with customers; and
GrubHub did not control whether and when Lawson would work and
for how long, nor did it tell him what supplies, if any, he
needed to have with him.

Although the judge found some instances of control, including the
fact that  GrubHub could terminate the contractual agreement with
the driver at will with 14 days' notice, determined the rates the
driver would be paid and the fees customers would pay for
delivery service, and dictated which blocks of time to make
available for driver selection and the geographical boundaries of
the delivery zones, Judge Corley stated that such control was not
exercised over the manner and means of performing the services,
but rather over the result of the work -- to ensure diners
received their meals in a timely fashion.  In evaluating eight
"secondary factors" used under the Borello decision to determine
IC status, the judge found that three favored GrubHub, four
favored the driver, and one was neutral.  Thus, the case was what
is commonly referred to as falling into a "gray area" where a
change in one or two key facts may well change the outcome of the
case.  As noted in our blog post, one of the keys to the judge's
decision in GrubHub's favor was because she discredited the
driver, finding that he engaged in "dishonest conduct" and that
his "claimed ignorance of his dishonest conduct is not credible."
As a result, it appeared that the judge credited the testimony of
GrubHub's witnesses where there was disputed testimony on a key
issue of fact.  Finally, the judge distinguished a case that she
said "has facts similar to those the Court found here."  By
focusing on the differences between the facts in that case and
this one, the judge confirmed that her decision in the GrubHub
case was not a validation of IC status for all gig economy
companies that use an IC model, but rather a recognition that the
facts matter, and, in this case and this case alone, those facts
favored IC status. Lawson v. GrubHub Holdings, Inc., No. 15-cv-
05128 (N.D. Cal.).

U.S. SUPREME COURT ACCEPTS CASE INVOLVING THE INTERSECTION OF IC
AGREEMENTS WITH THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT.  The United States
Supreme Court has decided to resolve the issue of whether Section
1 of the Federal Arbitration Act, which exempts from the purview
of the statute any "contracts of employment of seamen, railroad
employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or
interstate commerce" (emphasis added), includes workers who have
signed independent contractor agreements. According to the
petition for certiorari, the plaintiff in the underlying claim is
an independent contractor driver whose agreement with New Prime,
Inc., an interstate trucking company, includes a mandatory
arbitration provision requiring that all workplace disputes be
arbitrated with New Prime on an individual basis. The driver
filed a proposed class action in court alleging, among other
things, claims for unpaid wages due to misclassification as an
independent contractor.  In opposition to the company's motion to
compel arbitration, the worker claimed that his IC agreement is a
"contract of employment" covering him as a worker engaged in
interstate commerce.

According to the petition to the Supreme Court, New Prime claims
that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit misread the
exemption and applied it far too broadly when it held that the
term "contracts of employment" should include independent
contractor agreements.  Prime stated in its petition that,
"Without the ability to include enforceable arbitration
provisions in contracts governing independent contractors, the
entire transportation industry will be relegated to resolving all
disputes arising out of such contracts in court, notwithstanding
the contrary intentions of the parties." New Prime Inc. v.
Oliveira, No. 17-340 (U.S. Sup. Ct. Feb. 26, 2018).

EDUCATIONAL TRAINERS AND CONSULTANTS GRANTED CONDITIONAL
CERTIFICATION IN CLASS ACTION ALLEGING IC MISCLASSIFICATION.  An
Alabama federal court granted conditional collective action
certification for on-site educational trainers and consultants
nationwide in an IC misclassification action alleging wage and
hour violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state
wage and hour laws. The lawsuit was brought against Medfirst
Consulting Healthcare Staffing Inc., a company that sells
information technology and educational services to healthcare
providers across the U.S. The company helps healthcare companies
find consultants to implement and customize industry-specific
software and train personnel to use it. The Company maintains a
network with thousands of consultants.  Plaintiffs alleged that
they signed contracts that contained restrictive covenants;
received training about the software and methods for training
medical personnel; were supervised by Medfirst; had to submit
timesheets and expense reports; and were required to report their
job performance to the company. In deciding to conditionally
certify a class of trainers and consultants, the court concluded
that the named plaintiffs presented a reasonable basis for
finding that they are similarly situated to the proposed members
of the collective class; that "the universal failure to provide
overtime pay strongly suggests, at least at this stage, that [the
Company]applied common pay policies to all of its trainers and
consultants"; and that the economic realities test could be
readily applied on a class-wide basis regarding the alleged
misclassification issue. Kiley v. Medfirst Consulting Healthcare
Staffing, LLC, No. 17-cv-1756 (N.D. Ala. Feb. 23, 2018).

CABLE TECHNICIANS GRANTED CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION IN IC
MISCLASSIFICATION CASE.  A Louisiana federal court granted
conditional certification of a collective action under the FLSA
brought by cable technicians against Cable Marketing &
Installation of Louisiana, Inc.  The technicians claim that they
were denied minimum wage and overtime under the FLSA due to their
misclassification as independent contractors.  In determining
that the technicians who performed services for the company while
classified as independent contractors were similarly situated,
the court found that all of the technicians worked under the same
agreement; the company exerted some control over the technicians'
working conditions; all technicians were paid on a piece rate;
all of the technicians performed the same type of work; a cap was
placed on technician compensation; and technicians were assessed
chargebacks for substandard work resulting in their alleged
underpayment. Overall, the court concluded that the technicians
were similarly situated with respect to job requirements, pay
provisions, and elements under the FLSA's economic reality test.
Hobbs v. Cable Marketing & Installation of Louisiana, Inc., No.
17-cv-4766 (E.D. La. Feb. 6, 2018).

DISTRIBUTOR OF FLOWERS FOODS' SUBSIDIARY IN SAN ANTONIO WINS
COLLECTIVE CERTIFICATION IN IC MISCLASSIFICATION CASE.  A Texas
federal court has granted the motion for conditional
certification brought by a distributor of a San Antonio
subsidiary of Flower Foods, Inc., a nationwide baked goods/snack
foods company, where the distributor alleges that he and other
distributors for the San Antonio company were misclassified as
independent contractors.  The court found that the proposed class
members' claims were sufficiently similar to the plaintiff to
merit sending notice of the collective action to potential class
members.  Specifically, through his pleadings and affidavit, the
court found that the plaintiff made a sufficient showing that all
distributors regularly worked over 40 hours and did not receive
overtime compensation; they performed similar work in the
company's bakery and warehouse operations; contracts were entered
into between the parties without any input from the distributors;
and distributors were not permitted to carry any competing
products in their delivery vehicles.  In its decision, the court
noted that other courts have granted conditional certification in
IC misclassification cases involving distributors for several
different Flower Foods' affiliates. Wiatrek v. Flowers Foods,
Inc., No. SA-17-CV-772 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2018).

DELIVERY DRIVERS IN NEW JERSEY DENIED CLASS CERTIFICATION IN IC
MISCLASSIFICATION CASE.  A federal court judge in New Jersey has
denied the motion of delivery drivers who brought a proposed
class action for alleged violations of ERISA, the Family Medical
Leave Act, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law as a result of
alleged misclassification of the drivers as ICs.  The court found
that the drivers failed to establish that the putative class
members were "ascertainable."  The court explained that a
plaintiff seeking certification of a federal class action must
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the class is
ascertainable, requiring the plaintiff to show that (1) the class
is defined with reference to objective criteria; and (2) there is
a reliable and administratively feasible mechanism for
determining whether proposed class members fall within the class
definition. After reviewing the parties' briefs and deposition
testimony of the paralegal responsible for analyzing the data and
documents to determine the scope of the proposed class, the court
concluded that the methodology used by the plaintiffs to
determine who worked full-time, who did not receive overtime pay,
and who was subject to company deductions did not satisfy the
two-part test for ascertainability. The court stated that there
were gaps in time of some of the records relied upon by the
paralegal that made assessing the class size "tenuous or
speculative" and there was no way of knowing whether the carrier
paid drivers overtime compensation.  Hargrove v. Sleepy's, LLC,
No. 10-cv-1138 (D.N.J Feb. 28, 2018).

CLIENT OF STAFFING COMPANY IS THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF AN IC
AGREEMENT'S ARBITRATION CLAUSE CONTAINING A CLASS ACTION WAIVER.
An Illinois federal court granted a motion to compel arbitration
of the IC misclassification claims by drivers who provided
services to automotive parts distributor, Worldpac Inc., even
though Worldpac was not a party to the IC agreement.  The drivers
alleged that Worldpac, which used staffing company Partsfleet to
contract with drivers needed by Worldpac to deliver the auto
parts to its customers, violated overtime and minimum wage
provisions of the FLSA and various state and local laws due to
misclassification of the drivers as independent contractors. The
drivers did not sue Partsfleet but rather Worldpac, presumably
hoping to avoid being compelled to arbitrate their claims under
the arbitration provisions contained in the Partsfleet IC
agreement. In response to Worldpac's motion to compel
arbitration, the drivers argued that they were not obligated to
arbitrate their claims because Worldpac was not covered by the
agreement. The court disagreed with the drivers, holding that
Worldpac, as a third party/intended beneficiary to the agreement,
was entitled to enforce the arbitration provision, which stated
that it was intended to apply to all controversies involving the
staffing company "or its customers." Brown v. Worldpac, Inc., 17
CV 6396 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 1, 2018).

PORT TRUCKERS BRING ANOTHER IC MISCLASSIFICATION CLASS ACTION
AGAINST A LOGISTICS COMPANY.  Port truckers have brought yet
another proposed class action in the drayage industry, this time
against a trucking subsidiary of XPO Logistics Inc. in Los
Angeles County Superior Court.  The drivers claim wage and hour
violations of the California Labor Code due to alleged
misclassification of the drivers as independent contractors and
not employees. The drivers reportedly seek over $1 million for
more than 160 port and rail drivers in restitution for failure to
pay at least the minimum wage, unpaid wages for meal and rest
breaks and non-driving work such as wait time to pick up loads,
and unlawful deductions for operational expenses, administrative
fees, and insurance costs. According to the complaint, the
company controls when drivers work and which loads they haul;
requires drivers to conduct daily truck inspections; and requires
drug testing of the drivers. The drayage trucking industry has
been besieged by IC misclassification lawsuits not only by class
action lawyers but most recently by the City of Los Angeles, as
noted in our January blog update.  Alvarez v. XPO Logistics
Cartage LLC, No. BC695123 (Los Angeles Super. Ct. Feb. 26, 2018).

NEW IC MISCLASSIFICATION CASE BROUGHT BY EXOTIC DANCERS AGAINST
ADULT ENTERTAINMENT CLUB. An exotic dancer has brought a proposed
collective action against Georgia gentlemen's club, Peaches of
Atlanta, claiming minimum wage and overtime compensation
violations of the FLSA due to misclassification of herself and
other dancers as independent contractors instead of employees.
According to the plaintiff, the dancers' only compensation was in
the form of tips from Club patrons and the Club had a "practice
of siphoning away those tips to distribute to non-tip eligible
employees." The collective action complaint alleges that the
dancers were employees and not ICs under the economic realities
test because the Club had the power to hire, fire and discipline
the dancers; required the dancers to work a certain number of
days during the week, including one "slow day"; required each
dancer to audition before hire; required the dancers to wear
certain clothing on specific days of the week; determined the
rate and method of payment for the dancers; required the dancers
to tip out other employees at the end of the shift, such as the
DJ, House Mom and Club owner; maintained attendance records;
scheduled mandatory meetings; assessed fines if days of
work/meetings were missed; and controlled the music used by the
dancers. Lawson v. Clean City, Ltd. d/b/a Peaches of Atlanta, No.
18-cv-579 (N.D. Georgia Feb. 6, 2018). [GN]


* Schwarzenegger Mulls Class Action Against Oil Industry
--------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schleifstein, writing for NOLA.com, reports that terminator
star and former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger put the oil
industry on notice that he will participate in a class action
lawsuit charging that fossil fuel pollution is killing millions
of people every year around the world through the effects of
global warming.

"We are going to go after them and we are going to be in there
like an Alabama tick, that I can promise you," Mr. Schwarzenegger
said.

His comments came during an interview by Edward-Isaac Dovere of
Politico before about 1,000 participants in SXSW, the South by
Southwest Conference, on March 11 for Mr. Dovere's OFF Message
online podcast.

"I don't think there's any difference than if you walk into a
room and you know you're going to kill someone, it's first degree
murder," he said.  "I think it's the same thing with the oil
companies.  They know they're killing people and they continue
doing the same thing over and over and selling it, so I think
something needs to be done about it."

Mr. Schwarzenegger also took several shots at President Donald
Trump, including a joke about the plot of his next Terminator
movie, which begins production in Europe in June.

"The T-800 model that I play, he's traveling back in time to 2019
to get Trump out of prison," he joked.

But during a more serious part of the interview, Schwarzenegger
confirmed that he's planning on filing a lawsuit against the oil
industry, although he declined to say when: "We don't want to
signal or moves."

Mr. Schwarzenegger said that like the tobacco industry's paying
hundreds of billions of dollars after being found responsible for
lying about the health effects of smoking, the oil industry has
lied about what it has known about the effects of fossil fuel
pollution.

"People don't know that the oil companies knew from 1959 on, they
did their own study and knew there would be global warming and
climate change happening because of fossil fuels, and on top of
it, it will be risky for people's lives," he said.  "That it
would kill people and give people cancer, and all of this, all of
this stuff the oil companies knew and they kept hiding it from
the people."

"There's 7 to 9 million people dying every year because of
pollution because of fossil fuels," he said.

"It is absolutely irresponsible to know that your product is
killing people and to not have a warning label on it like they do
in tobacco.  Every gas station should have a warning label on it,
every car should have a warning label, every product that has
fossil fuels in it should have a warning label on it," he said.
[GN]


* SCOTUS Ruling on Class-Action Waivers Expected
------------------------------------------------
Elliott Mest, writing for Hotel Management, reports that we often
imagine the rule of law as something rigid or set in stone, but
in reality it is anything but.  Case in point, the National Labor
Relations Board, the organization in charge of maintaining a
balance between the powers of the employer and the rights of the
employee, is in the process of walking back a number of Obama-era
decisions regarding employment law.  During the previous
administration, the NLRB decided that class-action waivers in
arbitration cases were not enforceable, but a new decision from
the NLRB could be taking the opposite stance.

Class-action waivers are often signed by employees when they are
hired, exempting their right to participate in class-action
lawsuits against their employer.  The Obama-era NLRB had strict
restrictions on how these waivers could be presented to
employees, as well as the consequences of their signing, but the
new Republican majority in the NLRB has taken a more pro-business
approach.  Oral arguments on walking back these restrictions have
already been put forth before the Supreme Court, and a decision
on the matter is expected to be made within weeks.

Because the decision is still up the air, and it will have far-
reaching consequences for employers and employees alike,
Mark Spring -- mspring@cdflaborlaw.com -- principal at labor,
employment and immigration law firm Carothers, DiSante &
Freudenberger, recommends employers wait before presenting new
contracts to employees.

"If you're already using an arbitration agreement, just continue
doing what you're doing," Mr. Spring said.  "The decision may set
some parameters as to what's going to work and what isn't, and
could offer guidelines on how to make these agreements
enforceable."

Hook, Line...
Once the rules are in place, employers will be faced with the
difficulty of convincing existing employees to sign.
Dana Kravetz -- kravetz@mrllp.com -- managing partner at law firm
Michelman & Robinson, said new hires can be bound to these
agreements as a condition of new employment, but existing
employees may need additional considerations.

"If you are trying to get existing employees to sign off or
amplify an agreement with new language, you may have to give them
something and some may say no," Ms. Kravetz said.  "These are
waivers to a trial by jury, and there is a certain consideration
there to get employees to sign them."

In many cases, Ms. Kravetz said, employers make the mistake of
implying or outright stating that continued employment is
justification enough for workers to sign these agreements, but
this line of thinking is unlikely to hold up in court.  To
sidestep this, Don Schroeder -- dschroeder@foley.com -- partner
at law firm Foley & Lardner, said it may be a good idea to time
the signing of new employee contracts with other events, such as
promotions, raises or bonuses.

"A lot of times, companies will set up an online portal to ensure
employees consent to these new rules, and that is appropriate,"
Mr. Schroeder said.  "Even an online signature is valid, as long
as it ensures the employees have a clear understanding how the
portal works and they acknowledge what they sign, and it allows
companies to keep a record of it."

Mr. Schroeder said one of the major mistakes hotels make is
failing to draft arbitration provisions that make it very clear
what claims are included under the umbrella of the arbitration
clause.  He said that many small and midsized businesses make the
mistake of lifting agreements from online and circulating them to
employees, when these agreements may have been drafted more than
a decade ago.

"It's very critical for companies operating in multiple
jurisdictions that they include provisions that are clear as to
what is and isn't covered by claims going forward, and for each
region as well," Mr. Schroeder said.

Give and Take
Mr. Spring said there are negatives to the rule reversal, as
well.  Typically, an employer would not be expected to pay to
provide an attorney for its employees during a class-action
lawsuit, but that may not be the case if they are taken to court
for a grievance that may have been addressed in such a suit.
Also, Mr. Spring said employers are going to have to weigh the
possibility of having to fire good, long-time employees who are
unwilling to sign new agreements.

"There is no hard and fast rule behind this, but if you have an
employee with 15 years behind them, and they are one of your
best, and they don't want to sign is it worth it to fire them?"
Mr. Spring said.  "You want to do that then in a way that is
enforceable by both state and federal law, and in a way that
doesn't affect employee morale."

With decisions such as these becoming more common, Ms. Kravetz
said he isn't surprised to see multiple hotel companies updating
their employee handbooks.  The response from unions and employee
organizations cannot be ignored either, and employees are
increasingly more educated on employment law.

"There is a bill being floated right now that would cause claims
related to sexual harassment to not be subject to arbitration,"
Ms. Kravetz said.  "Employers could find resistance to people
signing class-action waivers in light of their awareness of this
bill, and it's part of an inherent distrust of employers that
creeps up when asked to sign something like this." [GN]






                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.
Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche
Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G.
Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter A.
Chapman at 215-945-7000.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *