CAR_Public/180411.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Wednesday, April 11, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 73



                            Headlines


15 40 PRODUCTIONS: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Diaz and Bush Claim
ABM INDUSTRIES: Wade Sues over Cyber Attack
AD ASTRA RECOVERY: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Doyle" Suit
ADVANCED PHARMA: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premium
AECOM INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Tafoya Says

AERUS LLC: Website Not Accessible to Deaf People, Sullivan Says
ARCIMOTO INC: Mendelson Sues over Stock Price Plunge
AMY FAY ALTMAN: De Faria Seeks OT Compensation under Labor Law
BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Order in Baltimore Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Berkshire Appeals Denial of Class Certification

BEST BUY STORES: Touche Appeals N.D. Florida Ruling to 11th Cir.
BITCONNECT INT'L: Avalos Sues over Investment Programs
BJC HEALTH: "Rhoades" Remanded to Missouri State Court
BUENAVISTA INVESTMENT: Tolosa Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA
CENTRAL CREDIT: Certification of Class in "Perez" Suit Denied

CERES, CA: Court Dismisses 3rd Cause of Action in "Miranda" Suit
CHARLES SCHWAB: Lim Seeks May 29 Cutoff to File Writ to Sup. Ct.
CHELSEA INDUSTRIES: Macalou Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
CITIZENS BANK: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Fawcett"
CITIZENS FOR RAUNER: Garvey Sues over Pre-Recorded Calls

CJS SOLUTION: $3.24MM Settlement in "Sanders" Has Prelim Approval
COCA-COLA CO: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Becerra" Suit
COLONIAL WILLIAMSBURG: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
COMBINED INSURANCE: Must Produce Docs in "Nicholes" Suit
COMENITY LLC: J. Stephens Individual Claims Dismissed

CROWN POLY: Fails to Pay Overtime & Minimum Wage, Morales Says
DICK'S SPORTING: Pomerantz to Lead in "McKenna" Suit
DR PEPPER SNAPPLE: Witmer Balks at Keurig Green Merger Deal
EMERSON ELECTRIC: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Order in "Hale" Suit
ESTATE INFORMATION: Azimov Files 1st Suit over Debt Collection

ESTATE INFORMATION: Azimov Files 2nd Suit over Debt Collection
EWC TIMES: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York
FACEBOOK INC: Zellmer Sues over Collection of Biometric Info
FACEBOOK INC: Williams et al. Sue over Messenger Logs
FANNIE MAY: Court Dismisses "Benson" Suit

FASHION INSTITUTE: Web Site Not Accessible to Deaf, Sullivan Says
FLORIDA BC: "Ward" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
FOOT LOCKER: Rosenberg Sues over Drop in Share Price
FRED'S INC: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Taylor" Class Suit
GENERAL MILLS: Weninger Files Suit Over Illegal Termination

GENERAL MOTORS: "Gavaldon" Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan
GENERAL MOTORS: "Hill" Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan
GENERAL MOTORS: "Taylor" Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan
GEO GROUP: Counterclaims, Affirmative Defenses in "Chen" Narrowed
HARBOR CARE: "Adolphe" Suit Brought Before New York Supreme Court

HARCOURT GROUP: Denial of "Boice" Class Certification Affirmed
HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS: Vega Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
HOUSTON WASTE: "Uribe" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
HSB LLC: Faces "Logan" Suit in D. Massachusetts
IDE PONTIAC: Auto Salesmen Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

IL MULINO USA: Olsen Claims Website Not Blind-Friendly
JARROW FORMULAS: "Salganik" Suit Alleges Fraud
JOHN DOES: Barry Sues over Settlement Price of VIX Derivatives
JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Order re Notice of Pendency Amendment Entered
LAS VEGAS, NV: Moore May Proceed in Forma Pauperis

LEE CONSTRUCTION: "Tyler" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
LEE LAW: Shanahan Balks at Debt Collection Practices
LESSORS INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Harvey Says
MADISON COS: Ct. Moots Pipeline Productions' Protective Order Bid
MAPCO EXPRESS: "Short" Suit Seeks OT Pay, Damages

MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Payne Claims
MDL 2179: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Deep Horizon Suit
MDL 2613: Court Junks "Dorsey" Suit Over Excessive Overdraft Fee
MDL 2741: "Brickey" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal.
MDL 2741: "Conley" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal.

MDL 2741: "Holstrom" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal.
MDL 2741: "Hymas" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal.
MDL 2741: "Pertuit" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal.
MDL 2741: "Rasey" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal.
MDL 2741: "Schmidt" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal.

MDL 2741: "Upshaw" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal.
MDL 2804: Suit by Georgia Cities Consolidated
MDL 2804: "Salmons" Suit vs Purdue Pharma Consolidated
MERCK & CO: California School Sues over Sale of Zetia Drug
MICHAEL FOODS: Silva Files False Labeling Suit in Washington

MICHIGAN: Court Denies Bid to Amend "Rouse" Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Robbins Sues over Debt Collection Practices
MIDLAND FUNDING: Can Compel Arbitration in "Oyola" FDCA Suit
MISSISSIPPI: Court Refuses to Reinstate "Gates" Class Suit
MONAT GLOBAL: "Alabaster" Suit Alleges Magnuson-Moss Act Breach

MONSANTO COMPANY: Andriola Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Litter Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Robbins Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Schreibeises Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONTANA: Deal in Suit Over Prison Conditions Has Prelim Approval

MOTORCARS WEST: Fails to Pay Wages, Hendricks Says
MR. WHITE RESTAURANT: Michel Suit Seeks Minimum Wage under FLSA
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: "Ray" Stayed Pending Outcome in "Hoggard"
NETGEAR INC: Fails to Safeguard Consumers' Files, Sassine Says
OCWEN MORTGAGE: "Gray" Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of California

OVERSTOCK.COM: Morris Sues over Stock Price Drop
PALISADES CLEANING: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages
PATENAUDE & FELIX: White Sues over Unauthorized Background Check
PRAXAIR INC: Faces "Hassan" Suit in C.D. California
Q'MAX SOLUTIONS: Court Refuses to Certify Classes in "Sanchez"

RITE AID: Moore Appeals E.D. Pennsylvania Decision to 3rd Circuit
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATON: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Spates Says
ROSSMOYNE INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Rodriguez Says
SAN MATEO HEALTH: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wage, Palomares Says
SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC: "Tousignant" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

SEARS HOLDINGS: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Kloppel" Suit
SETERUS INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Whitt" Suit
SHORE FUNDING: "Cunningham" TCPA Suit Stayed Pending ACA Decision
SIGMA DESIGNS: Stein Balks at Asset Sale to Silicon Laboratories
SLEEPY'S LLC: "Hargrove" Class Certification Bid Denied

SOLID BIOSCIENCES: Faces "Watkins" Suit over January IPO
SPROUTS FARMERS: Public Employees Fund Sues Over Share Price Drop
SYNERGY PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Rose" Securities Suit in N.Y.
TRI-BOROUGH CERTIFIED: "Rodriguez" Suit Alleges NYLL Violation
TRICO WEB LLC: "Rojas" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages, Damages

UNITED CONTINENTAL: Sacchi Sues over Flight Cancellation Fees
UNITED STATES: Almanza Appeals Ruling to Court of Federal Claims
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Hower Sues over Damaged Frozen Embryos
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Brown Sues over Damaged Embryos
US BEAUTY MART: "Hyun" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA

US TOBACCO: Court Enters Amended Final Judgment in "Speaks" Suit
VALIDUS HOLDINGS: Witmer Balks at AIG Merger Deal
VILLAGE FAMILY: Underpays Therapists, Yahalom Claims
VITAS HEALTHCARE: "Williams" Suit Alleges FCRA Violation
WAL-MART STORES: Count VIII Survives Dismissal Bid in "Johnson"

WAL-MART STORES: "Palmer" Sues Over Mislabeled Eggs
WALTERS TIMMONS: Fails to Pay All Wages, Hernandez Says
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Court Endorses "Abarca" Classes Certification
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Petrone Appeals D. Neb. Ruling to 8th Circuit
WYNN RESORTS: "Ferris" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations




                            *********


15 40 PRODUCTIONS: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Diaz and Bush Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NORBERTO DIAZ and WESLEY BUSH, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 15/40 PRODUCTIONS,
LTD., a California 17 corporation, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC699516 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
March 26, 2018), seeks to recover final wages at termination
pursuant to the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Defendants failed to provide
Plaintiffs with uninterrupted meal periods, failed to maintain
accurate records of Plaintiffs' meal periods, failed to authorize
and permit Plaintiffs to take uninterrupted rest periods, failed
to indemnify Plaintiffs for necessary business expenses, failed
to timely pay all final wages to Plaintiffs when Defendants
terminated Plaintiffs' employment, and failed to furnish accurate
wage statements to Plaintiffs.

15|40 Productions is a global, full service, production company
with offices in Los Angeles and New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          Allen Feghali, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 232 3128
          Facsimile: (213) 232 3125
          E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
                  justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com
                  allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com


ABM INDUSTRIES: Wade Sues over Cyber Attack
-------------------------------------------
LARRY WADE, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, v. ABM INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED, a
Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH03855 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook County, March 23, 2018), seeks injunctive relief
requiring Defendant to implement commercially reasonable security
measures to properly guard against any and all future
cyberattacks and to provide prompt, reasonable notification in
the event of such an attack.

According to the complaint, on August 1, 2017, ABM was the target
of an attack on its information technology systems. This attack
resulted in unauthorized outside parties gaining access to
Defendant's employees' sensitive personal information, including
their medical information. Despite the fact that Defendant was
storing such sensitive information that it knew was of value to,
and vulnerable to, cyber attackers, Defendant failed to take
basic security precautions that could have prevented the
disclosure of its employees' sensitive Personal Information.

Defendant's lax cybersecurity procedures allowed hackers to
obtain access to Plaintiff's and other employees' Personal
Information. This Personal Information should have been secured
by adequate levels of protection and should not have been
susceptible to unauthorized access through the use of one of the
oldest, and least sophisticated, types of cyber-attacks -- the
"phishing email" scheme. A "phishing" attack occurs when
nefarious actors transmit fraudulent emails purporting to be from
reputable sources in order to induce individuals to reveal
personal information such as email passwords and credit card
numbers. Defendant was subject to such a phishing attack and was
not able to detect, prevent, or respond to the attack in a
reasonable manner or within a reasonable time, resulting in
Plaintiff's and other employees' Personal Information being
compromised as a result.

Defendant did not notify Plaintiff and other Class members that
their Personal Information was compromised until more than seven
months following the disclosure of such Personal Information,
including medical information.

ABM Industries is a facility management provider in the United
States. ABM was founded in 1909 by Morris Rosenberg in San
Francisco, CA as a single-person window washing business.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Classes:

          Myles McGuire, Esq.
          Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
          Jad Sheikali, Esq.
          David Gerbie, Esq.
          McGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Tel: (312) 893 7002
          E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
                  emeyers@mcgpc.com
                  jsheikali@mcgpc.com
                  dgerbie@mcgpc.com


AD ASTRA RECOVERY: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Doyle" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Meghan Doyle filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Meghan Doyle v. Ad Astra Recovery Services Inc.,
Case No. 1-17-cv-05233, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

The appellate case is captioned as Meghan Doyle v. Ad Astra
Recovery Services Inc., Case No. 18-1575, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant MEGHAN DOYLE, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, is represented by:

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

Defendant-Appellee AD ASTRA RECOVERY SERVICES INC. is represented
by:

          Gary J. Repke, Esq.
          Michael I. Metz-Topodas, Esq.
          COHEN SEGLIAS PALLAS GREENHALL & FURMAN PC
          30 South 17th Street, 19th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 564-1700
          E-mail: grepke@cohenseglias.com
                  mmetz-topodas@cohenseglias.com


ADVANCED PHARMA: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premium
------------------------------------------------------------
Ilsia Rodriguez and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff(s), v. Advanced Pharma CR, LLC, Samantha Amaba and
Ivette Lopez, individually Defendants, Case No. 18-cv -20807
(S.D. Fla., March 2, 2018) seeks to recover overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, costs and reasonably attorney's
fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act.

Advanced Pharma is a medical research company located at 2950 NW
83rd ST, Miami FL 33147 where Rodriguez worked as an hourly,
full-time housekeeping employee from approximately March 10,
2016, to January 23, 2018.

Plaintiff was also sent to work as a housekeeper to the private
residence of Samantha Amaba and Ivette Lopez, located at 8000
West Drive # 114, North Bay Village 33141.  Plaintiff regularly
and consistently worked in excess of 40 hours every week period,
however, she was not paid for overtime hours. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Telephone: (305) 446-1500
     Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
     Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


AECOM INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Tafoya Says
---------------------------------------------------
ISSAC TAFOYA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AECOM, INC., a Corporation,
and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendant, Case No. BC699089 (Cal.
Super. Ct., March 23, 2018), seeks to recover all overtime wages
under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was hired by Defendants
in 2014, until Plaintiffs employment with Defendant was
terminated on or about March 8, 2017. During Plaintiffs
employment, he worked as a non-exempt heavy equipment mechanic,
and was paid wage payments made in lieu of health benefits,
payment for declining health benefits and/or other non-
discretionary bonuses and/or commissions or other forms of pay
which are not excludable under the California law when
calculating an employee's regular rate. Plaintiff s job duties
included repairing forklifts and other heavy machinery. During
Plaintiffs employment with Defendants, Plaintiff routinely worked
in excess of 8 hours per workday and/or more than 40 hours per
workweek, but did not receive overtime compensation equal to one
and one-half times the regular rate of pay for working overtime
hours. Specifically, Defendants paid Plaintiff and other non-
exempt employees wage payments made in lieu of health benefit,
payment for declining health benefits and/or other
nondiscretionary bonuses and/or commissions or other forms of pay
which are not excludable under the California law when
calculating an employee's regular rate. Despite Defendants'
payment of Incentive Pay to Plaintiff, Defendants have failed to
include all forms of Incentive Pay when calculating Plaintiffs
regular rate of pay, thereby causing Plaintiff to be underpaid
all required overtime wages. Rather, Plaintiff was only paid one-
and-a-half times (or two times in the case of doubletime hours)
the base hourly rate, which is not equal to, but less-than the
regular rate, as Defendants failed to include the various forms
of Incentive Pay earned by Plaintiff during corresponding time
periods that are required to be included in the regular rate, but
were not.

AECOM is an American multinational engineering firm that provides
design, consulting, construction, and management services to a
wide range of clients. AECOM has approximately 87,000 employees,
and is number 161 on the 2017 Fortune 500 list.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher L. Burrows, Esq.
          BURROWS LAW FIRM, APC
          8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 634
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 526 9998
          Facsimile: (424) 644 2446
          E-mail: cburrows@cburrowslaw.com

               - and -

          Sean M. Novak, Esq.
          NOVAK LAW FIRM, P.C.
          8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 634
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (323) 424 4313
          Facsimile: (323) 424 4357
          E-mail: smn@novaklawfirm.com


AERUS LLC: Website Not Accessible to Deaf People, Sullivan Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP SULLIVAN, JR., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AERUS LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-02697 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2018), seeks to put
an end to systemic civil rights violations committed by Defendant
against the deaf and hard of hearing individuals in New York
State and across the United States.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying the deaf and
hard of hearing individuals throughout the United States equal
access to the goods and services Defendant provides to non-
disabled individuals through http://www.aerushome.com/ The
Website provides to the public online content on wellness and
cleaning products for businesses and homes, testimonials, blogs,
and business and career opportunities offered by Defendant. Yet,
the Website contains access barriers that make it difficult, if
not impossible, for deaf and hard of hearing individuals to use
the Website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for
deaf and hard of hearing users to comprehend the audio portion of
videos that are posted on the Website. Defendant thus excludes
the deaf and hard of hearing from the full and equal
participation in the growing Internet economy that is
increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and
daily living. In the wave of technological advances in recent
years, assistive technology is becoming an increasingly prominent
part of everyday life, allowing deaf and hard of hearing people
to fully and independently access a variety of services,
including accessing online videos.

The Plaintiff, who currently lives in New York City, is a deaf
and hard of hearing individual.  He notes that approximately 36
million people in the United States are deaf or hard of hearing.

Aerus LLC, formerly Electrolux Corp. USA, manufactures vacuum
cleaners, vacuum cleaners and air purifiers. It is headquartered
in Dallas, Texas, and has over 500 independently owned franchises
in the U.S. and Canada.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

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


ARCIMOTO INC: Mendelson Sues over Stock Price Plunge
----------------------------------------------------
JAY MENDELSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ARCIMOTO, INC., MARK FROHNMA YER,
TERRY L. BECKER, DOUGLAS M. CAMPOLI, THOMAS THURSTON,
JEFFERSON CURL, W.R. HAMBRECHT & CO., LLC, and DOES 1-25,
Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CGC-18-565324 (Cal. Super.
Ct., March 27, 2018), seeks to pursue remedies as a result of
Defendants' false and misleading statements and omitted material
facts in connection with initial public offering under the
Securities Act of 1933.

The case is a securities class action on behalf of all those who
purchased Arcimoto common stock pursuant to Arcimoto's IPO. The
IPO was made under Regulation A of the 1933 Act, and the Offering
Circular was filed purportedly pursuant to 17 C.F.R. section
220.253(g)(2). This lawsuit asserts claims under section 12(a)(2)
of the 1933 Act, which provides buyers of securities an express
remedy for material misstatements or omissions made by any seller
or solicitor in connection with the offer or sale of the issuer's
securities involving a prospectus or oral communications. The
Defendants made numerous misstatements of material facts in
connection with the IPO concerning Arcimoto's only product, a
three-wheeled electric vehicle. In contrast to the rosy picture
presented by defendants, the Company was not selling its
vehicles. Arcimoto's prototype vehicles had safety and mechanical
issues, the design was not ready for production, and it did not
have a facility capable of scaled production. After collecting
approximately $20 million from investors, the public soon learned
the truth about the Company's business. Arcimoto's stock crashed,
and now trades at around $3 per share, less than half of the
price of the IPO.

Arcimoto is an electric vehicle company from Eugene, Oregon
developing the SRK, a tandem two-seat, three-wheeled electric
vehicle.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
          Jenny L. Dixon, Esq.
          David W. Uris, Esq.
          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525 3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525 3991
          E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
                  soddo@robbinsarroyo.com
                  jdixon@robbinsarroyo.com
                  duris@robbinsarroyo.com


AMY FAY ALTMAN: De Faria Seeks OT Compensation under Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARMEN M. LARIOS DE FARIA, the Plaintiff, v. AMY FAY ALTMAN,
ERICK JOSHUA ALTMAN, the Defendant, Case No. 603929/2018 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., March 26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, earned wages and statutory penalties under the New
York Labor Law to remedy violations of the wage-and-hour
provisions of the New York Labor Law that occurred at the
residences of Defendants Amy Fay Altman and Erick Joshua Altman.

The case is a civil action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of
Plaintiff and others similarly situated. The Plaintiff also
brings this action under the Wage Theft Protection Act, for
Defendants' failure to provide written notice of wage rates in
violation of the labor laws.

According to the complaint, throughout her employment, Plaintiff
worked 6 days a week on behalf of Defendants. The Plaintiff
always worked at least 65 hours per week. The Plaintiff received
weekly compensation between $650.00 per week up to $750.00 per
week. The Plaintiff was not paid time and one half for all work
performed after 40 hours. Plaintiff has been damaged in that she
was never paid overtime for the work performed in excess of 40
hours per week.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Goodman, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. GOODMAN P.C.
          380 North Broadway, Suite 203
          Jericho, New York 11753
          Telephone: (516) 597 5840
          Facsimile: (866) 415-1019
          E-mail: ggoodman@gganylaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Order in Baltimore Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A.,
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Mayor and City
Council of Baltimore, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et
al., Case No. 11-cv-5450, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

The lawsuit is part of the multidistrict litigation styled In Re:
LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No.
11-md-2262, in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (New York City).

The Plaintiffs in the litigation allege that the Defendants
manipulated the U.S. Dollar LIBOR rate during the financial
crisis, artificially lowering the rate for their own benefit.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants manipulated the U.S.
Dollar LIBOR rate, and that, as a result, purchasers did not
receive as much interest payments for their U.S. Dollar LIBOR-
based instruments from the banks as they should have.

The appellate case is captioned as Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., Case
No. 18-746, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff Bucks County Water and Sewer Authority, and Plaintiffs-
Respondents Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated; Jennie Stuart Medical
Center, Inc.; City of New Britain; Vistra Energy Corporation; and
Yale University are represented by:

          William Christopher Carmody, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          1301 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 336-8334
          Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
          E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com

Defendants-Petitioners Bank of America Corporation; J.P. Morgan
Chase & Co.; Bank of America, N.A.; and JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A., are represented by:

          Arthur Joseph Burke, Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 450-4000
          E-mail: arthur.burke@davispolk.com

               - and -

          Paul C. Gluckow, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 455-2000
          E-mail: pgluckow@stblaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Berkshire Appeals Denial of Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Berkshire Bank, the Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled The
Berkshire Bank, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 12-cv-5723, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York City), appeals from the District
Court's Memorandum and Order entered on February 28, 2018,
denying its motion for class certification.

The action was brought on behalf of all lending institutions
headquartered in the United States, including its fifty states
and United States territories, that originated loans, held loans,
purchased whole loans, purchased interests in loans or sold loans
with interest rates tied to LIBOR, which rates adjusted at any
time between August 1, 2007, and May 31, 2010.

The lawsuit is part of the multidistrict litigation styled In Re:
LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No.
11-md-2262, in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (New York City).

The appellate case is captioned as THE BERKSHIRE BANK, Plaintiff-
Petitioner, GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT BANK FOR PUERTO RICO and
DIRECTORS FINANCIAL GROUP Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. BANK OF AMERICA
CORPORATION; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BANK OF TOKYO MITSUBISHI UFJ
LTD.; BARCLAYS BANK PLC; BRITISH BANKERS' ASSOCIATION; BBA
ENTERPRISES LTD.; BBA LIBOR LTD.; CITIGROUP, INC.; CITIBANK,
N.A.; COOPERATIEVE CENTRALE RAIFFEISENBOERENLEENBANK B.A.; CREDIT
SUISSE GROUP AG; DEUTSCHE BANK AG; HSBC HOLDINGS PLC; HSBC BANK
PLC; JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION; LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC; HBOS PLC; ROYAL BANK OF
CANADA; THE NORINCHUKIN BANK; THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP
PLC; UBS AG; WESTLB AG; and WESTDEUTSCHE IMMOBILIENBANK AG,
Defendants-Respondents, Case No. 18-718, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Berkshire Bank wants the Second Circuit to determine whether:

   1. the District Court erred in finding that Petitioner's
      damages model did not match its theories of liability under
      Comcast v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426, 1433, 185 L. Ed. 2d
      515 (2013) where Petitioner's expert presented a model for
      calculating "benefit of the bargain" damages applicable in
      the vast majority of states in the nationwide class but the
      explanation of how "out-of-pocket" damages would be
      calculated using the same model, which the District Court
      agreed was simple arithmetic, was presented by Petitioner,
      rather than Petitioner's expert;

   2. Petitioner's damages model, which calculates diminished
      interest payments on LIBOR-linked loans resulting from
      suppressed LIBOR, is required to incorporate all the
      possible effects that a non-suppressed "but for" LIBOR may
      have indirectly had on the Class' loans, including the
      demand for loans, the non-LIBOR terms of the loans, and
      default rates of loans;

   3. the element of reliance raises individual issues where
      LIBOR was a uniform misrepresentation made to all class
      members and a term fundamental to the value of all the
      class members' loans;

   4. the affirmative defense of statutes of limitations raises
      individual issues, which defeat predominance, even though
      there exists no evidence that any class member had
      knowledge of the alleged LIBOR suppression, and this Court
      previously indicated that articles published in mid-2008
      questioning the accuracy of LIBOR were not sufficient for
      inquiry notice;

   5. variations in state law defeat predominance and
      "superiority" even though standards across states for
      reliance, statute of limitations and damages can be broadly
      divided into minimal subcategories and the district court
      refused to consider the feasibility of subclasses or even
      limiting the class to a single state;

   6. damages calculations defeat predominance even though it is
      "'well-established' Second Circuit precedent that 'the fact
      that damages may have to be ascertained on an individual
      basis is not sufficient to defeat class certification'
      under Rule 23(b)(3)'" Roach v. T.L. Cannon Corp., 778 F.3d
      401, 405 (2d Cir. 2015) (citation omitted); and damages
      tabulations for individual class members is virtually a
      mechanical task; and

   7. Petitioner is an "inadequate" class representative because
      an attorney assisting class counsel is related to the CEO
      of Petitioner even though all litigation decisions are made
      by Petitioner's Board of Directors, not Petitioner's CEO or
      the assisting attorney, neither of whom are on Petitioner's
      Board of Directors.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner The Berkshire Bank, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Michael J. Wernke, Esq.
          Veronica V. Montenegro, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  mjwernke@pomlaw.com
                  vvmontenegro@pomlaw.com

               - and -

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

Plaintiffs Amabile, et al., are represented by:

          Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Gdanski, Esq.
          SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES P.A.
          1212 SE Third Avenue
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 320-9507
          E-mail: scott@schlesingerlaw.com
                  jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com
                  jgdanski@schlesingerlaw.com

Plaintiffs The Regents of the University of California; East Bay
Municipal Utility District; San Diego Association of Governments;
City of Richmond; Richmond Joint Powers Financing Authority;
Successor Agency to the Richmond Community Redevelopment Agency;
City of Riverside; Riverside Public Financing Authority; County
of Mendocino; County of Sacramento; County of San Diego; County
of San Mateo; San Mateo County Joint Powers Financing Authority;
County of Sonoma, and David E. Sundstrom, in his official
capacity as Treasurer of the County of Sonoma, are represented
by:

          Nanci E. Nishimura, Esq.
          Matthew K. Edling, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
          840 Malcolm Road
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          E-mail: nnishimura@cpmlegal.com
                  medling@cpmlegal.com

               - and -

          Alexander E. Barnett, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
          40 Worth Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 201-6820
          E-mail: abarnett@cpmlegal.com

Plaintiff The City of Houston is represented by:

          Richard W. Mithoff, Esq.
          Warner V. Hocker, Esq.
          MITHOFF LAW FIRM
          One Allen Center
          Penthouse, Suite 3450
          500 Dallas Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 654-1122
          E-mail: Rmithoff@mithofflaw.com
                  whocker@mithofflaw.com

               - and -

          Nanci E. Nishimura, Esq.
          Matthew K. Edling, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
          840 Malcolm Road
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          E-mail: nnishimura@cpmlegal.com
                  medling@cpmlegal.com

               - and -

          Alexander E. Barnett, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
          40 Worth Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 201-6820
          E-mail: abarnett@cpmlegal.com

National Credit Union Administration Board as Liquidating
Agent for U.S. Central Federal Credit Union, et al., is
represented by:

          David C. Frederick, Esq.
          Wan J. Kim, Esq.
          Andrew C. Shen, Esq.
          KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD, EVANS & FIGEL, P.L.L.C.
          Sumner Square
          1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 326-7900
          E-mail: dfrederick@kellogghansen.com
                  ashen@kellogghansen.com
                  wkim@kellogghansen.com

Plaintiffs Triaxx Prime CDO 2006-1 LTD., Triaxx Prime COO 2006-2
LTD., and Triaxx Prime COO 2007-1 L TO are represented by:

          Dean N. Kawamoto, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          E-mail: dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com

Plaintiffs Bay Area Toll Authority, Schwab Short-Term Bond Market
Fund, et al., Charles Schwab Bank, N.A., et al., and Schwab Money
Market Fund, et al., are represented by:

          Steven E. Fineman, Esq.
          Michael J. Miarmi, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          E-mail: sfineman@lchb.com
                  mmiarmi@lchb.com

Plaintiff CEMA Joint Venture is represented by:

          William E. Walker, Jr., Esq.
          P.O. Box 192
          Massillon, OJ 44648-0192
          Telephone: (330) 327-2509
          E-mail: williamwalker@gmx.com

Plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association is represented
by:

          Samuel William Cruse, III, Esq.
          GIBBS & BRUNS L.L.P.
          1100 Louisiana, Suite 5300
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 751-5287
          E-mail: scruse@gibbsbruns.com

               - and -

          Kenneth E. Warner, Esq.
          WARNER PARTNERS, P.C.
          950 Third Avenue, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 593-8000
          E-mail: kwarner@WarnerPartnersLaw.com

George Maragos is represented by:

          Thomas J. Mullaney, Esq.
          LEVENTHAL, MULLANEY & BLINKOFF, LLP
          15 Remsen Avenue
          Roslyn, NY 11576
          Telephone: (516) 484-5440
          E-mail: tmullaney@lcmslaw.com

Darby, Philadelphia, Prudential, and Salix Plaintiffs are
represented by:

          Daniel L. Brockett, Esq.
          Jacob J. Waldman, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010-1601
          Telephone: (212) 849 7000
          E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com
                  jacobwaldman@quinnemanuel.com

               - and -

          Jeremy D. Andersen, Esq.
          Chris Barker, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 443-3000
          E-mail: jeremyandersen@quinnemanuel.com
                  chrisbarker@quinnemanuel.com

Plaintiffs The City of Philadelphia and The Pennsylvania
Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority are represented by:

          Mathieu J. Shapiro, Esq.
          OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL & HIPPEL LLP
          Centre Square West
          1500 Market Street, Suite 3400
          Philadelphia, PA 19102-2101
          Telephone: (215) 665-3014
          E-mail: mathieu.shapiro@obermayer.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Boni, Esq.
          Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
          BONI & ZACK LLC
          15 St. Asaphs Road
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 822-0200
          E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com
                  jsnyder@bonizack.com

Baltimore, New Britain, and TCEH and the Proposed OTC Plaintiff
Class are represented by:

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          Hilary Scherrer, Esq.
          Nathaniel C. Giddings, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 St. NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com
                  wbutterfield@hausfeldllp.com
                  hscherrer@hausfeldllp.com
                  ngiddings@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          William Christopher Carmody, Esq.
          Arun Subramanian, Esq.
          Seth Ard, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 336-3330
          E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com
                  asubramanian@susmangodfrey.com
                  sard@susmangodfrey.com

Bondholder Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Karen L. Morris, Esq.
          Patrick F. Morris, Esq.
          MORRIS AND MORRIS LLC
          4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 300
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 426-0400
          E-mail: kmorris@morrisandmorrislaw.com
                  pmorris@morrisandmorrislaw.com

               - and -

          David H. Weinstein, Esq.
          Robert S. Kitchenoff, Esq.
          WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC
          100 South Broad Street, Suite 705
          Philadelphia, PA 19110-1061
          Telephone: (215) 545-7200
          E-mail: weinstein@wka-law.com
                  kitchenoff@wka-law.com

Exchange-Based Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David E. Kovel, Esq.
          Karen M. Lerner, Esq.
          KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
          825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 371-6600
          E-mail: dkovel@kmllp.com
                  klerner@kmllp.com

               - and -

          Christopher Lovell, Esq.
          LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
          61 Broadway, Suite 501
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 608-1900
          E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com

Additional Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          Max R. Schwartz, Esq.
          Donald A. Broggi, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT LLP
          The Chrysler Building
          405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10174
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          E-mail: mschwartz@scott-scott.com
                  dbroggi@scott-scott.com

Plaintiff The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation is
represented by:

          James R. Martin, Esq.
          Jennifer D. Hackett, Esq.
          Woody N. Peterson, Esq.
          ZELLE LLP
          1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 375
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 899-4100
          Facsimile: (612) 336-9100
          E-mail: jmartin@zelle.com
                  jhackett@zelle.com
                  wpeterson@zelle.com

Plaintiffs Principal Financial Group, Inc.; Principal Financial
Services, Inc.; Principal Life Insurance Company; Principal
Funds, Inc.; PFI Bond & Mortgage Securities Fund; PFI Bond Market
Index Fund; PFI Core Plus Bond I Fund; PFI Diversified Real Asset
Fund; PFI Equity Income Fund; PFI Global Diversified Income Fund;
PFI Government & High Quality Bond Fund; PFI High Yield Fund; PFI
High Yield Fund I; PFI Income Fund; PFI Inflation Protection
Fund; PFI Short-Term Income Fund; PFI Money Market Fund; PFI
Preferred Securities Fund; Principal Variable Contracts Funds,
Inc.; PVC Asset Allocation Account; PVC Money Market Account; PVC
Balanced Account; PVC Bond & Mortgage Securities Account; PVC
Equity Income Account; PVC Government & High Quality Bond
Account; PVC Income Account; and PVC Short-Term Income Account
are represented by:

          K. Craig Wildfang, Esq.
          Stacey P. Slaughter, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
          Telephone: (612) 349-8500
          E-mail: KCWildfang@RobinsKaplan.com
                  SSlaughter@RobinsKaplan.com

Defendants-Respondents Bank of America Corp., Bank of America,
N.A., Merrill Lynch Capital Services, Inc., Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., Merrill Lynch & Co., Banc of
America Securities LLC, Merrill Lynch International Bank, Ltd.,
and Bank of America Home Loans are represented by:

          Paul Mishkin, Esq.
          Arthur J. Burke, Esq.
          Robert Wise, Jr., Esq.
          Adam Mehes, Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 450-4292
          E-mail: paul.mishkin@dpw.com
                  arthur.burke@davispolk.com
                  rwise@dpw.com
                  adam.mehes@davispolk.com

Defendants-Respondents Barclays Bank Plc, Barclays Capital Inc.,
Barclays U.S. Funding LLC, and Barclays PLC are represented by:

          Jonathan Schiller, Esq.
          Leigh Nathanson, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          575 Lexington Avenue, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-2300
          E-mail: jschiller@bsfllp.com
                  lnathanson@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          David Braff, Esq.
          Yvonne Quinn, Esq.
          Matthew J. Porpora, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 558-4705
          E-mail: braffd@sullcrom.com
                  quinny@sullcrom.com
                  porporam@sullcrom.com

Defendant-Respondent Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd. is
represented by:

          Daryl A. Libow, Esq.
          Christopher M. Viapiano, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          1700 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 956-7500
          E-mail: libowd@sullcrom.com
                  viapianoc@sullcrom.com

Defendants-Respondents Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-
Boerenleenbank B.A., and Rabobank Group are represented by:

          David R. Gelfand, Esq.
          Sean M. Murphy, Esq.
          Mark D. Villaverde, Esq.
          MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & MCCLOY LLP
          28 Liberty Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 530-5000
          E-mail: dgelfand@milbank.com
                  smurphy@milbank.com
                  mvillaverde@milbank.com

Defendants-Respondents British Bankers' Association, BBA
Enterprises, Ltd., and BBA Libor, Ltd. are represented by:

          Jeff G. Hammel, Esq.
          Richard D. Owens, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          885 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 906-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 751-4864
          E-mail: jeff.hammel@lw.com
                  richard.owens@lw.com

Defendants-Respondents Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Group,
N.A., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Credit Suisse
International, and Credit Suisse (USA) Inc. are represented by:

          Joel Kurtzberg, Esq.
          Adam Mintz, Esq.
          CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP
          80 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 701-3000
          E-mail: JKurtzberg@cahill.com
                  amintz@cahill.com

Defendants-Respondents Citibank, N.A., Citigroup Global Markets
Inc., Citigroup Inc., Citigroup Financial Products, Inc., Citi
Swapco Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Limited, and Citigroup
Funding Inc. are represented by:

          Andrew A. Ruffino, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          The New York Time Building
          620 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10018-1405
          Telephone: (212) 841-1000
          E-mail: aruffino@cov.com

               - and -

          Lev Louis Dassin, Esq.
          Jonathan Samuel Kolodner, Esq.
          CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
          One Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 225-2790
          E-mail: ldassin@cgsh.com
                  jkolodner@cgsh.com

Defendants-Respondents Deutsche Bank AG, Deutsche Bank Financial
LLC, and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. are represented by:

          Moses Silverman, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 373-3000
          E-mail: msilverman@paulweiss.com

Defendants-Respondents J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A., JPMorgan Chase Bank, Chase Bank USA, N.A., J.P.
Morgan Bank Dublin PLC, J.P. Morgan Markets Ltd., J.P. Morgan
Securities, LLC, and Bear Stearns Capital Markets, Inc., are
represented by:

          Paul Gluckow, Esq.
          Thomas C. Rice, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 455-2000
          E-mail: pgluckow@stblaw.com
                  trice@stblaw.com

               - and -

          Lawrence H. Heftman, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 6600
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 258-5500
          E-mail: lheftman@schiffhardin.com

Defendants-Respondents Lloyds Banking Group plc, Lloyds Banking
Group PLS, Lloyds TSB Bank PLC, and Lloyds Bank PLC (formerly
known as Lloyds TSB Bank PLC) are represented by:

          Marc Gottridge, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          875 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 918-3081
          E-mail: marc.gottridge@hoganlovells.com

Defendants-Respondents HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., HSBC Bank PLC,
The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, Ltd., HSBC Bank
USA, N.A., HSBC Finance Corp., HSBC USA Inc., and HSBC Holdings,
PLC are represented by:

          Gregory Thomas Casamento, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          Brookfield Place, 200 Vesey Street, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Telephone: (212) 415-8600
          E-mail: gcasamento@lockelord.com

Defendants-Respondents The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC,
Royal Bank of Scotland, RBS Citizens, N.A. (f/k/a Citizens Bank
of Massachusetts), and Citizens Bank, N.A., are represented by:

          Robert G. Houck, Esq.
          CLIFFORD CHANCE US, LLP
          31 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 878-3224
          Facsimile: (212) 878-8375
          E-mail: robert.houck@cliffordchance.com

               - and -

          Fraser Hunter, Jr., Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
          7 World Trade Center
          250 Greenwich Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (617) 526-6360
          E-mail: fraser.hunter@wilmerhale.com

Defendant-Respondent The Norinchukin Bank is represented by:

          Alan M. Unger, Esq.
          Andrew W. Stern, Esq.
          Kenneth Meyer, Esq.
          Thomas Paskowitz, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 839-5785
          E-mail: aunger@sidley.com
                  astern@sidley.com
                  kmeyer@sidley.com
                  tpaskowitz@sidley.com

Defendants-Respondents Royal Bank of Canada, and RBC Capital
Markets, LLC, are represented by:

          Arthur W. Hahn, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
          525 W. Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Telephone: (312) 902-5241
          E-mail: arthur.hahn@kattenlaw.com

Defendants-Respondents WestLB AG, Portigon AG, Portigon/WestLB
AG, and WestDeutsche Immobilienbank AG are represented by:

          Christopher M. Paparella, Esq.
          Marc A. Weinstein, Esq.
          HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP
          One Battery Park Plaza
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 837-6000
          E-mail: paparella@hugheshubbard.com
                  marc.weinstein@hugheshubbard.com

Defendant-Respondent Societe Generale is represented by:

          Steven Wolowitz, Esq.
          Andrew J. Calica, Esq.
          Henninger S. Bullock, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020-1001
          Telephone: (212) 506-2500
          E-mail: swolowitz@mayerbrown.com
                  acalica@mayerbrown.com
                  hbullock@mayerbrown.com

Defendants-Respondents UBS AG, UBS Securities LLC, and UBS
Limited are represented by:

          Peter Sullivan, Esq.
          Jefferson E. Bell, Esq.
          Lawrence J. Zweifach, Esq.
          Eric J. Stock, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 351-2346
          E-mail: psullivan@gibsondunn.com
                  jbell@gibsondunn.com
                  lzweifach@gibsondunn.com
                  estock@gibsondunn.com


BEST BUY STORES: Touche Appeals N.D. Florida Ruling to 11th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Nola Touche filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Nola Touche v. Best Buys Stores, L.P., Case No.
1:17-cv-00259-RH-GRJ, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages, attorney fees,
expenses, and costs and such other and further relief for
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Ms. Touche purchased a five-year consumer products insurance from
Best Buy in December 2012 for her Samsung television purchased at
the same time to cover defects, manufacturer's warranty and
defective parts.  She asserts that the TV malfunctioned on
October 2017 and the Best Buy representative was unable to fix it
and failed to replace it.

Best Buy operates more than a thousand Best Buy stores, including
stores in all states, districts and territories of the United
States under various brand names, including Geek Squad and
Magnolia Home Theater.

The appellate case is captioned as Nola Touche v. Best Buys
Stores, L.P., Case No. 18-11035, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on or
      before April 2, 2018, as to Appellant Nola Touche; and

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
      before April 16, 2018, as to Appellee Best Buys Stores,
      L.P.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant NOLA TOUCHE, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated, is represented by:

          N. Albert Bacharach, Jr., Esq.
          N. ALBERT BACHARACH, JR. PA
          4128 NW 13th Street
          Gainesville, FL 32609-1807
          Telephone: (352) 378-9859
          Facsimile: (352) 338-1858
          E-mail: n.a.bacharach@att.net

               - and -

          Adriane M. Isenberg, Esq.
          ADRIANE M. ISENBERG PA
          912 NW 56th Terrance, Suite A
          Gainesville, FL 32605-6404
          Telephone: (352) 331-4922
          Facsimile: (352) 331-4996
          E-mail: aisenberg@isenberglaw.com

Defendant-Appellee BEST BUYS STORES, L.P., d.b.a. Best Buy Geek
Squad, d.b.a. Magnolia Home Theater, is represented by:

          Suzanne E. Gilbert, Esq.
          Lauren Lynn Millcarek, Esq.
          Robin Michelle Nauman, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
          200 S Orange Ave., Suite 2600
          PO Box 1526
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 244-1150
          E-mail: suzanne.gilbert@hklaw.com
                  lauren.millcarek@hklaw.com
                  robin.nauman@hklaw.com


BITCONNECT INT'L: Avalos Sues over Investment Programs
------------------------------------------------------
BALTAZAR AVALOS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BITCONNECT INTERNATIONAL
PLC, BITCONNECT LTD., BITCONNECT TRADING LTD., JOSHUA JEPPESEN,
GLENN ARCARO, TREVON BROWN A/K/A TREVON JAMES, RYAN HILDRETH,
CRAIG GRANT, JOHN DOE 1 A/K/A NICHOLAS TROVATO A/K/A CRYPTONICK,
and RYAN MAASEN, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-21118-UU (S.D.
Fla., March 23, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by
Defendants for violation of the Securities Act, breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, fraudulent inducement, fraudulent
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, conversion, and
civil conspiracy.

The BitConnect Lending Program was marketed and sold on the
Internet as an opportunity for investors to "lend" their
BitConnect Coins back to BitConnect, which BitConnect would then
purportedly use to generate profits by purchasing BTC when its
price was low and selling BTC when its price was high -- a "buy
low, sell high" strategy that was purportedly effectuated by a
BitConnect-designed "trading bot" implementing a proprietary
trading algorithm: the "Volatility Software." In exchange for
"lending" BCCs to BitConnect, investors were "guaranteed"
lucrative returns on their investments.

The BitConnect Staking Program was marketed and sold on the
Internet as an opportunity for investors to "stake" their BCCs by
holding their BCCs in the BitConnect-QT wallet (a software and/or
online wallet created by BitConnect). In exchange for "staking"
BCCs in the BitConnect-QT Wallet, investors were "guaranteed"
lucrative returns on their investments. As part of their
solicitation efforts, BitConnect enlisted multi-level affiliate
marketers to further propagate the reach of the BitConnect
Investment Programs. Under the Referral Program, BitConnect paid
commissions to affiliates who successfully solicited additional
investments in the BitConnect Investment Programs. Additionally,
affiliate promoters would receive a percentage of any investments
made by the investors they referred, as well as a portion of
investments made by subsequent investors recruited by their
referrals, and so forth -- a standard multi-level-marketing
scheme. The Individual Defendants were highly influential
affiliate marketers and/or directors of BitConnect.

Despite being cloaked in technological sophistication and jargon,
Defendants operated a century-old fraud that was simple at its
core -- Defendants paid existing investors with new money from
new investors, who were in turn expected and incentivized to get
more new investors to produce more new money. The Plaintiff and
other BitConnect investors were led to believe, and expected,
that the BCCs they purchased would be worth more than the BTC
they invested with BitConnect.

The lawsuit contends the BitConnect Investment Programs
constitute "investment contract" securities as defined under the
Securities Act. The BitConnect Investment Programs qualify as
investment contracts because, inter alia, Defendants have
explicitly referred to the programs as lucrative investment
opportunities that would lead to "financial freedom" and
repeatedly stressed the profit potential from merely holding and
"staking" BCCs. The BitConnect Investment Programs were the clear
offer and sale of investment contract securities because, inter
alia, Defendants touted, and Plaintiff and other BitConnect
Investment Program participants reasonably expected, that
investors would receive substantial returns and a steady stream
of income on their investments.

In reality, BitConnect Investment Programs were nothing more than
pyramid/Ponzi schemes. After operating for less than a year,
BitConnect abruptly shut down its platform and stripped the value
from all of Plaintiff's and the Class' investments, leaving them
with nearly worthless BCCs. In short, Defendants defrauded tens
of thousands of investors by capitalizing on the general public's
excitement for digital currencies and by luring unsuspecting
investors into purchasing unregistered securities and
participating in pyramid/Ponzi schemes. The registration
requirements contained within the Securities Act are designed to
protect investors by ensuring they are provided adequate
information upon which to base their investment decisions. The
two basic objectives of registration are: (i) to require that
investors receive necessary financial and other significant
information concerning securities being offered for public sale;
and (ii) to prohibit deceit, misrepresentations, and other fraud
in the sale of securities. Absent registration and the
protections of the federal securities laws, issuers of securities
could seek to market their investment opportunities without
disclosing information that might make a potential investor think
twice before investing (e.g., conflicts of interest or major
setbacks to core product lines) or peddle securities using
unbounded exaggerations regarding the progress of its products,
business plan, business strategies, or even fabricate the
existence of relationships with vendors or other business
partners.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
          John A. Carriel, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363 7500
          Facsimile: (212) 636 7171

               - and -

          Emily C. Komlossy, Esq.
          Ross A. Appel, Esq.
          KOMLOSSY LAW P.A.
          4700 Sheridan St., Suite J
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 842 2021
          Facsimile: (954) 416 6223
          E-mail: eck@komlossylaw.com
                  raa@komlossylaw.com


BJC HEALTH: "Rhoades" Remanded to Missouri State Court
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Rodney W. Sippel of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, remanded the case, JEANNE
RHOADES On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. BJC HEALTH SYSTEM d/b/a BJC Healthcare et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:17 CV 2486 RWS (E.D. Mo.).

The class action case was originally filed in the Circuit Court
of St. Louis County, State of Missouri.  BJC is the parent
company of the other Defendant hospitals and medical providers
named in the petition.  Rhoades is employed as a perfusionist at
Defendant Missouri Baptist Medical Center.  Rhoades' petition
asserts state law claims to recover back-pay allegedly owed for
"on-call pay," "call-back pay," "voucher pay," and "paid time
off" which Rhoades claims her employer has not paid. In her
claims she also seeks to recover corresponding contributions to
her retirement plan account.

The Defendants removed the case invoking the Court's federal
question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331.  They assert
that some of Rhoades claims are preempted by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").  They argue
that the benefits Rhoades seeks to recover in the form of
contributions to her retirement plan are claims which can only be
brought under 29 U.S.C. Section1132(A)(1)(b).  That provision
allows plan participants, in relevant part, to recover benefits
due to him under the terms of his plan.

Rhoades filed a motion to remand.  In her motion she asserts that
she is not seeking any direct enforcement, clarification of
rights or recovery of benefits under the authority of an ERISA
benefit plan.  To the contrary, she argues that her claims are
not preempted by ERISA because she merely seeks from her employer
unpaid wages and the corresponding payments that would be
directed to her related retirement plan.  She is not seeking
benefits due to her under the terms of the retirement plan
itself.

Judge Sippel holds that because Rhoades is asserting claims
against her employer for wages, some of which are in the form of
contributions that would be paid into her retirement plan, he
finds that Rhoades is not seeking benefits due to her under the
terms of her retirement plan.

The Judge cited the Goldstein v. Media Mgmt., Inc. where Judge
John A. Ross from the Court reached a similar conclusion.  Judge
Ross found that the plaintiff's claim was not preempted,
reasoning that because the plaintiff was seeking the recovery of
wages that should have been paid into his retirement plan the
claim was not seeking benefits from the plan.  As a result,
because Jusge Sippel finds that Rhoades' complaint does not
assert claims that are preempted by ERISA, Rhoades motion to
remand will be granted.

Accordingly, the Judge granted Rhoades' motion to remand.  He
remanded the case to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State
of Missouri under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447 (c).  The parties each
bear their own costs incurred by reason of these removal and
remand proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/BN0R2H from Leagle.com.

Jeanne Rhoades, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Carl J. Lumley --
clumley@chgolaw.com -- CURTIS AND HEINZ, P.C.

BJC Health System, doing business as, Missouri Baptist Medical
Center, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis Childrens Hospital,
Christian Hospital Northeast-Northwest, doing business as & CH
Allied Services, Inc., doing business as, Defendants, represented
by Andrew L. Metcalf -- andrew.metcalf@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE
AND DEAKINS, David L. Schenberg -- david.schenberg@ogletree.com -
- OGLETREE AND DEAKINS & James M. Paul -- jim.paul@ogletree.com -
- OGLETREE AND DEAKINS.


BUENAVISTA INVESTMENT: Tolosa Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIA TOLOSA, individually, and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. BUENAVISTA INVESTMENT
HOLDING LLC, a Florida limited liability company; ANTONIO TURBAY,
individually; and LEON GOMEZ MARTINEZ, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-21124-UU (S.D. Fla., March 23,
2018), seeks to recover minimum wages, liquidated damages,
unlawfully withheld wages, statutory penalties, other damages,
and attorney's fees owed to Plaintiff and all other similarly
situated persons employed or formerly employed by Defendants,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee of Defendants who had her
wages unlawfully withheld and was not paid a minimum wage in
direct violation of the FLSA within the past three years. The
Plaintiff Tolosa was employed as a bar tender at BIH's place of
business known as La Victoria Social Club. The Plaintiff began
her employment with BIH in March 2015 and ended February 2018.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons employed or
formerly employed by Defendants had tips unlawfully deducted by
Defendants for which they were lawfully entitled pursuant to the
FLSA and Plaintiffs were not permitted to retain all tips
received by the Employee. The Defendants purport to claim a tip
credit allowed by the FLSA.

The Defendants willfully and intentionally failed to pay the
compensation required by the FLSA as they routinely deducted
amounts from the tips received by Plaintiff and other similarly
situated persons employed or formerly employed by Defendants, and
shared those tips with Defendant BIH and others who do not
regularly and customarily receive tips.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Miguel Armenteros, Esq.
          PERLMAN, BAJANDAS, YEVOLI & ALBRIGHT, P.L.
          283 Catalonia Avenue, Suite 200
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 377 0086
          Facsimile: (305) 377 0781
          E-mail: miguel@pbyalaw.com
                  eservicemia@pbyalaw.com


CENTRAL CREDIT: Certification of Class in "Perez" Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SONIA PEREZ, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL CREDIT SERVICES,
LLC, doing business as CENTRAL CREDIT SERVICES OF FL LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-6018 (ADS)(ARL)(E.D. N.Y.), Judge
Arthur D. Spatt of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification.

On Oct. 16, 2017, the Plaintiff commenced the putative class
action against the Defendant, alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.  That same day, the
Plaintiff filed her motion for class certification, pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requesting that
the Court certifies the class.  The Plaintiff also filed a motion
to enter the instant motion and continue it until the Defendant
entered an appearance.

On Nov. 29, 2017, the Defendant answered the complaint.  The
parties will hold their initial conference before Magistrate
Judge Arlene R. Lindsay on March 7, 2018.

Judge Spatt is unable to conduct the "rigorous analysis" required
by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., as the motion was filed
contemporaneously with the class action complaint and prior to
any discovery or the filing of an answer.  Even at the present
juncture, there has been little or no discovery that has taken
place.  More discovery is needed on factual issues associated
with class certification.  Neither party's interests are properly
served by determining class certification prior to the completion
of the discovery process.

Finally, even if the Judge were to accept the Plaintiff's
argument that a putative class action complaint can potentially
be rendered moot if the Defendant were to make an individual
settlement offer, it still does not require the Plaintiff to have
an early, pre-discovery class certification motion remain pending
on the Court's docket until the Plaintiff has adequate discovery
to file a more fully-developed motion.

As a result, the class allegations are equally preserved at this
point in the litigation, regardless whether the Court denies the
motion without prejudice or allows the motion to remain on the
docket until discovery is concluded.  Therefore, Judge Spatt
denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification to renewal following the conclusion of discovery.
Further, the Clerk of the Court is instructed to terminate the
Motion to Continue as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2018 Memorandum of
Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/v6pdaz from
Leagle.com.

Sonia Perez, on behalf of plaintiff and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Abraham Kleinman, Kleinman,
LLC & Tiffany N. Hardy, Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC.

Central Credit Services LLC, doing business as, Defendant,
represented by Kirsten H. Smith -- ksmith@sessions.legal --
Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel, L.L.C..


CERES, CA: Court Dismisses 3rd Cause of Action in "Miranda" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL MIRANDA, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CERES,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00041-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Judge dale
E. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California granted the City's unopposed motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's third cause of action.

On Feb. 6, 2018, the City filed a motion to dismiss seeking
dismissal only of the Plaintiff's third claim for violation of
California Labor Code Section 221-224.  In response, Miranda
filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion, agreeing to
dismissal of the third cause of action in his complaint.
Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the Court vacated the hearing
scheduled for March 6, 2018.

The lawsuit is one of four related actions against the City
alleging that it paid the Plaintiff cash in lieu of health
benefits, which were illegally excluded in the City's calculation
of employees' regular rate of pay for the purposes of calculating
overtime pay.  In his complaint in the action, the Plaintiff
alleged three claims for relief: (i) seeking compensatory relief
and liquidated damages as a collective action under the FLSA;
(ii) seeking declaratory relief as a collective action under the
FLSA; and (iii) for violation of California Labor Code Sections
221-224 as a class action.

Judge Drozd only addresses the Plaintiff's third claim of relief
for violation of the California Labor Code.  The Plaintiff's
third cause of action is a claim under California Labor Code
Section 221-224 for recovery of wages that are improperly
withheld or deducted by an employer.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that when the Defendant
made payments to the Plaintiff, and other employees similarly
situated, as rebates for spending less than the monthly allowance
provided towards the Defendant-provided employee benefits, it
withheld 10% of the money owing to the Plaintiff as an
administrative or service fee.  The Plaintiff alleged that
withholding these administrative or service fees without
authorization constituted a violation of California Labor Code
Sections 221-224 and sought damages for improperly withheld wages
for a period of three years.

The Judge explains that under the California Government Claims
Act, an individual may not sue a public entity or public employee
for damages unless a person has presented a timely claim to the
public entity, which the public entity has rejected.  Pursuant to
the California Government Claims Act and the City's municipal
claims presentation requirement, claims for wages must be
presented in writing to the City before initiating any lawsuit to
recover wages.

However, in his complaint, the Plaintiff has not alleged any
facts demonstrating compliance, or an excuse for noncompliance,
with the City's municipal claims presentation requirement and his
failure to do so is fatal to his claim for violation of the
California Labor Code.  Accordingly, the Judge granted the City's
unopposed motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's third cause of
action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/vDT0Ua from Leagle.com.

Daniel Miranda, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Caren Pamela Sencer --
csencer@unioncounsel.net -- Weinberg Roger and Rosenfeld & Eric
Jason Wiesner, Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld.

City of Ceres, Defendant, represented by Jesse Jeremy Maddox --
jmaddox@lcwlegal.com -- Liebert Cassidy Whitmore & Michael David
Youril -- myouril@lcwlegal.com -- Liebert Cassidy Whitmore.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Lim Seeks May 29 Cutoff to File Writ to Sup. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Lim, Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled LOUIS LIM,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v.
CHARLES SCHWAB & Co., INC., Case No. 17A1006, filed with the
Supreme Court of United States his application to Justice Anthony
M. Kennedy for an extension of time to file petition for a writ
of certiorari to review judgment of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The current deadline for Mr. Lim to file a petition is March 29,
2018.  He requests a 60-day extension of the deadline, up to and
including May 29, 2018.

The judgment sought to be reviewed is the decision of the Ninth
Circuit in Fleming v. Charles Schwab Corporation, 878 F.3d 1146
(9th Cir. 2017).  The Ninth Circuit issued its decision on
December 29, 2017.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 30,
2018, Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the
cases styled FRANCIS X FLEMING, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE
CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION; CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC. WALTER W.
BETTINGER II; UBS SECURITIES LLC, Defendants-Appellees LOUIS LIM,
Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC., Defendant-
Appellee, Case Nos. 16-15179, 16-15189 (9th Cir.).

In the case underlying this appeal, Mr. Lim alleged that Charles
Schwab & Co., Inc. -- a brokerage firm that executes orders for
stock and other investment trades on behalf of its clients --
breached its fiduciary obligations of "best execution" to its
clients by failing to use reasonable diligence to ascertain the
trading venue that will offer the client the best venue for
executing the trade and instead sending a minimum of 95% of all
non-directed trades to UBS Securities, LLC, pursuant to a decade-
long contract with UBS.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
dismissed the action as precluded by the Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act ("SLUSA"), which precludes state law causes
of action, including those for breach of fiduciary duty, if the
complaint alleges fraudulent conduct that was "in connection"
with the purchase or sale of covered securities.

Mr. Lim appealed the District Court's dismissal (9th Circuit,
Appeal No. 16-15189), arguing that the District Court erred by:
(1) ruling that Lim's claims were "in connection with" the
purchase or sale of a covered security and, thus, precluded by
SLUSA; and (2) finding that Lim's claims for breach of fiduciary
duty of "best execution" were predicated on fraudulent conduct
and, thus, also precluded by SLUSA.[BN]

Applicant-Plaintiff Louis Lim, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Kevin A. Seely, Esq.
          Ashley R. Rifkin, Esq.
          Steven M. McKany, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
                  kseely@robbinsarroyo.com
                  arifkin@robbinsarroyo.com
                  smckany@robbinsarroyo.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
          David J. Harris, Jr., Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1333
          E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com
                  djh@classactionlaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Leslie E. Hurst, Esq.
          Thomas J. O'reardon II, Esq.
          Paula R. Brown, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  lhurst@bholaw.com
                  toreardon@bholaw.com
                  pbrown@bholaw.com

Respondent-Defendant Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. is represented by:

          Gilbert R. Serota, Esq.
          Erica M. Connolly, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 471-3170
          Facsimile: (415) 677-6262
          E-mail: gilbert.serota@aporter.com
                  erica.connolly@aporter.com

               - and -

          Lowell Haky, Esq.
          Mai Klaassen, Esq.
          CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC.
          211 Main Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 667-0622
          E-mail: lowell.haky@schwab.com
                  mai.klaassen@schwab.com


CHELSEA INDUSTRIES: Macalou Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fousseini Macalou, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Chelsea Industries, Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 152592/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 23,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages including non-overtime wages
and overtime wages, pursuant to the New York Minimum Wage Act and
the New York Labor Law.

The Defendant employed approximately 80 or more employees during
the class period. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from
September 2013 to about January 25, 2018. From around September
2013 to around November 2017, Plaintiff worked for Defendant at
Fairway Market. From Around November 2017 to the end of his
employment with Defendant, Plaintiff worked for Defendant at Food
Emporium.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a delivery person and
Plaintiff performed all duties within this capacity including
lifting, packing, unpacking, loading, unloading and transporting
goods and merchandise by foot to customers' homes. During the
period that Plaintiff worked for Defendant at Fairway Market,
Plaintiff worked approximately 36-42 or more hours a week; 6-7
hours a day, six days a week. During the period that Plaintiff
worked for Defendant at Food Emporium, Plaintiff worked
approximately 20 hour a week; 4 hours a day, five days a week.

Plaintiff's hours worked and wages paid will be refined after
Defendant produce employment, time and wage records it was
required to keep under the FLSA and NYLL. The Plaintiff was paid
below the NYS minimum wage rate even after the small amount of
tips (as opposed to the incorrect amount of tips on the pay
stub), he received was included. For example, Plaintiffs hourly
rate ranged from $5.65 an hour in 2013 to $7.25 an hour in 2016.

Chelsea Industries, manufactures plastic food storage bags,
plastic containers, tool bags, tent bag, water bags, rope bags
and rope packs and can.[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
          E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


CITIZENS BANK: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Fawcett"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Barbara Fawcett, Individually and on behalf of all
Others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CITIZENS BANK, N.A.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-11043-TSH (D. Mass.), Judge
Timothy S. Hillman of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification And To Hold Motion In Abeyance Pending Class
Discovery.

The Plaintiff has filed suit, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated persons, against Citizens alleging a claim for
violation of the National Bank Act.  More specifically, Fawcett
alleges that Citizen violated the Act by mischaracterizing
charges to her account as "Sustained Overdraft Fees," which were
in fact interest charges with an annual rate of interest that
exceeded the rate permitted to be charged under the Act.

When a Citizens Bank checking account customer incurs a debit to
their account which exceeds the amount of money in that account,
and Citizens honors the debit and charges the customer an
"Overdraft Fee of $35."  If Citizens returns a check presented
for payment by one of its customers due to "insufficient funds,"
i.e., does not honor the check, it charges $35 against the
customer's account, which Citizens refers to as a "Returned Item
Fee."

If Citizens returns the check due to insufficient funds, the $35
Returned Item Fee is the only fee Citizens Bank charges as a
result of a check having been presented for payment which
exceeded the balance remaining in the account.  If, however,
Citizens honors an overdraft by advancing the deficiency to the
customer, and if the customer does not repay that advance within
a very short period, Citizens charges what it calls a "Sustained
Overdraft Fee."  This charge is in addition to the initial
"Overdraft Fee" Citizens charges at the time the customer's
account was first overdrawn.  Citizens continues to charge the
so-called "Sustained Overdraft Fee" over regular intervals until
the customer repays Citizens' monetary advances by returning his
or her account to a positive balance.

According to Fawcett, the "Sustained Overdraft Fee" is, in fact,
an interest charge.  The Act limits the interest rate which a
national bank such as Citizens can charge its customers.  She
argues that the annualized interest rate which Citizens charges
customers in the guise of "Sustained Overdraft Fees," is
substantially greater than the maximum interest rate that the Act
permits Citizens to charge.

Before the Court are the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification And To Hold Motion In Abeyance Pending Class
Discovery, and the Defendant's Motion To Dismiss And/Or Stay And
To Compel Arbitration.

Citizens, invoking the Federal Arbitration Act, asserts that
because the parties have an agreement to arbitrate, the Court
must compel arbitration and stay or dismiss Fawcett's claims
pending arbitration.  The Plaintiff asserts that she cannot be
compelled to arbitrate because Citizens cannot prove she was a
party to an arbitration agreement.  More specifically, she
asserts that Citizens has not established that a copy of the 2015
version of the Citizens' Personal Deposit Account Agreement
("PDAA") (the version which contained the Arbitration Agreement)
was ever provided to her.

Because it is unclear to the Court whether Ms. Fawcett received
notice of the amendment to the PDAA adding the Arbitration
Agreement, Judge Hillman cannot make a definitive ruling on
Citizens' motion to compel arbitration.  Therefore, on or before
March 21, 2018, Citizens will provide the Court and Ms. Fawcett
with whatever evidence it has in its possession to support a
finding that it communicated the amendment to the PDAA adding the
Arbitration Agreement to Ms. Fawcett and the time period during
which it did so.  If Citizens fails to provide the necessary
evidence by that date, then its motion to stay and compel
arbitration will be denied.  The Court will then address
Citizens' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

On or before April 2, 2018, the parties may file supplemental
memoranda, not to exceed 15 pages, on the issues of whether the
Arbitration Agreement is illusory is for the Court or the
arbiter, and whether the Arbitration Agreement applies
retroactively, assuming that the Judge finds that Citizens
provided adequate notice of the amendment to add the Arbitration
Agreement to Ms. Fawcett.)  A hearing will be held on Monday,
April 9, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. to address Citizens' motion to compel
and/or dismiss for failure to state claim.

Judge Hillman denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification And To Hold Motion In Abeyance Pending Class
Discovery, as he finds that from the standpoint of judicial
efficiency, it does not make sense to address the issues raised
by that motion until he has have ruled on Citizens' motion to
dismiss and/or to stay and compel arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2018 Memorandum of
Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/ZYIR6g from
Leagle.com.

Barbara Fawcett, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Edward F. Haber --
ehaber@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Patrick J.
Vallely -- pvallely@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP.

Citizens Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Brenda R. Sharton
-- bsharton@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter, LLP & Stephanie M.
Aronzon -- saronzon@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP.


CITIZENS FOR RAUNER: Garvey Sues over Pre-Recorded Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
PETER GARVEY, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. CITIZENS FOR RAUNER,
INC., an Illinois corporation, the Defendant, Case No.2018CH03859
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook County, March 23, 2018), seeks to stop
Defendant's unlawful practice of making unauthorized prerecorded
calls to potential voters' cellular telephones and to recover
damages and obtain injunctive relief.

According to the complaint, in an effort to promote Bruce
Rauner's Illinois gubernatorial reelection bid, Defendant,
engaged in an especially pernicious form of marketing: the
transmission of unauthorized advertisements in the form of
artificial and/or prerecorded calls to the cellular telephones of
voters throughout Illinois. The Defendant used an automatic
telephone dialing system to initiate calls to the wireless
telephone lines of Plaintiff and Class members using an
artificial and/or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without
the prior express consent of the called party in strict violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Sawin, Esq.
          SAWINLAWFIRM, LTD.
          55 West Wacker Drive, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 853 2490
          E-mail: jsawin@sawinlawyers.com


CJS SOLUTION: $3.24MM Settlement in "Sanders" Has Prelim Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PATRICIA SANDERS, ANTHONY WILSON, JAIMEY GARRETT,
and DANOIS ALLEN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE CJS SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC d/b/a THE
HCI GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 17 Civ. 3809 (ER)(S.D. N.Y.),
Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement.

HCI is a healthcare information technology firm that provides
training and support to medical facilities in connection with
their transition to new electronic recordkeeping systems.  The
Named Plaintiffs worked as consultants for HCI at various times
between 2014 and 2017.  They worked for HCI in New York, North
Carolina, Maryland, Washington, and Rhode Island.

They were classified by HCI as "independent contractors," but
allege that they were actually employees.  They also allege that
they were "regularly" required to work 12-hour shifts for seven
days a week while consulting for HCI.  However, HCI paid them on
an hourly basis for the hours they worked and did not use an
overtime rate for hours worked beyond a 40-hour workweek.

The Plaintiffs bring nine causes of action against the Defendant.
First, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of a proposed Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action, allege that the
Defendant failed to pay overtime in violation of the FLSA.
Second, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of a nationwide class, allege
that the Defendant was unjustly enriched by retaining the
benefits of the Plaintiffs' labor without paying overtime.
Third, Plaintiffs Sanders and Wilson, on behalf of consultants
who worked in New York, allege violations of New York Labor Law.

Additionally, Plaintiff Garrett, on behalf of consultants who
worked in the state of Washington, brings five claims under
Washington law: violations of the Washington Minimum Wage Act,
failure to pay for rest breaks, failure to provide meal periods,
unpaid wages on termination, and willful refusal to pay wages.
Finally, Plaintiff Allen, on behalf of consultants who worked in
North Carolina, brings a claim for violation of North Carolina
wage and hour laws.

After engaging in settlement negotiations with mediator Ruth D.
Raisfield, the parties reached an agreement and submitted a
proposed settlement to the Court on Jan. 16,2018.  On Jan. 29,
2018, the Court denied that motion, finding that it did not have
probable cause to hold a full-scale hearing as to the fairness of
the agreement.

The Plaintiffs have now submitted the Amended Settlement
Agreement and request that the Court: (1) grants preliminary
approval of the Amended Settlement Agreement; (2) conditionally
certifies the proposed settlement class under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the proposed collective
action under Section 216(b) of the FLSA; (3) preliminarily
approves the Named Plaintiffs as the settlement class
representatives; (4) appoints Berger & Montague, P.C., Lichten &
Liss-Riordan, P.C., and Blanchard & Walker PLLC as class counsel;
(5) preliminarily appoints JND Legal Administration as Settlement
Administrator and preliminarily approve the costs of claims
administration; and (6) approves the Settlement Notice and Claim
Forms and the schedule for final approval of the settlement
agreement.

The Settlement Agreement reached by the parties provides that the
Defendants will pay a non-reversionary sum of $3,240,000 in
exchange for the release of the Settling Class Members' Released
Claims.

In its January 29th Order, the Court identified two problems with
the Settlement Agreement that precluded preliminary approval.
First, the general and non-mutual releases binding on the Named
Plaintiffs far exceeded the scope of the FLSA.  Second, the
parties did not articulate the range of possible recovery for the
Plaintiffs.  The parties have resolved both of these issues in
the Amended Settlement Agreement before the Court.

First, the parties have now consented to a release that is still
non-mutual, but releases only those complaints that were or could
have been asserted in the action against HCI.  Second, the
Plaintiffs have explained that, based on HCI's production of a
spreadsheet showing the hours worked by potential class members,
they could expect to recover $3,455,803.50 if completely
successful.

The Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of a Rule 23(b)
Class and an FLSA collective action for the purposes of
facilitating a settlement, comprised of all individuals who
performed work as a Consultant for The CJS Solutions Group, LLC,
doing business as The HCI Group, at any time from May 19, 2014
through on or about May 31, 2016.  The Defendants do not oppose
class certification for the purposes of achieving settlement and
therefore do not contest that the requirements for class
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 have been
met.

Judge Ramos although the Amended Settlement Agreement provides
for a slightly lower recovery, pursuing litigation would also
bring considerable risk and delay recovery.  Further, the
settlement was negotiated for at arm's length with the assistance
of an independent mediator, which reinforces the non-collusive
nature of the settlement.  He is therefore persuaded that the
settlement amount is reasonable in light of the Plaintiffs' range
of recovery, and should be submitted for a full-scale hearing on
its fairness.

For the reasons stated in the Court's January 29th Order, Judge
also finds that conditional certification is appropriate under
these circumstances and that preliminary appointment of Berger &
Montague, P.C., Lichen & Liss-Riordan, P.C., and Blanchard &
Walker PLLC as class counsel for the settlement class is also
warranted.

Finally, the Judge finds that the notice is reasonable and
constitutes due, adequate, and sufficient notice to the class
members.

Judge Ramos therefore adopted the following settlement approval
process, which safeguards the class members' procedural due
process rights, enables the Court to fulfill its role as the
guardian of class interests, and is consistent with the standard
procedure for evaluating class action settlements:

     a. Within 10 days of the Order, the Defendant's counsel will
provide the settlement administrator with an electronic database
containing the names, last known address, last known telephone
numbers, last known email addresses, social security numbers or
tax ID numbers, and total hours of overtime worked for each class
member.

     b. Within five days of receiving the contract information of
the settlement class, the settlement administrator will mail and
email the notice and claim forms to the settlement class members.

     c. Each class member will have 60 days after the initial
mailing of the class notice to submit a claim form, object to, or
opt-out of the settlement.

     d. The Court will hold a fairness hearing on June 21, 2018
at 2:00 p.m.

     e. No later than five days prior to the fairness hearing,
the Plaintiffs will prepare and file a motion for final approval
of the settlement, together with a motion seeking the payment of
attorney's fees, costs, service awards, and administration
awards.

Accordingly, the Judge granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the Amended Settlement Agreement.  The
Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the
motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/b6tkvi from Leagle.com.

Patricia Sanders, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated & Anthony Wilson, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Harold Lichten -- hlichten@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan,
P.C., Camille Fundora -- cfundora@bm.net -- Berger & Montague,
P.C., David M. Blanchard -- blanchard@bwlawonline.com-- Blanchard
& Walker PLLC, Eric Lechtzin -- elechtzin@bm.net -- Berger &
Montague, P.C., Olena Savytska -- osavytska@llrlaw.com -- Lichten
& Liss-Riordan PC, Sarah Schalman-Bergen -- sschalman-
bergen@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., Shanon Jude Carson --
scarson@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C. & Jill Stephanie Kahn -
- jkahn@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan PC.

Jaimey Garrett, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Beth Ellen
Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law
Group PLLC, pro hac vice, Jennifer Rust Murray --
jmurray@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie
PLLC, pro hac vice, Jill Stephanie Kahn, Lichten & Liss-Riordan
PC, Sarah Schalman-Bergen, Berger & Montague, P.C. & Shanon Jude
Carson, Berger & Montague, P.C.

Danois Allen, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Sarah
Schalman-Bergen, Berger & Montague, P.C.

The CJS Solutions Group, LLC, doing business as, Defendant,
represented by Gena Brooke Usenheimer -- gusenheimer@seyfarth.com
-- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Patrick Bannon -- pbannon@seyfarth.com --
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Richard L. Alfred -- ralfred@seyfarth.com --
Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Anne Bider -- abider@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth
Shaw LLP.


COCA-COLA CO: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Becerra" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss
SHANA BECERRA, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. C 17-05916 WHA (N.D. Cal.).

Becerra brings the putative class action against the Defendant
over its labeling of "Diet Coke."  Coca-Cola first introduced
Diet Coke in 1982, as a sugar-and calorie-free version of its
flag-ship cola.

For many years, Becerra purchased and consumed Diet Coke in part
because she believed, based on Coca-Cola's advertising of the
product as "diet," that it would contribute to weight loss or
healthy weight management.  But for this belief, Becerra claims
she would not have purchased Diet Coke.

The science, she alleges, now shows Diet Coke consumption
actually leads to the exact opposite -- weight gain.  Becerra's
complaint cites numerous scientific studies purportedly
suggesting that nonnutritive sweeteners, like those used in Diet
Coke, do not assist in weight loss or healthy weight management,
because nonnutritive sweeteners like aspartame interfere with the
body's ability to properly metabolize calories, leading to weight
gain and increased risk of metabolic disease, diabetes, and
cardiovascular disease.

In October 2017, Becerra commenced the action against Coca-Cola
seeking to represent a state-wide class of persons in California
who purchased Diet Coke in cans or bottles on or after Oct. 26,
2013 for personal or household use.  She asserts claims for
violations of the California False Advertising Law, the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law, for breach of express warranty, and for breach
of implied warranty.

Coca-Cola now moves to dismiss Becerra's complaint pursuant to
FRCP 12(b)(6).  It argues federal law preempts all of Becerra's
claims, and that even if not preempted, Becerra's claims are
barred by California's safe harbor rule.

Judge Alsup  holds that Becerra's complaint fails to allege facts
sufficient to demonstrate that Coca-Cola's advertisements are
false and misleading.  With a conclusory wave of the counsel's
hand, Becerra has overstated the actual science set forth in the
citations. Becerra's consumer protection statutory claims are
accordingly be dismissed.

Becerra's claims of breach of express and implied warranty of
merchantability must fail for the same reasons stated, the Judge
says.  The complaint fails to sufficiently allege Coca-Cola
misrepresented to consumers that Diet Coke would aid in weight
loss or healthy weight management without regard to exercise and
nutrition.  Accordingly, Becerra's claims for breach of express
and implied warranty will also be dismissed.

Judge Alsup granted Coca-Cola's motion to dismiss.  The Plaintiff
may seek leave to amend the complaint and will have until March
22, 2018, within which to file a motion, noticed on the normal
35-day track, for leave to file an amended complaint.  The motion
must include a proposed amended complaint (and a redlined copy)
and must explain why the new pleading overcomes all deficiencies
pointed out, including those the Order needs not reach.  The
Plaintiff must plead her best case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/eiGsBl from Leagle.com.

Shana Becerra, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, represented by Jack
Fitzgerald -- jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- The Law Office of
Jack Fitzgerald, PC, Andrew B. Sacks, Sacks Weston Diamond, LLC,
John Kerry Weston, Sacks Weston Diamond LLC, Melanie Rae
Persinger -- melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- The Law Office of
Jack Fitzgerald PC & Trevor Matthew Flynn --
trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald,
PC.

The Coca-Cola Company, Defendant, represented by Tammy Beth Webb
-- tbwebb@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Catherine A.
Williams -- cawilliams@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb and
Tyler LLP, Jane M. Metcalf -- jmetcalf@pbwt.com -- Patterson
Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Michael Sochynsky --
msochynsky@pbwt.com -- Covington and Burling LLP & Steven A.
Zalesin -- sazalesin@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler
LLP.


COLONIAL WILLIAMSBURG: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan,
Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-02994 (S.D. N.Y., April 5, 2018).

Colonial Williamsburg is a living-history museum and private
foundation presenting part of an historic district in the city of
Williamsburg, Virginia, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group PLLC
   30 E39th Street, 2nd Flr.
   New York, NY 10016-2555
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


COMBINED INSURANCE: Must Produce Docs in "Nicholes" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LUCENDA NICHOLES, Plaintiff, v. COMBINED INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 5:16-CV-10203 (S.D.
W.V.), Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Beckley
Division, granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's
Motion to Compel Regarding Defendant's Supplemental Responses to
the Fourth and Fifth Requests For Production of Documents.

The Plaintiff has instituted a class action complaint against the
Defendant alleging that the insurance company has engaged in
routine, systematic and deceptive practices selling supplemental
insurance policies that under law, provides no benefit its
Medicaid customers.  She asserts claims under the West Virginia
Unfair Trade Practices Act and the common law of rescission based
on mutual mistake.

The Plaintiff has alleged that these sales practices have been an
ingrained part of the Defendant's "culture" for decades, which is
evidenced by similar lawsuits that were filed in Alabama and
Mississippi, resulting in the Defendant's withdrawal from those
states' insurance markets.  She has also alleged that Defendant
has continued its deceptive sales practices overseas,
specifically in Australia, which eventually garnered the
attention of the Australian Securities and Investments
Commission.  The Plaintiff alleges that after the conclusion of
the investigation conducted by Australian authorities, the
Defendant turned over its Australian operations to an affiliate.

In the matter immediately before the Court, the Plaintiff seeks
information related not only to the Defendant's electronically
stored information ("ESI") that presumably contains discovery
pertaining to insurance sales to Medicaid recipients in West
Virginia, but also information regarding substantially similar or
identical insurance business practices in Alabama, Mississippi,
other states, as well as in Australia.  One aspect of the recent
breakdown in cooperation between the parties with regard to the
discovery issues at hand concern which statute of limitations
applies, and therefore, which applicable statute of limitation
narrows the scope of Plaintiff's Requests.

During the informal conference held on Feb. 6, 2018, Magistrate
Judge Aboulhosn attempted to explore some resolution between the
parties of the issues raised in the Plaintiff's Motion.  The
Plaintiff represented that until recently, the parties' discovery
customarily included documentation and information that predated
the filing of their lawsuit by four years.  Further, she asserted
that previously produced discovery revealed that the Defendant
changed its own policies over the years with regard to insurance
sales to Medicaid recipients, an issue that goes to the heart of
her case.  Additionally, the Plaintiff argued that since her
claims arise in contract, the statute of limitations would be ten
years, pursuant to West Virginian law.

The Defendant countered that the Plaintiff's claims are based on
violations of the West Virginia Unfair Trade Practices Act, for
which the statute of limitations is one year, and Plaintiff's
other claims are based on violations of West Virginia common law,
rescission of a contract based on fraud or mutual mistake, for
which the statute of limitations is two years.  Regardless of
which statute of limitations applies, the Defendant argued that
the Plaintiff's Requests go well beyond the statute of
limitations addressed by the parties, and are therefore
temporally and geographically overbroad and disproportionate to
the needs of the case.

On Feb. 23, 2018 came the parties, by the counsel, all for
hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Regarding Defendant's
Supplemental Responses to the Fourth and Fifth Requests For
Production of Documents.

The Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Regarding Defendant's
Supplemental Responses to the Fourth Requests For Production of
Documents, requests the following:

     a. Request No. 1: Documents and information sufficient to
show the identity of Combined's in-field agent trainers in the
four years preceding the lawsuit to the present.

     b. Request No. 2: Documents and information sufficient to
show employee complaints regarding in-field trainers and their
techniques in the four years preceding this lawsuit to the
present including but not limited to information captured in
Clarify and any other electronic systems identified in request 20
as well as emails and employee exit interviews.

     c. Request No. 4: All Commissioned Employee Handbooks and
drafts of such Handbooks for Combined, and any other subsidiary
or affiliate of ACE Insurance or AEON from 2006 to the present,
including Ace Insurance Ltd. during the time it sold Supplemental
Insurance in Australia.  This search should specifically include
documents and information in Jeff Frerick's files and those
operating under his supervision and direction.

     d. Request No. 7: Documents and information sufficient to
show the Officer and Boards of Directors for Combined Insurance
Co. of America, Ace Insurance Ltd., Chubb Ltd., Combined Life
Insurance Co. of New York and ACE Insurance Corporation from 2007
to the present.

     e. Request No. 14: All electronic files from every database
used by Combined that contains a reference or information related
to Medicaid.

     f. Request No. 19: A copy in native electronic format of any
information created or maintained by any computer system relating
to Medicaid, underwriting, agent discipline, pricing, sale,
training, consumer complaint-handling and investigations,
maintenance, retention, cancellation, claims handling and payment
of benefits under Supplemental Insurance Policies from October
2012 to present in the following systems: Clarify Access M-Text
Combined Online Processing System Verint Mainframe Field
Compliance Disciplinary Action Tracker Webmails AS400 (including
Content Manager and LSP) Self-Service System Right Start
(Marketing Training Practice App) Combined App (Where you write
live Applications) Life 70 Work Force Management.

     g. Request No. 20: Documents sufficient to show the data
dictionaries, field codes, reporting capabilities, operating
platforms, algorithms and functional capabilities of any computer
system relating to the pricing, sale, maintenance, retention,
cancellation, claims handling and payment of benefits under
Supplemental Insurance Policies from October 2012 to present for
the following systems: Clarify Access M-Text Combined Online
Processing System Verint Mainframe Field Compliance Disciplinary
Action Tracker Webmails AS400 (including Content Manager and LSP)
Self-Service System Right Start (Marketing Training Practice App)
Combined App (Where you write live Applications) Life 70 Work
Force Management.

     h. Request No. 22: User Manuals for the systems identified
in Request number 20.

     i. Request No. 23: Any policy manuals, memoranda or any
other document governing the circumstances under which the Policy
Service Center refers complaints or issues to SCI for handling.

The Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Regarding Defendant's
Supplemental Responses to the Fifth Requests For Production of
Documents, requests the following:

     a. Request No. 1: All Commissioned Employee Handbooks and
drafts of such Handbooks or any similar manuals or handbooks for
Combined, and any other subsidiary, affiliate or parent from 1990
to the present.

     b. Request No. 2: All documents and information related to
Combined's withdrawal from the insurance markets and/or to cease
selling its policies in the States of Alabama and Mississippi and
any other State's insurance market.

The Magistrate Judge granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's Motion.  Specifically, among other things, regarding
the Defendant's Supplemental Responses to the Fourth Requests For
Production of Documents, he granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant's supplemental
responses to Request Nos. 1 and 2, and only to the extent that
the Defendant is compelled to disclose the identities of its in-
field agent trainers as stated for the four years preceding this
lawsuit and with respect to Alabama and Mississippi, in the four
years preceding Defendant's withdrawal from the Alabama and
Mississippi insurance markets.  With regard to the Defendant's
concerns over non-litigant employees' privacy rights, it is noted
that a protective order has already been entered in this matter
on April 13, 2017.

He also granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's Motion to
Compel Defendant's supplemental responses to Request No. 4, and
only to the extent that if such documentation exists, that the
Defendant is compelled to disclose its Commissioned Employee
Handbooks and drafts of such Handbooks as described in
Plaintiff's Request No. 4 as stated above for the four years
preceding this lawsuit, and with regard to Alabama and
Mississippi, in the four years preceding Defendant's withdrawal
from the Alabama and Mississippi insurance markets.

He granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant's
supplemental responses to (i) Request No. 14 to the extent it
seeks information regarding West Virginia Medicaid recipients
predating the filing of Plaintiff's lawsuit by four years'; (ii)
Request No. 19 to the extent it seeks information that concerns
West Virginia Medicaid recipients; and (iii) Request No. 20 to
the extent that it supplements Request No. 19.

The Magistrate Judge granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant's supplemental responses
to Request No. 23 to the extent that the Court has no authority
to compel the production of information that does not exist.

Regarding the Defendant's Supplemental Responses to the Fourth
Requests For Production of Documents, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn
granted in part and denied in part supplemental responses to (i)
Request No. 1, and only to the extent that if such documentation
exists, that the Defendant is compelled to disclose its
Commissioned Employee Handbooks and drafts of such Handbooks as
described in Plaintiff's Request No. 1 as stated for the four
years preceding this lawsuit, and with regard to Alabama and
Mississippi, in the four years preceding Defendant's withdrawal
from the Alabama and Mississippi insurance markets; and (ii)
Request No. 2 to the extent that the Defendant is compelled to
produce unto the Plaintiff unprivileged documentation and
information concerning its withdrawal from the Alabama and
Mississippi insurance markets, plus, the other states markets as
described, should such documentation and information exist.

Pursuant to Rule 37, the Magistrate Judge invited the Plaintiff
to file the appropriate motion for sanctions outlining the
reasons sanctions are appropriate in the matter and including the
time it took prosecute the Motion to Compel, but specifically
with respect to those items granted by the Court.  He allowed the
Defendant to file an appropriate pleading setting forth why the
Court should not issue sanctions and any other objections to the
accounting of time filed by the Plaintiff.

In accordance with Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the ruling set forth on the non-dispositive motion may
be contested by filing, within 14 days, objections to the Order
with District Judge Irene Berger.  If objections are filed, the
District Court will consider the objections and modify or set
aside any portion of the Order found clearly to be erroneous or
contrary to law.  The Clerk is further requested to send a copy
of the Order to the counsel of record.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/byESOI from Leagle.com.

Lucenda Nicholes, on her own behalf and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christa L. Collins,
HARMON WOODS PARKER & ABRUNZO, pro hac vice & Damon L. Ellis,
MANI ELLIS & LAYNE.

Combined Insurance Company of America, Defendant, represented by
Eric Jett Hulett -- eric.hulett@steptoe-johnson.com -- STEPTOE &
JOHNSON, John Joseph Meadows -- john.meadows@steptoe-johnson.com
-- STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Russell D. Jessee --
russell.jessee@steptoe-johnson.com -- STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Sheryl
Marie Bey -- sbey@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN
CALDWELL & BERKOWTIZ, pro hac vice, William N. Reed --
wreed@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL &
BERKOWTIZ, pro hac vice & Devon J. Stewart --
devon.stewart@steptoe-johnson.com -- STEPTOE & JOHNSON.


COMENITY LLC: J. Stephens Individual Claims Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, JENNIFER STEPHENS and CHRISTOPHER GULLEY, on behalf
of NJK themselves, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. COMENITY, LLC dba COMENITY BANK, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
00670-MMD-(1)(A)(D. Nev.), Judge Miranda M. Du of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada dismissed with
prejudice all individual claims of Stephens against the
Defendant.

The Parties filed their Joint Motion for Dismissal of the
Individual Claims of Plaintiff Jennifer Stephens' Only Pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A).  Accordingly,
Judge Du granted and dismissed with prejudice as to all
individual claims of Stephens against the Defendant.  Each party
to bear their own costs and fees.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/MJNcKl from Leagle.com.

Christopher Gulley, Plaintiff, represented by Kas L. Gallucci --
admin@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron,
pro hac vice, Kevin L. Hernandez -- kevin@kevinhernandezlaw.com -
- Law Office of Kevin L. Hernandez, Ronald A. Marron, Law Offices
of Ronald A. Marron, pro hac vice & Alexis M. Wood , Law Offices
of Ronald A. Marron.

Comenity, LLC, doing business as, Defendant, represented by Joel
Edward Tasca -- TASCABALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr LLP,
Russell Jason Burke -- BURKERBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr
LLP & Lindsay C. Demaree -- DEMAREELBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard
Spahr LLP.

Comenity, LLC, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Joel Edward
Tasca, Ballard Spahr LLP, Lindsay C. Demaree, Ballard Spahr LLP &
Russell Jason Burke, Ballard Spahr LLP.


CROWN POLY: Fails to Pay Overtime & Minimum Wage, Morales Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
BELEN MORALES, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CROWN POLY, INC., a
California corporation; 21 and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC699641 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 26, 2018),
seeks to recover overtime & minimum wage under the California
Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants as a "Packer" in 2013,
although she has been on a leave of absence since approximately
September 2017.  Plaintiff's employment with Defendants was
terminated during her medical leave of absence. Throughout her
employment, Defendants would keep track of Plaintiff's time
worked and would unlawfully shave her work time and/or round the
work time such that Plaintiff would not be fully paid for all
time worked. This time shaving/rounding practice utilized by
Defendants was not-even handed over time and would round and
shave in Defendants' favor such that Plaintiff was routinely
underpaid for her time worked. Further, during Plaintiffs
employment with Defendants, she often worked in excess of 10
hours per workday and/or 40 hours per work week, and therefore,
had Plaintiff been properly paid for all of the time that she
actually worked, she would have been paid additional minimum
and/or overtime wages.

Crown Poly is a plastic manufacturing company that provides
bagging solutions. It offers bagging systems for produce, meat,
bakery, bulk, grocery supply, front end, and consumer end
products; and compostable, leafy greens, corn and yams, trash,
organic, handle tie, eco-friendly, and reusable bags.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
          Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
          LIDMAN LAW, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segunao, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 322 4772
          Facsimile: (424) 322 4775
          E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
                  enguyen@lidmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segunao, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com


DICK'S SPORTING: Pomerantz to Lead in "McKenna" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRANDON McKENNA, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. DICK'S SPORTING GOODS,
INC., EDWARD W. STACK, and LEE J. BELITSKY, Defendants, Case No.
17-CV-3680 (VSB)(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (i)
granted Ironworkers's motion for appointment as the Lead
Plaintiff and for approval of its selection of Lead Counsel; and
(ii) denied the remaining three motions requesting appointment of
the Lead Plaintiff and approval of the Lead Counsel, filed by
Brenda Powell, Elliott Stamler, and Oklahoma Police Pension &
Retirement System.

The instant action is brought by McKenna on May 16, 2017 against
the Defendants on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Dick's securities between March 7, 2017 and
May 15, 2017, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated by
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the
Exchange Act.  The complaint against Dick's alleges that
throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Dick's business and
operations.

In particular, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Dick's had overstated its adjusted EBITDA amounts; (ii)
accordingly, the Company lacked effective internal controls; and
(iii) as a result of the foregoing, Dick's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.  He
alleges that as a result of these material misstatements, which
were revealed by a Form 8-K/A report filed with the SEC on May
12, 2017, Dick's share price fell as much as $6.82, resulting in
significant losses and damages for Plaintiff and other class
members.

On the same day that the Plaintiff filed his Complaint, his
counsel published notices announcing the initiation of the
securities class action.  The Notices informed shareholders that
if they had purchased Dick's securities during the Class Period,
they would have until July 17, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint
them as the Lead Plaintiff for the class.

After the Notices were published, on June 12, 2017, the counsel
for Plaintiff, with consent from the Defendants, requested an
extension of time for the Defendants to respond to the Complaint
until after the Lead Plaintiff and the Lead Counsel were
appointed, and set out a proposed briefing schedule for the
filing of the amended complaint, the Defendants' answer, and the
Plaintiff's reply after the Lead Plaintiff and the Lead Counsel
were selected.  On June 13, 2017, Judge Broderick issued an Order
granting the extension of time and adopting the proposed
schedule.  On July 17, 2017, the date specified on the Notices,
the Movants filed their motions requesting appointment of the
Lead Plaintiff and the Lead Counsel, with supporting declarations
and memoranda.

On July 21, 2017, Powell withdrew her motion because while she
was well-qualified to serve as the Lead Plaintiff in the action,
she did not possess the largest financial interest in the relief
sought by the class.  On July 31, 2017, Stamler filed a notice of
non-opposition to competing motions for appointment, stating that
it appears that Ironworkers possesses the largest financial
interest in the relief sought by the class.  Similarly, on the
same day, Pension & Retirement System filed a response stating
that it recognized that it did not suffer the greatest loss.  On
Aug. 1, 2017, Ironworkers filed a notice that its motion was
unopposed.

Because he finds that Ironworkers has the greatest financial
interest of the Movants, and that it satisfies the typicality and
adequacy requirements of Rule 23, Judge Broderick granted
Ironworkers' motion for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff and for
approval of its selection of the Lead Counsel.  The Judge denied
remaining motions.  He respectfully requested the Clerk of Court
to terminate the pending motions.

Ironworkers has selected Pomerantz as class counsel, and moves
for approval of its selection.  Having reviewed Ironworkers's
Memorandum of Law, as well as Liberman's Declaration and the firm
resume, the Court found that Pomerantz is well qualified to serve
as lead counsel in the instant case. The attorneys at Pomerantz
have had substantial experience with securities litigations as
well as securities fraud class actions. Therefore, the Court
approved Ironworkers's selection and appoint Pomerantz as Lead
Counsel.

The Judge directed the Plaintiff, in accordance with the June 13
Order, to file an amended complaint or notify the Defendants that
no amended complaint will be filed no later than 60 days after
the date of issuance of the Opinion & Order.  The Defendants are
directed to answer or otherwise respond to the operative
complaint no later than 60 days after the Plaintiff serves an
amended complaint or notifies Defendants that no amended
complaint will be filed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/8btBgn from Leagle.com.

Ironworkers Locals 40, 361 & 417 - Union Security Funds and Iron
Workers Local 580 - Joint Funds, Lead Plaintiff, represented by
Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP
& Michael Grunfeld -- mgrunfeld@pomlaw.com -- Shreman & Sterling
LLP.

Brandon McKenna, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Alexander
Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Michael Grunfeld,
Shreman & Sterling LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

Brenda Powell, Movant, represented by Adam M. Apton --
aapton@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP.

Elliot Stamler, Movant, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy --
lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System, Movant, represented
by David Avi Rosenfeld -- DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.


DR PEPPER SNAPPLE: Witmer Balks at Keurig Green Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
COLLEEN WITMER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. DR PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP,
INC., WAYNE R. SANDERS, LARRY D. YOUNG, DAVID E. ALEXANDER,
ANTONIO CARRILLO, JOSE GUTIERREZ, PAMELA H. PATSLEY, RONALD G.
ROGERS, DUNIA SHIVE, and M. ANNE SZOSTAK, the Defendants, Case
No. 4:18-cv-00209-ALM-KPJ (E.D. Tex., March 27, 2018), seeks to
enjoin the defendants and all persons acting in concert with them
from proceeding with, consummating, or closing a proposed merger
transaction, and in the event the defendants consummate the
Proposed Transaction, rescinding it and setting it aside or
awarding rescissory damages.

On January 29, 2018, DPSG Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Maple Holdings
Corp. and Salt Merger Sub, Inc., affiliates of Keurig Green
Mountain, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
shareholders of DPSG will receive a special cash dividend of
$103.75 per share. Following the close of the merger, DPSG's
shareholders will own only 13% of the combined company.

On March 8, 2018, the defendants filed a preliminary proxy
statement with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy
Statement recommends that DPSG's shareholders vote in favor of
proposals to approve, among other things, the issuance of DPSG
common stock as merger consideration pursuant to the Merger
Agreement, and an amendment to the certificate of incorporation
of DPSG to provide for an increase in authorized shares to permit
issuance of a sufficient number of shares as merger
consideration, and a change of DPSG's name to "Keurig Dr Pepper
Inc." However, the Proxy Statement omits material information
with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy
Statement false and misleading.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          Jamie J. McKey, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 744 3000
          Facsimile: (214) 744 3015
          E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
                  jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com


EMERSON ELECTRIC: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Order in "Hale" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Emerson Electric Company filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the multidistrict litigation titled IN RE: EMERSON
ELECTRIC CO. WET/DRY VAC MARKETING AND SALES LITIGATION, MDL No.
4:12-md-02382-HEA, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri - St. Louis.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the action
is brought for alleged violations of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act, breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty, unjust enrichment, violations of consumer protection
laws in various states for subclasses and breach of implied
warranty redhibition on behalf of the Louisiana subclass.

The appellate case is captioned as Jeff Hale, et al. v. Emerson
Electric Company, Case No. 18-1585, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Appendix is due on April 30, 2018;

   -- Brief of Appellant Emerson Electric Company is due on
      April 30, 2018;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant; and

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the
      court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellee brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Jeff Hale, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Estaban Maravilla, individually and on
behalf of all others, Lauren Checki, Kevin Brees, Chad Venhaus,
Chris Willis and Fred Wilmer are represented by:

          Eric D. Holland, Esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM
          300 N. Tucker, Suite 801
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-8111
          E-mail: eholland@allfela.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Raymond Gray, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Andrew Bowers, Emilio Gonzales,
Kenneth Thompson, Eric Shults Justin Swires, Estaban Maravilla,
Lauren Checki, Kevin Brees, Chad Venhaus, Chris Willis and Fred
Wilmer are represented by:

          Adam R. Gonnelli, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (877) 247-4292
          E-mail: agonnelli@faruqilaw.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Justin Swires, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Estaban Maravilla, individually
and on behalf of all others, Lauren Checki, Kevin Brees, Chad
Venhaus, Chris Willis and Fred Wilmer are represented by:

          Randall Seth Crompton, Esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM
          300 N. Tucker, Suite 801
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-8111
          E-mail: scrompton@allfela.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Anthony G. Simon, Esq.
          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: asimon@simonlawpc.com
                  jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Estaban Maravilla, individually and on
behalf of all others, Lauren Checki, Kevin Brees, Chad Venhaus,
Chris Willis and Fred Wilmer are represented by:

          Reginald Von Terrell, Esq.
          TERRELL LAW GROUP
          223 25th Street
          Richmond, CA 94804-0000
          Telephone: (510) 237-3930
          E-mail: reggiet2@aol.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Lauren Checki, Kevin Brees, Chad Venhaus,
Chris Willis and Fred Wilmer are represented by:

          Jay Dinan, Esq.
          PARKER & WAICHMAN LLP
          27300 Riverview Center Boulevard, Suite 103
          Bonita Springs, FL 34134
          Telephone: (239) 390-0055
          E-mail: jdinan@yourlawyer.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Kevin Brees, Chad Venhaus, Chris Willis and
Fred Wilmer are represented by:

          Richard J. Arsenault, Esq.
          NEBLETT BEARD & ARSENAULT
          P.O. Box 1190
          Alexandria, LA 71309
          Telephone: (318) 487-9874
          E-mail: rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jordan L. Chaikin, Esq.
          CHAIKIN LAW FIRM
          12800 University Drive, Suite 600
          Fort Myers, FL 33907
          Telephone: (239) 470-8338
          E-mail: jchaikin@yourlawyer.com

Defendant-Appellant Emerson Electric Company is represented by:

          Mark G. Arnold, Esq.
          Matthew R. Grant, Esq.
          Joseph C. Orlet, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
          Saint Louis, MO 63105-3441
          Telephone: (314) 480-1500
          E-mail: mark.arnold@huschblackwell.com
                  matt.grant@husch.com
                  joseph.orlet@huschblackwell.com

               - and -

          James F. Bennett, Esq.
          Hannah Fleener Preston, Esq.
          DOWD BENNETT
          7733 Forsyth, Suite 1900
          Saint Louis, MO 63105-0000
          Telephone: (314) 889-7300
          E-mail: jbennett@dowdbennett.com
                  hpreston@dowdbennett.com


ESTATE INFORMATION: Azimov Files 1st Suit over Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
MINA L. AZIMOV, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILIARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. ESTATE INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC
D/B/A EIS COLLECTIONS AND NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 152667/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 26, 2018), seeks to
recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

Estate Information is a collection agency regularly engaging in
the business of collecting debts in this State with its principal
place of business located at 670 Morrison Road, Suite 300,
Gahanna, Ohio 43230. The first letter appears to give Plaintiff
notice that her account has been charged-off and the second
letter appears to be an initial collection letter. Both letters
appear to be concerning reference number "1000345626."

The letters were written on EIS' letterhead and both list the
"Creditor Name" as "Navient." The charge-off letter lists the
"Total due as of charge-off" as $25,503.47, "Total interest
accrued since charge-off" as $5,272.87, "Total non-interest
charges or fees accrued since charge-off" as $.00, and "Total
payments made since charge-off" as $5,579.88. These numbers taken
together would calculate the total current balance as $25,196.46.
However, the letter lists the "Total Balance" as $25,204.43.
Either the "Total Balance" is incorrect, or the "Total due as of
charge-off," "Total interest accrued since charge-off," "Total
non-interest charges or fees accrued since charge-off" and "Total
payments made since charge-off" are incorrect, or all are
incorrect. Nonetheless, this inaccuracy was misleading to the
Plaintiff, as it would be to the "least sophisticated consumer,"
and furthermore misstates the character and amount of the alleged
debt, in violation of the FDCPA and NYGBL.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Simon Goldenberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SIMON GOLDENBERG PLLC
          Attorney(s) For Plaintiff
          818 East 16th Street
          Brooklyn, NY, 11230
          Telephone: (347) 640 4357


ESTATE INFORMATION: Azimov Files 2nd Suit over Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
MINA L. AZIMOV, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SEVULIARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. ESTATE INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC
D/B/A EIS COLLECTIONS AND NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 152686/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 27, 2018), seeks to
recover damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and
the New York General Business Law.

According to the complaint, in an attempt to collect the
purported debt, EIS sent Plaintiff two letters each dated October
10, 2017.  The first letter appears to give Plaintiff notice that
her account has been charged-off and the second letter appears to
be an initial collection letter. Both letters appear to be
concerning reference number "1000345630." The letters were
written on EIS letterhead and both list the "Creditor
Name" as "Navient. The charge-off letter lists the "Total due as
of charge-off" as $49,606.32, "Total interest accrued since
charge-off" as $13,473.57, "Total non-interest charges or fees
accrued since charge-off" as $0.00, and "Total payments made
since charge-off" as $11,186.31.  These numbers taken together
would calculate the total current balance as $51,893.58. However,
the letter lists the "Total Balance" as $51,913.33. Either the
"Total Balance" is incorrect, or the "Total due as of charge-
off," "Total interest accrued since charge-off," "Total non-
interest charges or fees accrued since charge-off" and "Total
payments made since charge-off" are incorrect, or all are
incorrect.

This inaccuracy, the lawsuit contends, was misleading to the
Plaintiff, as it would be to the "least sophisticated consumer,"
and furthermore misstates the character and amount of the alleged
debt, in violation of the FDCPA and NYGBL. Additionally, the
collection letter lists the "Total Balance" as the same
potentially incorrect amount of $51,913.33, and the bottom of the
collection letter lists the "Amount Due" as the same potentially
incorrect amount of $51,913.33, in further violation of the FDCPA
and NYGBL.

Estate Information specializes in the collection of deceased debt
and specialty recovery functions for creditors in the United
States. It offers estate search services, probate filing and
collections, bankruptcy proof of claim filings, bankruptcy
adversary services, and other recovery solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Simon Goldenberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SIMON GOLDENBERG PLLC
          818 East 16th Street
          Brooklyn, NY, 11230
          Telephone: (347) 640 4357


EWC TIMES: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EWC Times Square,
LLC. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EWC
Times Square, LLC, EWC 95 Chambers, LLC and EWC P&T, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03029 (S.D. N.Y., April 5, 2018).

EWC Times Square, LLC is a business entity registered in the
state of New York, located at 289 Park Avenue South, New York,
New York 10010.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FACEBOOK INC: Zellmer Sues over Collection of Biometric Info
------------------------------------------------------------
CLAYTON P. ZELLMER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC., the Defendants, Case
No. 3:18-cv-01880 (N.D. Cal., March 27, 2018), seeks to recover
damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the
illegal actions of Facebook in violating the Biometric
Information Privacy Act by capturing, possessing, collecting,
storing, receiving through trade, obtaining, and using the
biometric identifiers and biometric information of Plaintiff and
other similarly situated individuals, without their informed
written consent.

The Illinois Legislature has found that "[b]iometrics are unlike
other unique identifiers that are used to access finances or
other sensitive information." 740 ILCS 14/5(c). "For example,
social security numbers, when compromised, can be changed.
Biometrics, however, are biologically unique to the individual;
therefore, once compromised, the individual has no recourse, is
at heightened risk for identity theft, and is likely to withdraw
from biometric-facilitated transactions."

In recognition of these concerns over the security of
individuals' biometrics -- particularly in the City of Chicago,
which was recently selected by major national corporations as a
"pilot testing site[] for new applications of biometric-
facilitated financial transactions, including finger-scan
technologies at grocery stores, gas stations, and school
cafeterias," 740 ILCS 14/5(b) -- the Illinois Legislature enacted
the BIPA, which provides, inter alia, that a private entity like
Facebook may not obtain or possess an individual's biometrics
unless it: (i) informs that person in writing that biometric
identifiers or information will be collected or stored, see 740
ILCS 14/15(b); (ii) informs that person in writing of the
specific purpose and length of term for which such biometric
identifiers or biometric information is being collected, stored
and used, see id.; (iii) receives a written release from the
person for the collection of his or her biometric identifiers or
information, see id.; and (iv) publishes publically available
written retention schedules and guidelines for permanently
destroying biometric identifiers and biometric information, see
740 ILCS 14/15(a).

In direct violation of each of the foregoing provisions of
Section 15(a) and Section 15(b) of the BIPA, Facebook is actively
collecting, storing, and using -- without providing notice,
obtaining informed written consent, or publishing data retention
policies -- the biometrics of its users and unwitting non-users
like Plaintiff. Specifically, Facebook has created, collected and
stored over a billion "face templates" (or "face prints") --
highly detailed geometric maps of the face -- from over a billion
individuals, millions of whom reside in the State of Illinois.
Facebook creates these templates using sophisticated facial
recognition technology that extracts and analyzes data from the
points and contours of faces appearing in photos uploaded by
their users. Each face template is unique to a particular
individual, in the same way that a fingerprint or voiceprint
uniquely identifies one and only one person.

The Facebook has stated publicly on its website that "[w]e are
able to suggest that your friend tag you in a picture by scanning
and comparing your friend's pictures to information we've put
together from the other photos you have been tagged in."
According to the same website, this process is performed by
recognition software that uses an algorithm to calculate a unique
number based on someone's facial features, like the distance
between the eyes, nose and ears. Plaintiff, who has never had a
Facebook account, brings this action individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated to prevent Facebook from further
violating the privacy rights of Illinois residents, and to
recover statutory damages for Facebook's unauthorized collection,
storage and use of unwitting non-users' biometrics in violation
of the BIPA.

Facebook is an American online social media and social networking
service company based in Menlo Park, California.[BN]

Counsel for Clayton P. Zellmer and the Putative Class:

          David P. Milian, Esq.
          CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN GONYA, LLP
          1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 372 7474
          Facsimile: (305) 372 7475
          E-mail: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com

               - and -

          Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
          BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914 2001
          Facsimile: (858) 914 2002
          E-mail: achang@bottinilaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: Williams et al. Sue over Messenger Logs
-----------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY WILLIAMS, TYOKA BRUMFIELD, and WENDY BURNETT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. FACEBOOK, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-
01881 (N.D. Cal., March 27, 2018), seeks compensatory, statutory,
punitive damages, and injunction requiring Facebook to purge its
extant call and text logs acquired through Facebook Messenger and
Facebook Lite smartphone applications.

The Facebook exploited a vulnerability in the permission settings
for the Facebook Messenger and Facebook Lite smartphone
applications in prior versions of the Android operating system.
When users install these apps, they are prompted to grant
Facebook access to their "Contact List." But upon doing so, the
Facebook Messenger and Facebook Lite apps for Android scrape
users' call and text logs. That is, Facebook scrapes years' worth
of call and text data, including whether each call was
"Incoming," "Outgoing," or "Missed," the date and time of each
call, the number dialed, the individual called, and the duration
of each call. Facebook then incorporates these data into its
profile on each user, which it monetizes for advertising
purposes. This vulnerability was later patched in October 2017,
at which time Facebook ceased this practice.

Facebook is an American online social media and social networking
service company based in Menlo Park, California.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300 4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407 2700
          E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  scott@bursor.com


FANNIE MAY: Court Dismisses "Benson" Suit
-----------------------------------------
Judge Sara L. Ellis of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted Fannie May's
motion to dismiss the case, CLARISHA BENSON and LORENZO SMITH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. FANNIE MAY CONFECTIONS BRANDS, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 17 C 3519 (N.D. Ill.) without
prejudice.

Plaintiffs Benson and Smith purchased some delightful treats at
two stores owned by Fannie May, and were saddened to discover
upon opening their boxes of Mint Meltaways and Pixies that the
boxes were not brimming with delectable goodies.  Rather, the
boxes were filled merely two-thirds of the way to their brims,
leaving Benson and Smith twenty-four-cubic-inches or more short
of satisfaction.

The Plaintiffs now bring the putative class action alleging that
the candies in question did not simply melt or fly away as their
names imply, but that Fannie May never placed them in the box in
the first place and did so to trick potential consumers into
believing they were receiving more candy than they really were.
Plaintiffs' complaint alleges violations of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), and seeks
injunctive relief (Count I) and damages (Count II).  The
Plaintiffs also have two Illinois common-law claims for unjust
enrichment (Count III) and breach of implied contract (Count IV).

Fannie May moves to dismiss the complaint in its entirety,
arguing that the Plaintiffs have not alleged a violation of the
Food Drug and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"), therefore all of their
state-law claims are preempted and must be dismissed.
Alternatively, it argues that the Plaintiffs have not adequately
pleaded the elements of their ICFA claim, that they lack standing
to bring claims on behalf of purchasers of products Plaintiffs
did not purchase, and that they lack standing to seek injunctive
relief.

Judge Ellis finds that the Plaintiffs' barebones allegations are
not sufficient to state a violation of Section 100.100(a) under
either Rule 8 or the heightened standard under Rule 9(b).  Thus,
because they have not adequately alleged a violation of the
federal regulations, they cannot state a non-preempted claim
under Illinois law.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs, already aware of Fannie
May's alleged deceptive practices, cannot claim they will be
deceived again in the future.  The Plaintiffs allege that they
will suffer harm again in the future if they decide to purchase
Fannie May's products because they cannot rely upon the
packaging.  Most courts to address similar circumstances have
held that absent some concrete basis to conclude that the
plaintiffs will or must purchase the product again in the future
and be deceived, they cannot meet the standing requirements for
injunctive relief claims.  Therefore, he says even if the
Plaintiffs adequately pleaded a violation of federal law, they
lack standing to seek prospective injunctive relief against
Fannie May.

Finally, regarding the Plaintiffs' allegation that they only
purchase the Mint Meltaways and the Pixies, but seek to bring the
action on behalf of a putative class of individuals who purchased
eight other Fannie May products, namely, Hot Fudge Truffles,
Peanut Butter Buckeyes, Sea Salt Caramels (Dark), Sea Salt
Caramels (Milk), Pixies ("Bite Size"), Carmash (Milk), Carmash
(Dark), and Trinidads, the Judge finds that the Products are all
substantially different in size, ingredients, and in many cases,
their packaging.  Beyond being candies sold by Fannie May, the
Products are not similar enough to grant standing to the
Plaintiffs who did not purchase them and thus were not harmed by
any alleged mislabeling of those products.

For these reasons, Judge Ellis granted Fannie May's motion to
dismiss the complaint without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/zb1yl7 from Leagle.com.

Clarisha Benson & Lorenzo Smith, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by James
X. Bormes -- info@bormeslaw.com -- Law Office of James X. Bormes,
Catherine P. Sons, Law Office of James X. Bormes, P.C. & Kasif
Khowaja -- kasif@khowajalaw.com -- The Khowaja Law, LLC.

Fannie May Confections Brands, Inc., an Illinois corporation,
Defendant, represented by David Joel Chizewer --
david.chizewer@goldbergkohn.com -- Goldberg Kohn Ltd.


FASHION INSTITUTE: Web Site Not Accessible to Deaf, Sullivan Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP SULLIVAN, JR., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FASHION INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02586 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 23, 2018), seeks to put an end to systemic civil rights
violations committed by Defendant against the deaf and hard of
hearing individuals in New York State and across the United
States.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying the deaf and
hard of hearing individuals throughout the United States equal
access to the goods and services Defendant provides to non-
disabled individuals through http://www.fitnyc.edu The Website
provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, and
many academic programs offered by Defendant. Yet, the Website
contains access barriers that make it difficult, if not
impossible, for deaf and hard of hearing individuals to use the
Website.  The access barriers make it impossible for deaf and
hard of hearing users to comprehend the audio portion of videos
that are posted on the Website.

The Plaintiff lives in New York City, and is a deaf and hard of
hearing individual.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

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


FLORIDA BC: "Ward" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
RONALD WARD, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FLORIDA BC HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a
SYNERGY EQUIPMENT, the Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-00459-JA-DCI
(M.D. Fla., March 27, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Synergy provides heavy and compact rental equipment and services
for contractors and developers. Mr. Ward performed work for
Synergy at its facilities in Daytona Beach, Jacksonville and St.
Augustine Florida locations. Mr. Ward worked numerous workweeks
where his hours exceeded 40 but he was not paid time-and-a-half
hour for each overtime hour worked.

Synergy Equipment is a Bobcat dealer of new and used heavy
equipment in Daytona, Fort Myers, Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando,
Palatka, St. Augustine, and Tampa.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott C. Adams, Esq.
          Ryan Labar, Esq.
          LABAR & ADAMS P.A.
          2300 East Concord Street
          Orlando, FL 32803
          E-mail: sadams@labaradams.com
                  rlabar@labaradams.com


FOOT LOCKER: Rosenberg Sues over Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------
BRIAN ROSENBERG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. FOOT LOCKER, INC., RICHARD
A. JOHNSON and LAUREN B. PETERS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-
cv-01782 (E.D.N.Y., March 23, 2018), seeks to recover compensable
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Foot Locker between
August 19, 2016 and August 17, 2017, both dates inclusive. Foot
Locker is a retail footwear company that offers athletics
footwear, apparel, and equipment for men, women, and kids. The
Company serves customers worldwide. As of October 28, 2017, Foot
Locker had 3,349 stores in 23 countries in North America, Europe,
Australia and New Zealand. Founded in 1879, the Company is
headquartered in New York, New York. Foot Locker's securities
trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol
"FL."

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) 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;
(ii) competition with online retailers had increased the pricing
competition Foot Locker faced while concomitantly lowering demand
at its stores; and (iii) as a result, Defendants' statements
about Foot Locker's business, operations and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis
at all relevant times.

On May 19, 2017, Foot Locker issued a press release entitled
"Foot Locker, Inc. Reports 2017 First Quarter Results,"
announcing its first quarter 2017 financial results for the
period ended April 29, 2017. Foot Locker reported that its 1Q17
revenue growth had plummeted, falling to essentially flat. Same
store sales increased only a mere half percent. As a result, Foot
Locker reported that its profits fell during the period to $180
million, or $1.36 per share, below the $1.38 per share the
Company had led investors to expect, and well below the $191
million, or $1.39 per share, the Company had reported for 1Q16.
During the conference call held with investors and analysts that
morning, defendants further disclosed that this trend was not
restricted to the second half of 2016 and 1Q17, but would
continue, and that the Company was then forecasting second
quarter 2017 comparable store sales up only in the low single
digits, with profits relatively flat compared to the 2Q16.
Defendants stated that if sales did not improve, the Company
would be forced to cut costs and inventory in order to make its
2017 financial guidance of a mid-single digit EPS increase.

On this news, Foot Locker's share price fell $11.73, or 16.65%,
to close at $58.72 per share on May 19, 2017.

On August 18, 2017, before the open of trading, Foot Locker
issued a press release entitled "Foot Locker, Inc. Reports 2017
Second Quarter Results," announcing its 2Q17 financial results
for the period ended July 29, 2017. Foot Locker reported that its
2Q17 revenues had now actually declined 4.4% year-over-year,
falling nearly $80 million from $1.78 billion in the 2Q16 to $1.7
billion in the 2Q17. Same store sales fell a full 6%. As a
result, Foot Locker reported that its profits fell during the
period to just $51 million, or $0.39 per share, drastically below
the $0.90 per share the Company had led investors to expect, and
well below the $127 million, or $0.94 per share, the Company had
reported in 2Q16. The Company also stated that it would close
approximately 130 stores, more than the 100 stores it had
previously announced it would close. During the conference call
held with investors and analysts that morning, the Company said
it expected weaker sales for the remainder of FY17, with same
store sales likely to be down between 3% and 4% for 3Q17 and
4Q17. On this news, Foot Locker's share price fell $13.32, or
27.92%, to close at $34.38 per share on August 18, 2017, on
usually high trading volume.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

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


FRED'S INC: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Taylor" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Tiffany Taylor filed an appeal from a court ruling in
her lawsuit titled Tiffany Taylor v. FRED'S, INC., et al., Case
No. 2:17-cv-00495-VEH, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 21, 2018, Judge
Virginia Emerson Hopkins granted in part and otherwise termed as
moot Fred's Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Class
Action Complaint.

Ms. Taylor initiated the purported class action arising under the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 ("FACTA"), an
amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), against
Fred's on March 29, 2017.  On May 24, 2017, Ms. Taylor filed the
FAC.

The appellate case is captioned as Tiffany Taylor v. FRED'S,
INC., et al., Case No. 18-10832, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on or before
April 2, 2018, as to Appellees Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc.
and Fred's, Inc.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant TIFFANY TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Michael C. Bradley, Esq.
          Christopher T. Hellums, Esq.
          Jonathan S. Mann, Esq.
          Austin Brock Whitten, Esq.
          PITTMAN DUTTON & HELLUMS, PC
          2001 Park Place N, Suite 1100
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 322-8880
          E-mail: MikeB@Pittmandutton.com
                  ChrisH@Pittmandutton.com
                  JonM@Pittmandutton.com
                  Austinw@Pittmandutton.com

Defendants-Appellees FRED'S, INC., and FRED'S STORES OF
TENNESSEE, INC., are represented by:

          Donald Keith Andress, Esq.
          Jade Eleanor Sipes, Esq.
          BAKER DONELSON BERMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
          420 N 20th St.
          1400 Wells Fargo Tower
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 250-8314
          E-mail: kandress@bakerdonelson.com
                  jsipes@bakerdonelson.com

               - and -

          Kristine Leporati Roberts, Esq.
          Mary Wu Tullis, Esq.
          BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
          165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 526-2000
          E-mail: klroberts@bakerdonelson.com
                  mtullis@bakerdonelson.com


GENERAL MILLS: Weninger Files Suit Over Illegal Termination
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Weninger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. General Mills Operations, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-00321 (E.D. Wis., March 2, 2018), seeks unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive
relief and/or any such other relief pursuant to the Family and
Medical Leave Act of 1993 and the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

General Mills failed to include non-discretionary forms of
compensation, such as bonuses in determining overtime
compensation due to them during workweeks they worked more than
forty hours, says the complaint.

Defendant is a manufacturer and marketer of branded consumer
foods where Weninger worked at its production facility located at
4625 South 6th Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53221 as a Training
Coordinator. Plaintiff underwent an arthroplasty on his left hand
and wrist. Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment after the
latter took a medical leave. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


GENERAL MOTORS: "Gavaldon" Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled RONALD GAVALDON, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
General Motors Company, General Motors Holdings LLC, and General
Motors LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00211, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Mexico, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan (Detroit) on March 26, 2018. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-10958-MFL to the proceeding. The case
is assigned to 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 Plaintiff is 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


GENERAL MOTORS: "Hill" Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Andrew Hill, Steven Manning, and
Nathan Dodge on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. General Motors Company, General
Motors Holdings LLC, and General Motors LLC, the Defendants, Case
No.1:18-cv-20914, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) on March 26, 2018.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-10955-MFL to
the proceeding.

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


GENERAL MOTORS: "Taylor" Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled William Taylor and Hayes Ellis,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. General Motors Company, General Motors Holdings
LLC, and General Motors LLC, the Defendants, Case No.5:18-cv-
00215, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) on March 26, 2018. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-10961-MFL to the
proceeding.

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]


GEO GROUP: Counterclaims, Affirmative Defenses in "Chen" Narrowed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHAO CHEN, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE GEO GROUP, INC., a Florida
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-5769-RJB (W.D. Wash.),
Judge Robert J. Bryan of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Tacoma, granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss or Strike Defendant's
Counterclaims and Affirmative Defenses.

The case arises out of the allegation that the Defendant failed
to compensate the Plaintiff and a proposed class of immigration
detainees commensurate with the Washington Minimum Wage Act.  The
Defendant's Answer alleges two counterclaims, both of which the
Plaintiff seeks to strike under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) or dismiss
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).  The Defendant's Answer raises 14
affirmative defenses, all but four of which the Plaintiff seeks
to strike.

Before the Court is the Chen's Motion to Dismiss or Strike
Defendant's Counterclaims and Affirmative Defenses.  The
Plaintiff seeks dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim.  The Plaintiff also moves to strike
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).

The Plaintiff moves under Rule 12(f) to strike the following
affirmative defenses: 8.1 (failure to state a claim), 8.2
(statute of limitations), 8.4 (laches), 8.5 (waiver), 8.8
(ripeness), 8.9 (justiciability), 8.10 (unclean hands), 8.11
(exhaustion of administrative remedies), 8.12 (impropriety of
class certification), 8.13 (attorney's fees/costs).

The Court has considered the Motion, Defendant The Geo Group,
Inc.'s Response, the Plaintiff's Reply, the Defendant's Answer,
and the remainder of the file.

Judge Bryan granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's
Motion to Dismiss or Strike Defendant's Counterclaims and
Affirmative Defenses as follows:

      a. Counterclaims: (i) Unjust Enrichment - The motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim denied; and (ii)
Counterclaims for declaratory and injunctive relief: The motion
to strike is denied without prejudice, except relief requested
under the FLSA, which is stricken.

      b. Affirmative Defenses: (i) the motion is granted as to
Affirmative Defenses 8.1 (failure to state a claim), 8.4
(laches), 8.5 (waiver), 8.11 (exhaustion of administrative
remedies), 8.12 (impropriety of class certification), 8.13
(attorney's fees/costs), which are stricken; (ii) the motion is
denied without prejduice as to Affirmative Defenses 8.2 (statute
of limitations), 8.8 (ripeness), 8.9 (justiciability), 8.10
(unclean hands); and the Judge made no finding as to Affirmative
Defenses 8.3 (preemption), 8.6 (joinder of DHS/ICE), 8.7 (no
legal right to work), and 8.14 (offset).

Judge Bryan finds, among other things, that as a practical
matter, the counterclaim of unjust enrichment overlaps
substantially with Affirmative Defense 8.14 (offset).  The
counterclaim for Unjust Enrichment may be flawed, but the issue
raised by the Plaintiff is whether Defendant has stated a claim
upon which relief can be granted.  The Defendant has done so.

He also finds that under the assumption that the Plaintiff is an
employee, Washington law precludes the Plaintiff from waiving his
right to the prevailing minimum wage.  Alternatively, under the
assumption that the Plaintiff was not an employee, the Plaintiff
would not be entitled to lost wages under the Washington Minimum
Wage Act, and waiver would be a nonissue.  Under either scenario,
the merits of waiver by the Plaintiff would not be reached.  The
affirmative defense of waiver is therefore an insufficient
defense.

He further finds that there is no showing as a matter of law
that, under either state or federal law, the Plaintiff needed to
exhaust administrative remedies precedent to bringing a
Washington Minimum Wage Act claim.  The defense is insufficient.

Judge Bryan directed the Clerk to send uncertified copies of the
Order to all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se
at said party's last known address.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/ETe0jG from Leagle.com.

Chao Chen, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Berger  --
berger@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Devin T.
Theriot-Orr -- devin@sunbird.law.com -- SUNBIRD LAW PLLC, Jamal
N. Whitehead -- whitehead@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK &
BENDER, Lindsay Halm -- halm@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK &
BENDER & R. Andrew Free -- andrew@immigrantcivilrights.com -- LAW
OFFICE OF R. ANDREW FREE, pro hac vice.

The GEO Group Inc, a Florida corporation, Defendant, represented
by Charles A. Deacon -- charlie.deacon@nortonrosefulbright.com --
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP, pro hac vice, Joan K. Mell --
info@3brancheslaw.com -- III BRANCHES LAW PLLC & Mark Emery --
mark.emery@nortonrosefulbright.com -- NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US
LLP, pro hac vice.

The GEO Group Inc, a Florida corporation, Counter Claimant,
represented by Charles A. Deacon, NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP,
Joan K. Mell, III BRANCHES LAW PLLC & Mark Emery, NORTON ROSE
FULBRIGHT US LLP.

Chao Chen, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Counter Defendant, represented by Adam J. Berger ,
SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Devin T. Theriot-Orr , SUNBIRD LAW
PLLC, Jamal N. Whitehead , SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Lindsay
Halm , SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER & R. Andrew Free , LAW OFFICE
OF R. ANDREW FREE.


HARBOR CARE: "Adolphe" Suit Brought Before New York Supreme Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Fridane Adolphe, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated who were employed by Harbor
Care, LLC, along with other entities affiliated or controlled by
Harbor Care, LLC, Plaintiff v. Harbor Care, LLC and and/or any
other related entities, Defendant, Case No. 506822/2018 was
brought before the New York Supreme Court on April 5, 2018.

Harbor Care LLC was founded in 1998. The company's line of
business includes providing inpatient nursing and rehabilitative
services to patients who require continuous health care.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Virginia & Ambinder, LLP
   40 Broad St.
   New York, NY 10004, USA
   Tel: +1 212-943-9080

The Defendant is represented by:

   HODGSON RUSS, LLP
   140 PEARL STREET STE 100
   BUFFALO, NY 14202
   Tel: (716) 856-4000


HARCOURT GROUP: Denial of "Boice" Class Certification Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIC BOICE, et al., Petitioners and Appellants, v.
HARCOURT GROUP, LLC, et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case No.
A146918 (Cal. App.), Judge Peter J. Siggins of the Court of
Appeals of California for the First District, Division Three,
affirmed the trial court's denial of the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

Plaintiffs Eric and Vinetta Boice and Yowie Stromberg sued the
owners and managers of the Harcourt Hotel for unlawfully
preventing them from acquiring rights accorded to long-term
tenants by making them check out before they stayed at the hotel
for 30 days.  The Harcourt Hotel is a 92-unit residential hotel
owned by Harcourt Group, LLC and managed by Sojourn Properties,
Inc.

The Plaintiffs allege the Hotel has a policy of requiring certain
guests to move out before they stay 30 continuous days, most
commonly on the 28th day, to prevent them from acquiring the
status and rights of long-term tenants.  They allege this
practice violates a statutory proscription against requiring an
occupant of a residential hotel to move or to check out and
reregister, before the expiration of 30 days occupancy if a
purpose is to have that occupant maintain transient occupancy
status; and a parallel municipal provision that prohibits
landlords from evicting occupants before 32 continuous days of
tenancy in order to avoid application of the San Francisco Rent
Ordinance.

The Plaintiffs asserted their allegations were supported by guest
registration cards with the notation "must c/o," meaning "must
check out," associated with 170 occupants who stayed at the hotel
for less than 30 continuous days, 110 of whom left after exactly
28 days, and by the Hotel's admission that it allowed such
individuals to reregister at the hotel after a short time.  They
argued that while the Defendants may deny that the purpose was to
have the occupant maintain transient occupancy status, there is a
rebuttable presumption that this was in fact their purpose
because Defendants allowed the occupants to reregister after that
occupant was required to leave.  Also, where the vast majority of
Proposed Class members were all forced to check out after exactly
28 days, Defendants cannot deny its purpose was to prevent those
occupants from accruing tenants' rights.

The Plaintiffs' moving papers in support of class certification
defined the proposed class as all occupants of the Harcourt Hotel
who were required to move out or check out and reregister before
30 consecutive days of occupancy since Dec. 1, 2008.  They
estimated a class size of at least 200 based on the 170 occupants
for whom they had identified registration cards with the "must
c/o" notation, out of the approximately 3,000 such cards dating
from 2010 provided in discovery.  The complaint sought actual
damages that resulted from moving as well as statutory damages
under the Civil Code and the Rent Ordinance, but at the class
certification hearing the Plaintiffs abandoned the actual damages
claim for all class members except the named Plaintiffs.

In opposition to the class certification, the Defendants
explained that occupants generally stay at the Hotel anywhere
from one week to several years.  The Hotel normally rents rooms
on a weekly basis.  If guests wish to stay more than four weeks
and become long-term tenants under the Rent Ordinance the Hotel
requires them to submit a rental application so it can assess
their credit, employment status and history of past evictions.
The Hotel considers these factors in deciding whether to accept
short-term occupants as long-term tenants; a previous eviction or
unemployment are usual reasons for an applicant's rejection.  At
the time of the litigation, 75 of the Hotel's 86 rooms had been
occupied by the same tenant for several months and 60 had been
occupied by the same tenant for over a year.

The court denied the motion for class certification.  It ruled
that individual issues predominate as to the actual damages for
each potential class member and the reasons why each potential
class member vacated either one day after moving in or twenty
eight days later.  An individual action would be better than a
class action given these proof issues and an individual has
incentive to bring his/her own claim given the ability to recover
statutory and actual damages.  The court further found that two
of the named Plaintiffs were not proper class representatives and
that the class was overbroad because it dated back to Dec. 1,
2008, past the three-year statute of limitations.  The Plaintiffs
filed their timely appeal.

In sum, Judge Siggins finds that the record demonstrated that the
potential class members would be required to individually prove
liability, i.e., that the Hotel forced each of them to move
within less than 30 days to prevent them from becoming long-term
tenants.  Each member, unless the Court approved the counsel's
last-ditch bid to abandon their individual claims for actual
damages, would also have to prove their damages.  Accordingly,
the community of interest requirement was not satisfied.

As the trail court properly denied the motion for class
certification on that basis, the Judge says he needs not address
its additional findings that the class was overbroad and two
named Plaintiffs were not proper class representatives.  The
Judge affirmed the order denying class certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/rSSgtj from Leagle.com.


HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS: Vega Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRO VEGA, on his own behalf and those similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a Georgia
Domestic Profit Corporation; WORLDMANUFACTURE LLC, a Georgia
Domestic Limited Liability Company; TOM HOLDA L.L.C., a Georgia
Domestic Limited Liability Company; CATALYST NUTRACEUTICALS, LLC,
a Georgia Domestic Limited Liability Company; MANUFACTURELLC, a
Georgia Domestic Limited Liability Company; and TOM HOLDA,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01258-SCJ (N.D.
Ga., March 26, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was a non-exempt
employee for Defendants, and was paid his regular rate for all
hours worked, including hours worked in excess of 40 hours each
week. Throughout their employment, Defendant deprived Plaintiff
and all similarly situated hourly employees of proper overtime
compensation for his hours worked in excess of 40 hours each week

Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals was founded in 1994 and is a Georgia
corporation based just north of Atlanta, in the city of Norcross.
The company manufactures and sells high-quality herbal products
sold by the large, major retailers across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Telephone: (954) WORKERS
          Facsimile: (954) 3273013
          E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com


HOUSTON WASTE: "Uribe" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Javier Uribe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Houston Waste Solutions, LLC, Case No. 4:18-cv-00726
(S.D. Tex., March 7, 2018), seeks to recover compensation,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Javier Uribe was employed by HWS as a waste disposal
driver from approximately March 2016 until October 2017.

Defendant Houston Waste Solutions provides roll-off containers in
multiple capacities, as well as compactors and balers for
virtually any waste, refuse, and recycling requirements for the
Greater Houston area. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
      Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
      Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
      Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
      George Schimmel, Esq.
      ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 452-1279
      Fax: (361) 452-1284
      E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
              austin@a2xlaw.com
              lauren@a2xlaw.com
              cgordon@a2xlaw.com
              carter@a2xlaw.com
              geordie@a2xlaw.com


HSB LLC: Faces "Logan" Suit in D. Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HSB LLC. The case
is styled as Deborah Logan, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HSB LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-10658-LTS (D. Mass., April 5, 2018).

Henry S. Branscome, LLC provides services for utilities, site
work or environmental projects. It is a Class A General
Contractor with VDOT, SWAM, Newport News Waterworks, Erosion and
Sediment Control, Land Disturber and Class 3 Stream Restoration
certifications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group PLLC
   30 E39th Street, 2nd Flr.
   New York, NY 10016-2555
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


IDE PONTIAC: Auto Salesmen Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Stanwix and Jon Pensgen, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated Plaintiffs v. Ide Pontiac, Inc., Ide
Auto, Inc. and Ide Volkswagen, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-
06182 (W.D. N.Y., March 2, 2018), seeks an award of unpaid hourly
wages, statutory damages for failure to provide notices required
by New York Labor Law, liquidated damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law, reasonable attorneys' fees,
expenses, expert fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and
such other and further relief.

Defendants are in the business of selling automobiles, servicing
and repairing automobiles, and selling automotive parts and
accessories. Plaintiffs worked as automotive parts salespersons
who claim to have worked in excess of forty hours every workweek
without overtime. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Robert Mullin, Esq.
       FERR & MULLIN, P.C.
       7635 Main St. Fishers
       P.O. Box 440
       Fishers, NY 14453
       Tel: (585) 869-0210
       Fax: (585) 869-0223


IL MULINO USA: Olsen Claims Website Not Blind-Friendly
------------------------------------------------------
Thomas J. Olsen, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Il Mulino USA, LLC, Case No.
18-cv-01931, (S.D. N.Y., March 3, 2018), seeks preliminary and
permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive
damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs
and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys'
and expert fees and such other and further relief under the
Americans With Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law
and New York City Human Rights Law.

Il Mulino owns and operates Italian restaurants throughout the
United States, including locations at 86 W. Third Street, New
York, New York and 37 E. 60th Street, New York New York.

The complaint says Il Mulino's website offers features to the
public that should allow all consumers to access the facilities
and services that it offers about its restaurants. Olsen is
legally blind and claims that Defendant's website,
www.ilmulino.com cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
      Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
      LIPSKY LOWE LLP
      630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
      New York, NY 10017-6705
      Tel: (212) 392-4772
      Fax: (212) 444-1030
      Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
             chris@lipskylowe.com


JARROW FORMULAS: "Salganik" Suit Alleges Fraud
----------------------------------------------
Alexander Salganik, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. Jarrow Formulas, Inc., Case No.
2018-CH-03050 (Ill. Cir., March 7, 2018), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Illinois Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Jarrow expressly states on the
product's packaging the the amount of probiotics is "minimum 3.4
billion viable cells at the time of consumption" per 1 capsule.
In reality, the product, when tested within a month from the
purchase contained 0.23 bin colony forming units of probiotics
per capsule/serving -- this is more than fourteen times less than
Jarrow promises and warranties to consumers on the packaging of
its product, notes the complaint.

Plaintiff Alexander Salganik is a resident of Illinois and
purchased Jarro-Dolphilus.

Defendant Jarrow distributes and, on information and belief,
manufactures its "Jarro-Dophilus+Fos" product in Illinois and
specifically in Cook County. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yevgeniy "Eugene" I. Turin, Sr., Esq.
      102 N. Milwaukee, S 312
      Deerfield, IL 60015
      Tel: (847) 656-3323
      E-mail: attomey@eugeneturinlaw.com


JOHN DOES: Barry Sues over Settlement Price of VIX Derivatives
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN BARRY, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOES, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-02615 (S.D.N.Y., March 23, 2018), seeks to recover
damages caused from Defendants' scheme to manipulate the final
settlement price of futures and options contracts linked to the
Chicago Board Options Exchange ("CBOE") Volatility Index,
products traded on the CBOE, and the CBOE Futures Exchange, an
affiliate of the CBOE, in violation to the Sherman Act, the
Commodity Exchange Act, and Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

VIX purports to measure expected 30-day market volatility based
on the real-time pricing of S&P 500 ("SPX") Index option
contracts listed for trading on the CBOE. VIX is calculated by
using the pricing for SPX Options with Friday expiration dates
that are more than 23 days, but less than 37 days, from the
current date. The resulting VIX price is published every 15
seconds during regular trading hours (8:30 a.m. to 3:15 p.m.
Central time) and extended trading hours (2:00 a.m. to 8:15 a.m.
Central time) for SPX Options on the CBOE. Investors cannot
invest directly in the VIX because it is an index based on an
everchanging group of SPX Options. However, CBOE Global Markets,
Inc. has designed several derivative instruments related to VIX,
including VIX-linked futures, traded on the CFE, and VIX-linked
options, traded on the CBOE. During the timeframe of this
Complaint, trading activity in VIX Futures and VIX Options
increased exponentially.

Specifically, the average daily contract volume for VIX Futures
rose from 1,731 contracts in 2006 to 300,568 contracts in 2017
(through August 24, 2017), a 17,263% increase, and the average
daily contract volume of VIX Options rose from 23,491 in 2006 to
687,181 in 2017 (through July 2017), a 23,491% increase. In
addition to the VIX Futures and VIX Options, financial
institutions, including Credit Suisse AG, Barclays Bank, and
ProShares, have issued various exchange-traded funds and
exchange-traded notes linked to the pricing of VIX Futures.

Billions of dollars in these VIX-Linked ETFs and ETNs are traded
daily, providing investors with easier access to financial
instruments related to expected market volatility and allowing
investors to bet that the prices of VIX Futures will either
increase or decrease. There are presently at least 18 active VIX
ETFs and ETNs (and at least an additional 19 that have closed),
which have a combined current market cap of about $3.4 billion.

The settlement values of these VIX Futures, VIX Options, VIX-
Linked ETFs and ETNs are not calculated directly from VIX, but
rather are determined once a month by an auction during which
traders submit offers and bids for SPX put and call options. The
auction matches those bids and offers to determine clearing
prices and then those clearing prices are used to calculate the
final settlement price. The final settlement price value is
calculated using a modified VIX calculation that only takes into
consideration out-of-the money SPX Options, unlike the ordinary
VIX calculation which includes both OTM and in-the-money SPX
Options.

During the period January 1, 2009 to the present, the Defendants
conspired to make artificial the monthly final settlement price
of expiring VIX contracts by placing manipulative SPX Options
orders. It is implausible that one Defendant was capable of
manipulating the prices of VIX Derivatives unilaterally as
ordinary market forces would counteract its efforts.

As a result of Defendants' scheme to manipulate prices of the VIX
Derivatives, Defendants caused, and continue to cause, injury to
investors who transacted in VIX Derivatives at artificial prices
during the Class Period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hollis Salzman, Esq.
          Kellie Lerner, Esq.
          Nahid A. Shaikh, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 980 7400
          Facsimile: (212) 980 7499
          E-mail: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com
                  KLerner@RobinsKaplan.com
                  NShaikh@RobinsKaplan.com

               - and -

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (866) 767 3653
          Facsimile: (212) 202 3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Order re Notice of Pendency Amendment Entered
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re JUNO THERAPEUTICS, INC., Case No. C16-1069 RSM
(W.D. Wash.), Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, has
entered an order regarding the amendment to the Notice of
Pendency of Class Action.

On Dec. 21, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for an
Order establishing a program and schedule for notice to the class
of pending class action.  The Notice of Pendency of Class Action
required any class member seeking exclusion to timely mail a
request for exclusion no later than March 19, 2018.

On Dec. 22, 2017, the Court entered an Order granting the
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for an Order establishing a program
and schedule for notice to the class of pending class action, and
approved the Notice of Pendency of Class Action and the Summary
Notice.  The parties have been working with the claims
administrator to identify a complete list of shareholders
identified on the books and records of the Company.

The average time required to allow a shareholder to request
exclusion is typically between 45 and 60 days from the date the
notice is mailed.  Some shareholders may not have sufficient time
to request exclusion from the deadline given that the current
deadline is on March 19, 2018.

Therefore, the parties stipulates and agreed, and Judge Martinez
approved that (i) the Plaintiffs will initiate mailing of the
notice of pendency of class action within 10 business days of the
Court's Order approving the stipulation; (ii) the Plaintiffs will
modify the exclusion deadline in the notice of pendency of class
action, and the new exclusion deadline will be within 60 days of
the Notice Date; and (iii) the parties request that the Court
enter the order proposed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/buKjyj from Leagle.com.

Man Nguyen, Movant, represented by Clifford A. Cantor.

Gilbert Hoang Nguyen, Movant, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman
--  jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- POMERANATZ LLP, pro hac vice,
Joseph Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP,
pro hac vice, Leigh Handelman Smollar -- lsmollar@pomlaw.com --
POMERANTZ LLP, pro hac vice, Omar Jafri -- ojafri@pomlaw.com --
POMERANTZ LLP, pro hac vice & Clifford A. Cantor.

Goce Veljanoski, Plaintiff, represented by Janissa Ann Strabuk --
jstrabuk@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, Jeffrey C. Block
-- jeff@blockesq.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP, pro hac vice, Joel
Fleming -- joel@blockesq.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP, pro hac vice
& Kim D. Stephens -- kstephens@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN
STEPHENS.

Liberata Paradisco, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Duncan Calvert
Turner -- duncanturner@badgleymullins.com -- BADGLEY MULLINS
TURNER PLLC.

Gilbert Hoang Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick V.
Dahlstrom -pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP, pro hac vice &
Clifford A. Cantor, 627 208th Ave. SE. Sammamish, WA 98074-7033
Susan Tan, Plaintiff, Pro se.

Juno Therapeutics Inc & Hans E Bishop, individually and on behalf
of the marital community, Defendants, represented by Daniel
Slifkin -- dslifkin@cravath.com -- CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE, pro
hac vice, Drew Liming -- dliming@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI
GOODRICH & ROSATI, pro hac vice, Ignacio E. Salceda --
Isalcedo@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, pro hac
vice, Joni Ostler -- jostler@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH
& ROSATI, pro hac vice, Karin A. DeMasi -- kdemasi@cravath.com --
CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE, pro hac vice, Lauren M. Rosenberg --
lrosenberg@cravath.com -- CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE, pro hac vice,
Morgan J. Cohen, CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE, pro hac vice, Nina F.
Locker -- NLocker@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI,
pro hac vice & Gregory Lewis Watts -- Gwatts@wsgr.com -- WILSON
SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI.

Steven D. Harr & Mark J. Gilbert, Defendants, represented by
Daniel Slifkin, CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE, pro hac vice, Karin A.
DeMasi, CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE, pro hac vice, Lauren M.
Rosenberg, CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE, pro hac vice, Morgan J. Cohen,
CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE, pro hac vice & Joni Ostler, WILSON
SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI.


LAS VEGAS, NV: Moore May Proceed in Forma Pauperis
--------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL T. MOORE, Plaintiff, v. LAS VEGAS
METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-02022-RFB-NJK (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted the
Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915, Moore is proceeding in the
action pro se and has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis.  He also submitted a
complaint, and a motion to amend his complaint.  Finally, the
Plaintiff has submitted a motion for jury demand.

The Plaintiff attempts to file his complaint as a class action,
with him representing the class pro se.  The Plaintiff cannot,
however, proceed with a class action as a pro se litigant.

Magistrate Judge Koppe understands the basic gist of the
Plaintiff's grievance appears to be related to public performers
and their treatment.  At the same time, however, the Plaintiff's
16-page complaint is not "short and plain," and fails to set
forth any claim or how the allegations in the complaint support
any claim against any Defendant.  Quite simply, she says the
complaint fails to identify how the factual allegations made
state a claim for any particular cause of action, and therefore
fails to satisfy Rule 8.  Further, the Plaintiff's motion to
amend the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 and the Court's
Local Rules requiring that an amended complaint be complete in
itself.

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge granted the bequests by the
Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis.  The Plaintiff will not
be required to pay the filing fee of $400.  She permitted the
Plaintiff to maintain the action to conclusion without the
necessity of prepayment of any additional fees or costs or the
giving of a security therefor.  The Order granting leave to
proceed in forma pauperis will not extend to the issuance and/or
service of subpoenas at government expense.

Magistrate Judge Koppe dismissed the Complaint with leave to
amend, and denied as moot the motion to amend the complaint and
the motion for jury demand.  The Plaintiff will have until March
29, 2018, to file an Amended Complaint, if the noted deficiencies
can be corrected.  The Plaintiff may demand a jury in his amended
complaint, if he so chooses.

If the Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, he is informed
that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading (i.e., the
original Complaint) in order to make the Amended Complaint
complete.  This is because, as a general rule, an Amended
Complaint supersedes the original Complaint.  Therefore, in an
Amended Complaint, as in an original Complaint, each claim and
the involvement of each Defendant must be sufficiently alleged.
Failure to comply with this order will result in the recommended
dismissal of the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/ga9sWU from Leagle.com.

Michael T. Moore, Plaintiff, pro se.


LEE CONSTRUCTION: "Tyler" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
TERRI TYLER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. LEE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
COMPANY d/b/a LMC CORPORATION AND JERRY R. LEE, the Defendants,
Case No. 5:18-cv-00273 (E.D. Tex., March 23, 2018), seeks to
recover overtime compensation and all other available remedies
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Defendants were formerly the employers, co-employers and/or
joint employers of Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was hired by LMC as
an independent contractor, despite the fact that she worked full
time for LMC, and virtually every aspect of her job was
controlled by Defendants. The Defendants misclassified Plaintiff
and their other co-workers as independent contractors to avoid
paying employment taxes, workers' compensation insurance,
benefits and overtime. The Plaintiff worked a significant amount
of overtime each week but was not paid for it. Plaintiff and
other workers for Defendants were paid on an hourly basis, and
were paid the same hourly rate for each hour worked, and thus
never received overtime pay.

For at least three years prior to the filing of this Complaint,
the Defendants willfully committed widespread violations of the
FLSA by failing to pay these employees for overtime hours worked
in excess of forty hours per week at a rate of one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay.

Lee Construction provides construction and maintenance services,
such as new construction, maintenance, masonry, remodeling,
excavation, concrete work, and underground utilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LEE LAW: Shanahan Balks at Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY J. SHANAHAN, JR., MOLLI M. LARSEN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
LEE LAW OFFICES, DENNIS P. LEE, and JIMMY NEWTON, the Defendants,
Case No. 8:18-cv-00129 (D. Neb., March 23, 2018), seeks
declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, actual and statutory
damages against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Nebraska Consumer Protection
Act.

Plaintiffs' claims arise from Defendants' routine practices of
sending initial collection letters: (1) demanding payment "within
30 days of the date of this letter" and/or (2) "In the event that
suit is filed: In order to prevent the county sheriff from
serving you with a summons at your residence or place of
business, you may opt to complete the enclosed Voluntary
Appearance." Defendants' actions violate 15 U.S.C. section 1692e,
section 1692e(2)(A), section 1692e(3), Sec. 1692e(10), and
section 1692g(a).[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class:

          William L. Reinbrecht, Esq.
          Pamela A. Car, Esq.
          CAR & REINBRECHT, P.C., LLO
          2120 South 72nd St., Suite 1125
          Omaha, NE 68124
          Telephone: (402) 391 8484
          Facsimile: (402) 391 1103
          E-mail: billr205@gmail.com

               - and -

          O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
          HORWITZ, HORWITZ & ASSOCIATES
          25 East Washington Street, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372 8822
          Facsimile: (312) 372 1673
          E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com


LESSORS INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Harvey Says
----------------------------------------------------
DARRELL HARVEY, as an individual and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LESSORS, INC., a Minnesota
corporation; LESSORS TRANSPORTATION, INC., a Minnesota
corporation; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC699625 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 26, 2018), seeks to
recover minimum wages under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, jointly and severally have
acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and
conscious disregard to the rights of all employees in their
failure to provide all meal and rest breaks in compliance with
California law, failure to pay all minimum wages owed for all
hours worked, failure to reimburse for all work-related expenses,
failure to pay wages without deduction, and failure to provide
proper itemized wage statements in violation of the California
Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Orders.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter M. Hart, Esq.
          Peter Choi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART
          12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 725
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207 2277
          Facsimile: (509) 561 6441
          E-mail: Hartpeter@msn.com
                  pchoi.lopH@gmail.com


MADISON COS: Ct. Moots Pipeline Productions' Protective Order Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PIPELINE PRODUCTIONS, INC., BACKWOOD ENTERPRISES,
LLC, OK PRODUCTIONS, INC., and BRETTMOSIMAN, Plaintiffs, v. THE
MADISON COMPANIES, LLC, and HORSEPOWER ENTERTAINMENT, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 15-4890-KHV (D. Kan.), Magistrate Judge K.
Gary Sebelius of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas deemed moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order.

The case arises from a failed music concert in Arkansas.  The
Plaintiffs filed the action on May 21, 2015, alleging that the
Defendants agreed to purchase 51% of their "Thunder on the
Mountain" music festival in exchange for $750,000, advancing
$500,000 of operating capital for the festival, and paying
certain operating expenses related to the festival.  They further
allege that the concert had to be cancelled when defendants
reneged on the agreement.  The Plaintiffs have asserted claims of
breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and tortious
interference.  They seek damages resulting from the Defendants'
breach, including money owed to ticketholders.

In 2016, a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas against three of the Plaintiffs
in the case -- Pipeline Productions, Inc.; Backwood Enterprises,
Inc.; and Brett Mosiman -- and the Defendants The Madison
Companies, LLC; and Horsepower Entertainment, LLC.  In this case,
the ticketholders from the Thunder on the Mountain music festival
alleged that the Defendants breached contracts and were unjustly
enriched.  Default judgment was entered against Pipeline,
Backwood and Mosiman.  Madison and Horsepower issued subpoenas
duces tecum to Pipeline's former attorney, Matt Gough; Pipeline's
accountant, Colleen Hodge; Central Bank of Midwest; and Intrust
Bank.

In the instant motion, the Plaintiffs seek a protective order to
stop Madison and Horsepower from serving the subpoenas in the
Arkansas action.  They contend that the Court should not allow
Madison and Horsepower to obtain discovery for the case through
the service of subpoenas in the Arkansas action that are
irrelevant, abusive and overbroad, particularly since the
Plaintiffs cannot defend themselves in that case.

On Feb. 26, 2018, in the Arkansas action, the plaintiffs and
Defendants Madison and Horsepower filed an agreed order of
dismissal.  The joint stipulation dismissed the plaintiffs'
claims against Madison and Horsepower with prejudice.  Due to the
dismissal of Madison and Horsepower in the Arkansas action,
Magistrate Judge Sebelius finds the instant motion moot.
Accordingly, he deemed moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective
Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/a5ekVt from Leagle.com.

Pipeline Productions, Inc., Backwood Enterprises, LLC, OK
Productions, Inc. & Brett Mosiman, Plaintiffs, represented by
Jack D. McInnes, V -- jack@mcinnes-law.com -- McInnes Law LLC.

The Madison Companies, LLC & Horsepower Entertainment, LLC,
Defendants, represented by Benjamin D. Scheibe --
bscheibe@bgrfirm.com --Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Richard B.
Benenson -- rbenenson@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber
Schreck, LLP, pro hac vice, Russell F. Wolpert --
rwolpert@bgrfirm.com -- Browne George Ross LLP, pro hac vice,
Timothy A. Shultz -- tshultz@gseplaw.com -- Goodell, Stratton,
Edmonds & Palmer, LLP & Whitney L. Casement --
wcasement@gseplaw.com -- Goodell, Stratton, Edmonds & Palmer,
LLP.

Bryan Gordon, Defendant, represented by Benjamin D. Scheibe,
Browne George Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Eric M. George, Browne
George Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa M. Brown, Goodell, Stratton,
Edmonds & Palmer, LLP & Russell F. Wolpert, Browne George Ross
LLP, pro hac vice.

The Madison Companies, LLC & Horsepower Entertainment, LLC, Third
Party Plaintiffs, represented by Benjamin D. Scheibe, Browne
George Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher M. Kolkey, Browne
George Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Eric M. George, Browne George Ross
LLP, pro hac vice, Richard B. Benenson, Brownstein Hyatt Farber
Schreck, LLP, pro hac vice, Russell F. Wolpert, Browne George
Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Timothy A. Shultz, Goodell, Stratton,
Edmonds & Palmer, LLP & Whitney L. Casement, Goodell, Stratton,
Edmonds & Palmer, LLP.

The Madison Companies, LLC & Horsepower Entertainment, LLC,
Counter Claimants, represented by Benjamin D. Scheibe, Browne
George Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher M. Kolkey, Browne
George Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Eric M. George, Browne George Ross
LLP, pro hac vice, Richard B. Benenson, Brownstein Hyatt Farber
Schreck, LLP, pro hac vice, Russell F. Wolpert, Browne George
Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Timothy A. Shultz, Goodell, Stratton,
Edmonds & Palmer, LLP & Whitney L. Casement, Goodell, Stratton,
Edmonds & Palmer, LLP.


Backwood Enterprises, LLC, Pipeline Productions, Inc., Brett
Mosiman & OK Productions, Inc., Counter Defendants, represented
by Jack D. McInnes, V, McInnes Law LLC.


MAPCO EXPRESS: "Short" Suit Seeks OT Pay, Damages
-------------------------------------------------
Jeanne Short, Plaintiff, v. Mapco Express, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv-00253, (M.D. Tenn., March 2, 2018), is a collective
action brought on behalf of all persons who worked overtime
without proper compensation and seeks liquidated damages,
interest and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and redress for failure to recognize disability
leaves under the Tennessee Disability Act and the Family and
Medical Leave Act.

Short was employed by Mapco as a store manager. Plaintiff
performed work in excess of forty hours per week on a regular and
repeated basis without compensation. She also claims to have been
terminated due to her medical condition. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Payne Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
RITA PAYNE, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS,
INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
the Defendant, Case No. 37-2018-00015175-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super.
Ct., March 26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Marriott has conducted business by
operating vacation ownership resorts and selling vacation
ownership interests (i.e. timeshares) and related services in San
Diego County and elsewhere within California. The Plaintiff was
employed full time by Defendant as a Sales Executive from August
2017 to February 8 2018. The Plaintiff and each member of the
Class work(ed) in non-exempt, non-managerial positions, such as
Sales Executive positions, however titled, and similar and
incidental positions in California.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant currently employs -- and
during the relevant period has employed -- hundreds of employees
in the State of California in non-exempt positions, such as Sales
Executives and/or other similar positions. The Plaintiff and
other members of the Class are nonexempt employees within the
meaning of the California Labor Code, and the implementing rules
and regulations of the IWC California Wage Orders. During the
relevant period. Plaintiff and members of the Class were required
to work in excess of five hours per day without being provided a
30-minute uninterrupted meal period and in excess of ten hours
per day without being provided a second 30-minute uninterrupted
meal period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387 7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387 6676

               - and -

          Make L. L. Famaes, Esq.
          Christina M. Lucio, Esq.
          Mitchell J. Murray, Esq.
          FARNAES & LUCIO, APC
          2235 Encinitas Blvd., Suite 210
          Encinitas, CA 92024 i
          Telephone: (760) 942 9431
          Facsimile: (760) 452 4421


MDL 2179: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Deep Horizon Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the
district court's dismissal of the case, In Re: Deepwater Horizon.

The appeal emerges from the Deepwater Horizon multi-district
litigation ("MDL 2179").  The Appellants are cooperatives of
fishermen and their members, residing in or doing business in
numerous Mexican States.  They assert that the district court
abused its discretion by forcing them to comply with a pretrial
order -- PTO 60, a case management order.

PTO 60 barred certain remaining Plaintiffs from continuing to
bring multi-plaintiff complaints, including class actions.
Despite the dictate of PTO 60, the Appellants proceeded to file
four putative class actions -- involving nearly 24,000 class
members -- seeking damages.  The district court rejected these
attempts and ordered the Appellants to file single-plaintiff
complaints.  When the Appellants failed to comply -- even after
being given numerous opportunities to do so -- the district court
dismissed their claims with prejudice.

The Appellants then moved for a motion for reconsideration of the
dismissal.  They argued that PTO 60 violated the Supreme Court's
decision in Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins.
Co.  There, the Court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23 entitles a plaintiff whose suit meets the specified criteria
of Rule 23 to pursue his claim as a class action.  According to
the Appellants, Shady Grove gave them the absolute right to file
the class claims.

The Appellees argued that Shady Grove is inapposite; it dealt
with a New York state law that modified Rule 23's application,
and the holding did not suggest that a plaintiff's right to
pursue certification of a class action consistent with Rule 23
somehow shields it from dismissal of its claims on other grounds,
such as failure to comply with pretrial orders.  The district
court agreed with the Appellees and denied the motion "for
essentially the reasons provided by BP."

The Appellate Court reviews the district court's decision for
abuse of discretion.  It concludes that the district court did
not abuse its discretion and, therefore, affirmed the district
court's dismissal.

The Appellate Court finds the Appellant's reliance on Shady Grove
is misplaced because that case involved a diversity class-action
suit filed in federal court that the district court dismissed
because of a New York statute that substantively limited the
availability of the class-action device in those circumstances.
Shady Grove did not, as the Appellees argue, involve the exercise
of a judge's case-management discretion.

Here, PTO 60 is a case-management order that the district court
issued years into a highly complex MDL.  PTO 60 does not impose a
substantive limit on the ability of a plaintiff to pursue a class
action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.  Instead, PTO 60
is a procedural case management order that dictates the continued
availability of the class device in a complex MDL.

The Appellate Court does not read Shady Grove to be so broad as
to restrict a district court's ability to manage its docket by
restricting the continued availability of a multi-plaintiff
device, years into a complex MDL.  Notably, the Appellants fail
to identify a case in which a court has read Shady Grove in that
fashion.  Therefore, it concludes that the district court acted
within its discretion to dismiss the Appellants' claims, and it
affirmed the district court's dismissal.

The appeals case is EDUARDO PINEIRO PEREZ, Individually, doing
business as La Sociedad Cooperativa de Produccion Pesquera La
Rivera De Tampico de Alto S. C. de R.L, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
BP, P.L.C.; BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA,
INCORPORATED; BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED;
TRANSOCEAN, LIMITED; TRANSOCEAN DEEPWATER, INCORPORATED;
TRANSOCEAN HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED; TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPWATER
DRILLING, INCORPORATED; HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES,
INCORPORATED; SPERRY DRILLING SERVICES; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION
COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees. CLAUDIO GONZALEZ DEL ANGEL,
Individually, doing business as Permisionario Claudio Gonzalez
Del Angel, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BP, P.L.C.; BP AMERICA,
INCORPORATED; BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA
PRODUCTION COMPANY; BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED;
TRANSOCEAN, LIMITED; TRANSOCEAN HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED;
TRANSOCEAN DEEPWATER, INCORPORATED; TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPWATER
DRILLING, INCORPORATED; HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES,
INCORPORATED; SPERRY DRILLING SERVICES, Defendants-Appellees.
FELIPE BARRIOS ANZURES, Individually, doing business as Compro
Venta de Felipe Barrios, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BP, P.L.C.; BP
AMERICA, INCORPORATED; BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INCORPORATED;
BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY; BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INCORPORATED; TRANSOCEAN, LIMITED; TRANSOCEAN HOLDINGS,
INCORPORATED; TRANSOCEAN DEEPWATER, INCORPORATED; TRANSOCEAN
OFFSHORE DEEPWATER DRILLING, INCORPORATED; HALLIBURTON ENERGY
SERVICES, INCORPORATED; SPERRY DRILLING SERVICES, Defendants-
Appellees. ARTEMIO ARAN BLANCO, doing business as Grupo
Pescadores Libres Artemio Aran, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BP,
P.L.C.; BP AMERICA, INCORPORATED; BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA,
INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY; BP EXPLORATION &
PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; TRANSOCEAN, LIMITED; TRANSOCEAN
HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED; TRANSOCEAN DEEPWATER, INCORPORATED;
TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPWATER DRILLING, INCORPORATED; HALLIBURTON
ENERGY SERVICES, INCORPORATED; SPERRY DRILLING SERVICES,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-30475 (5th Cir.).

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/RLeuG9 from Leagle.com.

Don Keller Haycraft -- dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- Robert Alan York
-- ayork@reedsmith.com -- Kerry J. Miller --
kjmiller@bakerdonelson.com -- Richard Cartier Godfrey --
richard.godfrey@kirkland.com -- Devin Chase Reid --
dcreid@liskow.com -- Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Sr. --
jeffrey.clark@kirkland.com -- Kristopher Scott Ritter --
kristopher.ritter@kirkland.com -- Aaron Lloyd Nielson --
aaron.nielson@kirkland.com -- Martin R. Martos, II --
martin.martos@kirkland.com -- William H. Burgess --
william.burgess@kirkland.com -- Matthew Regan --
matthew.regan@kirkland.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Mitchell A. Toups -- matoups@wgttlaw.com -- and Vincent Lee
Marable, III -- info@paulwebbpc.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.


MDL 2613: Court Junks "Dorsey" Suit Over Excessive Overdraft Fee
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks of the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina, Greenville Division, granted the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the case, IN RE: TD BANK, N.A.
DEBIT CARD OVERDRAFT FEE LITIGATION. MDL No. 2613. This order
relates only to: Dorsey v. TD Bank, N.A. D.N.J. Case No. 1:17-cv-
00074 D.S.C. Case No. 6:17-cv-01432, Civil Action No. 6:15-MN-
2613-BHH (D. S.C.).

In the litigation, a collective group of the Plaintiffs challenge
the manner in which the Defendant assessed overdraft fees, posted
debit transactions, and assessed "sustained" overdraft fees.
Eight putative class actions were filed against TD in various
federal district courts.

On April 2, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
centralized these actions and assigned them to the Court.  On
April 15, 2015, the MDL Panel transferred an additional putative
class action, Robinson v. TD Bank, N.A., S.D. Fla. C.A. No. 15-
cv-60469 ("Robinson I"), to this Court for inclusion in this
litigation, MDL 2613.  The MDL Panel also conditionally
transferred a second additional suit, Robinson v. TD Bank, N.A.,
S.D. Fla. C.A. No. 15-cv-60476 ("Robinson II"), which transfer
Plaintiff Robinson opposed at that time.  The sole theory in
Robinson II involved a usury claim under the National Bank Act
("NBA").  On Aug. 7, 2015, the MDL Panel resolved Plaintiff
Robinson's motion to vacate the Panel's conditional transfer of
Robinson II, and transferred the case to the Court for inclusion
within MDL 2613.

The Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
("CAC") was filed on June 19, 2015.  Though it was filed prior to
final transfer of Robinson II into the litigation, the CAC
asserted the same usury claim under the NBA that Robinson II
asserted, on behalf of the same putative nationwide class of TD
Bank customers.

TD Bank filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' CAC for failure to
state a claim on Aug. 3, 2015.  After subsequent briefing and a
hearing, the Court issued an Order on Dec. 10, 2015, granting the
Motion to Dismiss in part.  Inter alia, the Court found that TD
Bank's sustained overdraft fee is not "interest" within the
meaning of 12 U.S.C. Section 85 and 12 C.F.R. Section 7.4001.  As
a result, it held that Count VIII of the CAC failed to state a
plausible claim for relief from violation of the NBA's
prohibition on the taking of usurious interest, and dismissed
Count VIII with prejudice.

On Jan. 22, 2016, Plaintiff Robinson filed a Motion to Certify
Order in Multiple Claims Case.  Alternatively, Plaintiff Robinson
sought permission to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1292(b), averring that immediate appellate review was necessary
to resolve controlling issues of law, and resolution of those
issues would significantly advance the resolution of the case as
a whole.  The Court denied Plaintiff Robinson's Motion to Certify
on July 18, 2016.

Plaintiff Robinson filed a Motion for Relief from Order of
Dismissal ("Motion to Reconsider") on Jan. 18, 2017, citing
Farrell v. Bank of Am., N.A., as new authority for her theory
that TD's sustained overdraft fees constitute usurious interest
under the NBA.  The Court denied Plaintiff Robinson's Motion to
Reconsider on Jan. 20, 2017, finding the Farrell decision
unpersuasive to disturb the Court's prior conclusions regarding
the nature of the sustained overdraft fees in question.

On May 31, 2017, the MDL Panel transferred Dorsey v. TD Bank,
N.A., D.N.J. C.A. No. 1:17-cv-00074, into MDL 2613.  The sole
count in the Dorsey Complaint asserts a usury claim materially
identical to the usury claim included as Count VIII of the CAC,
and previously dismissed by the Court.  The substance of the
usury claim alleges: (1) that TD assesses a $20 sustained
overdraft fee if an account is overdrawn and is not brought back
into a positive balance within ten business days, and (2) that
this fee is an interest charge on an extension of credit, which
interest rate exceeds the usury limit under 12 U.S.C. Sections
85-86.

The Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss on July 11, 2017.
Dorsey responded on Aug. 10, 2017, and the Bank replied on Aug.
22, 2017.  Additionally, the Bank filed a notice of supplemental
authority on Nov. 27, 2017, to which Dorsey replied on Nov. 30,
2017.

In summary, Judge Hendricks finds that Plaintiff Dorsey's
reworked arguments are no more persuasive than Plaintiff
Robinson's previous attempts to cram a square peg into the
proverbial round hole.  He finds that the Plaintiff's argument
that the law of the case doctrine only applies in the instance of
an appellate ruling binding a trial court on the same issue in
the same case is unavailing.  It ignores the obvious import of
the Court reaching consistent results on identical issues in
multidistrict litigation, and asks the Court to turn a blind eye
to one of the fundamental purposes of a consolidated proceeding.
He says application of the doctrine by a trial court to its own
interlocutory rulings is discretionary, and the Court exercises
its discretion to reach the only rational conclusion here.
Accordingly, the Dorsey Complaint is subject to dismissal by
application of the law of the case.

The Judge agrees with the majority of federal courts that have
considered these issues and finds that the sustained overdraft
fee is not interest within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. Section 85
and 12 C.F.R. Section 7.4001.  As such, the Dorsey Complaint
fails to state a plausible claim for relief.  But assuming
arguendo that additional services are necessary to justify the
fee as a non-interest charge, the Judge says he needs not become
too imaginative to identify services rendered by the Bank for
which the sustained fee, but not initial overdraft fees, provides
compensation.

For these reasons, Judge Hendricks concludes that the Dorsey
Complaint fails to state a claim, and is therefore dismissed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/SC7EXm from Leagle.com.

SHAINA DORSEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff M. Ostrow --
ostrow@kolawyers.com -- Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg
Gilbert, STEPHEN PATRICK DENITTIS -- sdenittis@denittislaw.com --
DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC, Jonathan M. Streisfeld --
streisfeld@kolawyers.com -- Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg
Gilbert & Robert C. Gilbert -- gilbert@kolawyers.com --
Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert.

TD Bank NA, Defendant, represented by SUSAN M. LEMING --
sleming@brownconnery.com -- BROWN & CONNERY, LLP, Thomas William
McGee, III -- billy.mcgee@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins
Riley and Scarborough & Joshua D. Dunlap --
jdunlap@pierceatwood.com -- Pierce Atwood LLP.


MDL 2741: "Brickey" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Gregory Brickey and Nina Brickey,
the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-00333, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on March 23,
2018. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-
cv-01809-VC to the proceeding.

The Brickey case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re:
Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual
questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup
herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their
decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup
over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege
that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients,
in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA),
renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own.
Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and
regulatory history will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the
actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-
VC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MDL 2741: "Conley" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled James T. Conley and Margaret
Conley, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case
No. 4:18-cv-00322, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on March
23, 2018. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. #:
3:18-cv-01804-VC to the proceeding.

The Conley case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re:
Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual
questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup
herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their
decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup
over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege
that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients,
in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA),
renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own.
Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and
regulatory history will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the
actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-
VC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MDL 2741: "Holstrom" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Beverly Holstrom and Charles
Holstrom, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:18-cv-00336, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on
March 23, 2018. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:18-cv-01810-VC to the proceeding.

The Holstrom case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re:
Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual
questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup
herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their
decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup
over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege
that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients,
in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA),
renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own.
Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and
regulatory history will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the
actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-
VC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MDL 2741: "Hymas" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ricky Hymas and Carol Hymas, the
Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-
00330, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco) on March 23,
2018. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-
cv-01807-VC to the proceeding.

The Hymas case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of
the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions
arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide,
particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-
Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their
decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup
over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege
that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients,
in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA),
renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own.
Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and
regulatory history will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the
actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-
VC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MDL 2741: "Pertuit" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Cliffton Pertuit and Doreen
Pertuit, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case
No. 4:18-cv-00332, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on March
23, 2018. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-01808-VC to the proceeding.

The Pertuit case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re:
Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual
questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup
herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their
decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup
over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege
that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients,
in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA),
renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own.
Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and
regulatory history will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the
actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-
VC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MDL 2741: "Rasey" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Matthew T. Rasey, the Plaintiff,
v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00320, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco) on March 23, 2018. The Northern
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-01803-VC to the
proceeding.

The Rasey case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of
the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions
arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide,
particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-
Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their
decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup
over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege
that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients,
in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA),
renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own.
Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and
regulatory history will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the
actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-
VC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDL 2741: "Schmidt" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Amy Schmidt and Allen L. Schmidt,
the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-
cv-00324, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco) on March 23,
2018. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-
cv-01806-VC to the proceeding.

The Schmidt case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re:
Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual
questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup
herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their
decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup
over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege
that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients,
in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA),
renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own.
Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and
regulatory history will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the
actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-
VC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MDL 2741: "Upshaw" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Marilyn Upshaw and James Upshaw,
the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-
cv-00323, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco) on March 23,
2018. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-
cv-01805-VC to the proceeding.

The Upshaw case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re:
Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual
questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup
herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their
decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup
over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege
that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients,
in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA),
renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own.
Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and
regulatory history will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the
actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-
VC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDL 2804: Suit by Georgia Cities Consolidated
---------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled City of Rome, a municipal
corporation; Floyd County, Georgia; Chattooga County, Georgia;
Whitfield County, Georgia; and City of Cartersville, a municipal
corporation, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. Purdue Pharma L.P.; Purdue Pharma, Inc.; The Purdue Frederick
Company Inc.; TEVA Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.; Cephalon Inc.;
Johnson & Johnson; Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Ortho-Mcneil-
Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., now known as Janssen;
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc., now known as
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; DEPOMED, INC.; Endo Health
Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Allergan PLC, formerly
known as: Actavis plc; Actavis Inc., formerly known as: Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Watson Laboratories Inc.; Actavis LLC
Avis Pharma, Inc., formerly known as: Watson Pharma, Inc.;
Mallinckrodt PLC; Mallinckrodt LLC; AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation; Cardinal Health Inc.; and McKesson, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:18-cv-00052, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on March 23,
2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-op-45282-
DAP to the proceeding.

The City of Rome case is being consolidated with MDL 2804 in re:
NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on December 5, 2017. These cases concern the alleged
improper marketing of and inappropriate distribution of various
prescription opiate medications into cities, states and towns
across the country. Responding plaintiffs' positions on
centralization vary considerably. Plaintiffs in over 40 actions
or potential tag-along actions support centralization. Plaintiffs
in 15 actions or potential tag-along actions oppose
centralization altogether or oppose transfer of their action. In
addition to opposing transfer, the State of West Virginia
suggests that transferring its case be delayed until the Southern
District of West Virginia court decides its motion to remand to
state court. Third party payor plaintiffs in an Eastern District
of Pennsylvania potential tag-along action (Philadelphia Teachers
Health and Welfare Fund) oppose centralization of third
partypayor actions. Western District of Washington plaintiff City
of Everett opposes centralization and, alternatively, requests
exclusion of its case.  The Northern District of Illinois tag-
along plaintiff City of Chicago asks the Panel to defer transfer
of its action until document discovery is completed. Presiding
Judge in the MDL is Sarah S. Vance, United States District Judge.
The lead case is 1:17-md-02804-DAP.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jesse Anderson Davis, Esq.
          Lee B. Carter, Esq.
          Samuel Leslie Lucas, Esq.
          BRINSON ASKEW BERRY SIEGLER RICHARDSON & DAVIS, LLP
          P.O. Box 5007
          615 West First Street
          Rome, GA 30162-5007
          Telephone: (404) 261 6020
          Facsimile: (404) 261 3656
          E-mail: adavis@brinson-askew.com
                  lcarter@brinson-askew.com
                  slucas@brinson-askew.com

               - and -

          John W. Crongeyer, Esq.
          CRONGEYER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          2170 DeFoor Hills Road
          Atlanta, GA 30318
          Telephone: (404) 542 6205
          Facsimile: (404) 872 3745
          E-mail: jwc@birdlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Finnell, III, Esq.
          FINNELL FIRM
          One West Fourth Avenue, Ste. 200
          P.O. Box 63
          Rome, GA 30162-0063
          Telephone: (706) 235 7272
          Facsimile: (706) 235 9461
          E-mail: bob@finnellfirm.com

               - and -

          Robert Harris Smalley, III
          MCCAMY PHILLIPS TUGGLE & FORDHAM
          P.O. Box 1105
          411 West Crawford Street
          Dalton, GA 30722-1105
          Telephone: (706) 278 4499
          Facsimile: (706) 278 5002
          E-mail: rsmalley@mccamylaw.com


MDL 2804: "Salmons" Suit vs Purdue Pharma Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Walter Salmons and Virginia
Salmons, individually and as the next friend or guardian of
minor; and W. D., and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. Purdue Pharma L.P.; Purdue Pharma Inc.; The
Purdue Frederick Company Inc.; McKesson Corporation; Cardinal
Health Inc.; AmerisourceBergen Corporation; Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries Ltd.; TEVA Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.; Cephalon Inc.;
Johnson & Johnson; Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Ortho-Mcneil-
Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., now known as Janssen
Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc., now known as
Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Endo Health Solutions Inc.; Endo
Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Allergan PLC, formerly known as: Actavis
plc; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. now known as Actavis Inc.;
Watson Laboratories Inc.; Actavis LLC; and Actavis Pharma, Inc.,
formerly known as: Watson Pharma, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-00385, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of West Virginia, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on March 23,
2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-op-45268-
DAP to the proceeding.

The Salmons case is being consolidated with MDL 2804 in re:
NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on December 5, 2017. These cases concern the alleged
improper marketing of and inappropriate distribution of various
prescription opiate medications into cities, states and towns
across the country. Responding plaintiffs' positions on
centralization vary considerably. Plaintiffs in over 40 actions
or potential tag-along actions support centralization. Plaintiffs
in 15 actions or potential tag-along actions oppose
centralization altogether or oppose transfer of their action. In
addition to opposing transfer, the State of West Virginia
suggests that transferring its case be delayed until the Southern
District of West Virginia court decides its motion to remand to
state court. Third party payor plaintiffs in an Eastern District
of Pennsylvania potential tag-along action (Philadelphia Teachers
Health and Welfare Fund) oppose centralization of third
partypayor actions. Western District of Washington plaintiff City
of Everett opposes centralization and, alternatively, requests
exclusion of its case. Northern District of Illinois tag-along
plaintiff City of Chicago asks the Panel to defer transfer of its
action until document discovery is completed. Presiding Judge in
the MDL is Sarah S. Vance, United States District Judge. The lead
case is 1:17-md-02804-DAP.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Barry J. Cooper, Jr., Esq.
          Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
          Stephen Wussow, Esq.
          Victor T. Cobb, Esq.
          COOPER LAW FIRM
          1525 Religious Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 399 0009
          Facsimile: (504) 291 1352
          E-mail: bcooper@sch-llc.com
                  cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com
                  swussow@sch-llc.com
                  vcobb@sch-llc.com

               - and -

          David R. Barney , Jr., Esq.
          Kevin W. Thompson, Esq.
          THOMPSON BARNEY
          2030 Kanawha Boulevard E.
          Charleston, WV 25311
          Telephone: (304) 343 4401
          Facsimile: (304) 343 4405
          E-mail: kwthompsonwv@gmail.com

               - and -

          John W. Alderman, III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOHN W. ALDERMAN
          3 Monticello Place
          Charleston, WV 25314
          Telephone: (304) 531 8029
          Facsimile: (877) 350 6643

              - and -

          Susan J. VanZant, Esq.
          P. O. Box 987
          Williamson, WV 25661
          Telephone: (304) 235 4540
          Facsimile: (304) 235 5266
          E-mail: susanvanzant@frontier.com


MERCK & CO: California School Sues over Sale of Zetia Drug
----------------------------------------------------------
SELF-INSURED SCHOOLS OF CALIFORNIA, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.;
MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.; SCHERING-PLOUGH CORP.; SCHERING CORP.;
MSP SINGAPORE CO. LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; GLENMARK
PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.; GLENMARK GENERICS INC., U.S.A., the
Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-00487 (C.D. Cal., March 23, 2018),
is a civil antitrust action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of a
proposed class of end-payors who indirectly purchased,
reimbursed, or otherwise paid for Zetia (or ezetimibe).

Zetia is a blockbuster brand-name drug sold by Merck to treat
patients with high cholesterol. The Plaintiff seeks overcharge
damages and other relief arising out of an unlawful "reverse
payment" agreement that resolved patent infringement litigation
between Merck and Glenmark on the eve of trial. Under the
Agreement, Glenmark agreed not to introduce a generic version of
Zetia for six and a half years. In exchange, Merck agreed not to
introduce its own "authorized" generic during Glenmark's first-
filer 180-day exclusivity period. As a result of the Agreement,
Merck unlawfully prolonged its Zetia monopoly and reaped windfall
profits. Through the no-AG Agreement, Merck shared a portion of
its ill-gotten gains (totaling hundreds of millions of dollars)
with Glenmark.

While Defendants profited handsomely from their Agreement,
consumers and third-party payors paid inflated prices for brand
and generic Zetia. A one-month supply of branded Zetia cost
roughly $300 per month before supply of generic ezetimibe costs
as little as $10, a reduction of nearly 97%. By delaying generic
competition, Defendants' unlawful Agreement has directly caused
Plaintiff and the Class to suffer antitrust injury in the form of
overcharges.

Merck has sold Zetia since receiving FDA approval (and a 5-year
exclusivity period) in 2002. In 2006, Glenmark filed an
Abbreviated New Drug Application to manufacture and sell a
generic version of Zetia. Merck brought a patent infringement
suit against Glenmark. On April 24, 2009, the FDA granted
tentative approval to Glenmark to manufacture and sell a generic
version of Zetia. On May 3, 2010, Par Pharmaceutical Companies,
Inc. announced that its generic division, Par Pharmaceutical, had
entered into an exclusive agreement with Glenmark under which
Par had made a payment to Glenmark for the exclusive right to
market, sell, and distribute a generic version of Zetia in the
United States. Under that agreement, Par would share Zetia
profits with Glenmark. One week later, Glenmark and Merck reached
their settlement agreement to resolve the patent litigation.

Several of the patents Merck listed in the FDA's "Approved Drug
Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations," commonly
known as the "Orange Book," were invalid for multiple reasons,
including obviousness, inherent anticipation, and inequitable
conduct, among other reasons. Merck withheld information from the
Patent Office that would have shown that at least one of these
patents, the RE'721 Patent, was invalid in light of prior art. On
information and belief, Merck acquired and asserted these invalid
and unenforceable patents to unlawfully extend its Zetia monopoly
and to extract concessions from potential generic competitors,
including Glenmark and Par.[BN]

Attorneys for Self-Insured Schools of California:

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Nicomedes S. Herrera, Esq.
          Ryan J. McEwan, Esq.
          Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq.
          V Chai Oliver Prentice
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
          601 California Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 500 6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395 9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  nherrera@saverilawfirm.com
                  rmcewan@saverilawfirm.com
                  kgibboney@saverilawfirm.com
                  vprentice@saverilawfirm.com


MICHAEL FOODS: Silva Files False Labeling Suit in Washington
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Silva, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Michael Foods,
Inc., M.G. Waldbaum Company, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00324,
(W.D. Wash., March 2, 2018), seeks monetary damages, including
but not limited to, compensatory, incidental, and consequential
damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs incurred by
counsel for Plaintiffs in accordance with Washington Consumer
Protection Act.

Michael Foods, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Minnetonka, Minnesota. Its fully owned subsidiary, M.G. Waldbaum
Company, is in the business of production and marketing of shell
eggs to consumers under Willamette Egg Farms and Nest Fresh Egg
Farms via retail stores such as Wal-Mart. Its labels claims that
its laying hens are free range. Consumers typically pay a
significant premium for such eggs, due to the touted improvements
to the welfare of laying hens, which is itself important to
consumers as well as the perceived health benefits from eating
the eggs of better treated hens. However, Plaintiff claims
otherwise and asserts that Michael Foods' hens are confined in
pens. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 920
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Tel: (213) 330-7150
      Email: melaine@hbsslaw.com

             - and -

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Tel: (206) 623-7292
      Email: steve@hbsslaw.com


MICHIGAN: Court Denies Bid to Amend "Rouse" Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the case, ARTHUR J. ROUSE, et. Al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF
MICHIGAN, et. Al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-CV-12276 (E.D.
Mich.), Judge Denise Page Hood of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, (i) denied the
motion to amend the complaint; (ii) mooted the motion to stay the
notice of appeal; and (iii) granted the motion for an enlargement
of time to file a notice of appeal.

Seven incarcerated Plaintiffs filed a proposed class action
complaint and a petition for a writ of mandamus and a writ of
habeas corpus.  The joint petition for writ of habeas corpus was
dismissed without prejudice.  The Court subsequently dismissed
the complaint and the petition for writ of mandamus without
prejudice because they failed to comply with an order to correct
a deficiency in this case.  The Court later denied Plaintiffs
Rouse's and William Merriman's post-judgment motions.

Plaintiff Rouse has now filed a motion to amend the complaint and
a motion to stay the notice of appeal and a request for an
enlargement of time.  He seeks to amend his complaint to add a
retaliation claim.  He also brought a motion to stay the notice
of appeal pending the Court's adjudication of his earlier filed
post-judgment motions.

Judge Hood explains that the Court is without power to grant the
Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint because the Plaintiff's
case was dismissed for want of prosecution based upon his failure
to cure the deficiency.  The Court must first reopen the
Plaintiff's case before he would be permitted to submit an
amended complaint.  Because Plaintiff Rouse does not have a live
case or controversy pending before the Court and has not moved
for relief from judgment, he is unable to amend his complaint.

Regarding Plaintiff Rouse's motion to stay the notice of appeal
pending the Court's adjudication of his earlier filed post-
judgment motions, the Judge explains that the Court already
denied these motions on Dec. 19, 2017.  The request to stay the
notice of appeal is moot.

The Judge says to the extent that Plaintiff Rouse is requesting
an extension of time to file an appeal in the case, such request
is granted.  The Court's order denying the motions for rehearing
was entered on Dec. 19, 2017.  The 30 days time to file an appeal
began to run on that date.  Plaintiff Rouse's request for an
extension of time to file an appeal is timely under Fed. R. App.
P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i).  The Plaintiff Rouse is only allowed 14 days
from the entry of the Order to file a notice of appeal.

For these reasons, Judge Hood (i) denied the motion to amend the
complaint; (ii) mooted the motion to stay the notice of appeal;
and (iii) granted the motion for an enlargement of time to file a
notice of appeal.  Plaintiff Rouse must file a notice of appeal
no later than 14 days from the entry of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/KZk0hh from Leagle.com.

Arthur Rouse, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Lance Goldman, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Chris Harner, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

William Merriman, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Cedric Simpson, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Frank Doyle, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Robert Wilburn, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

John Does, Plaintiff, represented by Pro Se.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Robbins Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS ROBBINS, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00654-RPC (M.D. Pa., March 23,
2018), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendant's violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, as a result of an initial debt
collection letter to a consumer in Pennsylvania that would lead
the least sophisticated consumer to reasonably believe that he
could effectively dispute the validity of debt by making a
telephone call is deceptive and thus violates FDCPA.

Midland Credit, a licensed debt collector, assists customers in
resolving past-due financial obligations through various
education and payment plans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Daniel G. Ruggiero, Esq.
          275 Grove Street Suite 2-400
          Newton, MA 02466
          Telephone: (339) 237 0343
          Facsimile: (339) 707 2808
          E-mail: druggieroesq@hotmail.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: Can Compel Arbitration in "Oyola" FDCA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ABIGAIL OYOLA, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC,
Defendant, C.A. No. 17-cv-40040-TSH (D. Mass.), Judge Timothy S.
Hillman of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted the Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration, dismiss the case, and strike class allegations.

The Plaintiff brought the action, on behalf of herself, and all
others similarly situated, against the Defendant after the
Defendant purchased an account she opened with Credit One Bank in
September 2014.  She seeks damages for the Defendant's unlawful
debt collection in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, the Massachusetts Debt Collections Practices Act,
and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.

On Sept. 4, 2014, the Plaintiff opened a Credit One credit card
account.  The Vice President of Credit One and an authorized
representative of MHC Receivables, LLC ("MHC"), and FNBM, LLC
("FNBM"), Vicky Scott, states that after an account holder opens
an account, Credit One mails their credit card, enclosed with
Credit One's Visa/Mastercard Cardhoolder Agreement, Disclosure
Statement and Arbitration Agreement.  The Plaintiff disputes ever
receiving the Cardholder Agreement but does not dispute
activating the Account or using her credit card.  There is no
credit card application or copy of the Cardholder Agreement with
the Plaintiff's signature in the record.

On Sept. 30, 2015, Credit One sold, assigned and conveyed all
rights, title, and interest to a series of accounts, including
the Account, to MHC.  MHC subsequently sold, assigned and
conveyed all rights, title, and interest to the Account to
Sherman Originator III, LLC.  The Plaintiff made a final payment
on the Account on Jan. 26, 2015.  On Sept. 13, 2015, her card was
charged off with an outstanding balance of $600.36.  On Oct. 23,
2015, Sherman sold, assigned and conveyed all rights, title, and
interest to the Account to the Defendant.  The Cardholder
Agreement states that it will continue to govern even if the
transfer or assignment of one's account, or any amount on his/her
account, to any other person.

The Defendant filed the instant motion to compel arbitration on
an individual basis, strike the class allegations in the
Complaint, and dismiss the case.  The Defendant argues that in
compliance with the delegation clause stating that the claims
subject to arbitration include the application, enforceability or
interpretation of the Agreement, including the arbitration
agreement, the claim must be submitted to the arbitrator.

Judge Hillman finds that because the Plaintiff does not challenge
the formation of the Arbitration Agreement itself, but the
receipt and formation of the Cardholder Agreement, as a whole,
the delegation clause referring all matters pertaining to the
application, interpretation and enforceability of the Cardholder
Agreement must be submitted to the arbitrator.  Subject to the
delegation clause, the issues raised in the Plaintiff's
opposition must be submitted to the arbitrator and not the Court.
For this reason alone, the motion to compel must be granted.

The Judge also finds that even if the delegation clause was not
applicable, a valid agreement to arbitrate exists, binding both
parties.  Additionally, the Defendant has the authority to
enforce the Arbitration Agreement.  Lastly, the action falls
within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement.  The Judge states
that the language of the Arbitration Agreement not only
specifically includes claims involving "collection matters"
"relating to" the Plaintiff's account but states that any
questions about what Claims are subject to arbitration will be
resolved by interpreting this arbitration provision in the
broadest way.  Because a reasonable interpretation of the
Arbitration Agreement is that the unfair debt collection
practices of the Defendant involved the debt incurred on the
Account, which the Defendant owns, the Plaintiff's argument
loses.

For these reasons, Judge Hillman granted the Defendant's motion
to compel arbitration, dismiss the case, and strike class
allegations.  All additional issues raised by the Plaintiff must
be submitted to the arbitrator.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2018 Decision and Order
is available at https://is.gd/Wwx5Ot from Leagle.com.

Abigail Oyola, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher M. Brine --
cmb@brineconsumerlaw.com -- Brine Consumer Law, Donald A.
Yarbrough, Donald A. Yarbrough, Esq., pro hac vice & O. Randolph
Bragg, Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates, pro hac vice.

Midland Funding, LLC, Defendant, represented by Cory W. Eichhorn
-- Cory.Eichhorn@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight LLP, pro hac vice,
Gordon P. Katz -- ordon.katz@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight, LLP,
Benjamin M. McGovern -- benjamin.mcgovern@hklaw.com -- Holland &
Knight, LLP, Kara G. Thorvaldsen --
kara.thorvaldsen@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz,
Edelman & Dicker, LLP, Stephen P. Hall -- Stephen.Hall@hklaw.com
-- Holland & Knight, LLP & William T. Bogaert --
william.bogaert@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz,
Edelman & Dicker LLP.


MISSISSIPPI: Court Refuses to Reinstate "Gates" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NAZARETH GATES, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. THOMAS D.
COOK, ET AL., Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:71-cv-6-DAS (N.D.
Miss.), Magistrate Judge David A. Sanders of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Greenville
Division, denied Russell K. Hill' motion to reinstate the class
action and to reconsider two orders previously entered by the
Court, one entered on March 10, 2011, by then-Magistrate Judge
Jerry A. Davis, and one entered on Sept. 22, 1997, by then-Chief
Judge L.T. Senter, Jr.

The Magistrate Judge finds that Hill filed his motion pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b), which must be made within a reasonable
time after entry of the order in question.  Per the March 2011
order, the portion of the class action Hill seeks to reinstate
has been closed for almost seven years.  And the September 1997
order adopting the then-new Inmate Access to the Court Program
("IACP") is over a decade old.  He therefore finds the motion
untimely, and it is denied.

The Magistrate Judge says while Hill asserts multiple grievances
with the IACP, the case is not the proper avenue for redressing
those grievances.  As Judge Davis stated in the March 2011 order,
the case is closed and individual complaints, as always, may be
filed, but not in the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/s7N3GN from Leagle.com.

Nazareth (nmi) Gates, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Willie Lee Holms, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated, Hal Zachary, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Mathew Winters,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Gary
Butler, Jason Williams & Rudolph Carter, Plaintiffs, represented
by Ronald Reid Welch -- prisonlaw@aol.com -- RONALD REID WELCH,
ATTORNEY.

Martin Groot, No. 4:90cv125, Plaintiff, pro se.

Sheriff Willie E. March, Respondent, represented by Charles H.
Weissinger, Jr., WEISSINGER & HUNTER.

Thomas D. Cook, Superintendent of the Mississippi State
Penitentiary, also known as Parchman Prison, J. D. Demoville,
Member of the Mississippi State Penitentiary Board, Turner Arant,
Member of the Mississippi State Penitentiary Board, Sebe Dale,
Member of the Mississippi State Penitentiary Board, Robert D.
Robinson, Member of the Mississippi State Penitentiary Board, H.
L. Roberts, Member of the Mississippi State Penitentiary Board,
John Bell Williams, Governor of the State of Mississippi, and
their Successors & Ronnie Musgrove, Defendants, represented by
Leonard Charlton Vincent, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS &
David K. Scott, MISSISSIPPI ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.

Mississippi Department of Corrections, Defendant, represented by
Anthony Louis Schmidt , MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
James Marshall Norris, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Leonard Charlton Vincent, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Pelicia Everett Hall, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, Charles Baron
Irvin, IRVIN LAW, PLLC, Darrell Clayton Baughn, MDOC, David K.
Scott, MISSISSIPPI ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE & Tommy D. Goodwin,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

Washington County, Mississippi, Leflore County Jail, Daniel
Cummings, Jr., Wendell A. Duncan & Woodrow Webb, Defendants,
represented by David K. Scott, MISSISSIPPI ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
OFFICE.

Yalobusha County, Mississippi, Defendant, represented by John J.
Crow, Jr., JOHN J. CROW, JR., ATTORNEY.

Copiah County, Mississippi, Defendant, represented by Elise Berry
Munn, SHANNON LAW FIRM.


MONAT GLOBAL: "Alabaster" Suit Alleges Magnuson-Moss Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amber Alabaster, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Monat Global Corp., Case No. 5:18-cv-00224 (W.D.
Okla., March 13, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
breach of implied warranty of merchantability and violations of
Magnuson-Moss Act.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant's material
misrepresentations about the safety and characteristics of Monat
Hair Care Products have caused damage to Plaintiff and the Class.
Defendant provides no warning about the ingredients or potential
side effects of using Monat Hair Care Products and, in fact,
makes numerous assertions about the safety of its products.

Plaintiff Amber Alabaster was a resident of Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.

Defendant manufactured, marketed, sold and distributed Monat Hair
Care Products throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William B. Federman, Esq.
      FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
      10205 North Pennsylvania
      Oklahoma City, OK 73120
      Tel: (405) 235-1560
      Fax: (405) 239-2112
      E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Andriola Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
GUY ANDRIOLA, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:18-cv-00471-CDP (E.D. Mo., March 29, 2018), seeks to
recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate
result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is
headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Litter Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK LITTER, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00473 (E.D. Mo., March 29, 2018),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and
proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing
the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's
injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated
victims across the country, were avoidable.

Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is
headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Robbins Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY ROBBINS, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:18-cv-00470-CDP (E.D. Mo., March 29, 2018), seeks to
recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate
result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's
injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated
victims across the country, were avoidable.

Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is
headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Schreibeises Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEBRA SCHREIBEIS and NEAL SCHREIBEIS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00476 (E.D. Mo., March
29, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a
direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup
(TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's
injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated
victims across the country, were avoidable.

Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is
headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MONTANA: Deal in Suit Over Prison Conditions Has Prelim Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN THE MATTER OF LITIGATION RELATING TO CONDITIONS
OF CONFINEMENT AT MONTANA STATE PRISON THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO
Terry LANGFORD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Gov. Steve BULLOCK, et
al., Defendants, Case No. CV 93-46-H-DWM-JCL (D. Mont.), Judge
Jermiah C. Lynch of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Montana, Helena Division, (i) granted the Parties' Joint
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Revised Class Action
Settlement, (ii) preliminarily approved the Revised Class Action
Settlement attached to the Parties'  Joint Unopposed Motion, and
(iii) approved the proposed notice.

On or before March 9, 2018, the notice will be disseminated to
the class as set forth in Paragraph VIII of the Class Action
Settlement.

The following procedures will govern the submission of
objections, if any: (i) any member of the Class may object to the
proposed settlement agreement by filing, on or before May 8,
2018, written objections with the Clerk of the Court; (ii) only
such objecting Class Members will have the right, if they seek it
in their objection, to present objections orally at the Final
Approval Hearing; and (iii) the Court will determine whether it
will hear from any objecting Class members at the Final Approval
Hearing, and will enter an Order identifying all objecting Class
Members it wants to hear from at the hearing.

The Final Approval Hearing is set at 10:00 a.m. on June 11, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/B523ll from Leagle.com.

In the matter of litigation relating to conditions of confinement
at Montana State Prison., In Re, represented by Amy F. Robertson,
CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT CENTER, pro hac vice, Eric
G. Balaban, NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT, Jon E. Ellingson, Attoney At
Law & Alexander H. Rate -- alex@kugelmanlaw.com -- RATE LAW
OFFICE.

Montana State Prison Inmates, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander
H. Rate, RATE LAW OFFICE, Amy F. Robertson, CIVIL RIGHTS
EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT CENTER, pro hac vice, Eric G. Balaban,
NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT, Jeffrey T. Renz --
jeff.renz@umontana.edu -- CRIMINAL DEFENSE CLINIC & Jon E.
Ellingson, Attoney At Law.

State of Montana, Department of Corrections Personnel, Defendant,
represented by Colleen E. Ambrose, MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS.


MOTORCARS WEST: Fails to Pay Wages, Hendricks Says
--------------------------------------------------
JAMES F. HENDRICKS, III, an individual, individually and on
behalf of himself and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. MOTORCARS WEST, LLC, a foreign corporation, ERIC
SCHWARTZ, an individual, HARRISON GRAY, an individual, TONY
SCHWARTZ, an individual, and DOES l-50 inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. BC698857 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 23, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid wages under the California Labor Code.

The Defendant is an auto dealership. While working at the Porsche
dealership in Chicago, Illinois, Hendricks was presented a
lucrative offer of employment on or about January 15, 2014, from
Defendants to separate from his job in Illinois and join
employment with Defendants, which Hendricks accepted. During
employment, Plaintiff managed no people. Plaintiff, an exempt
employee, was to be paid on a salary basis plus commission. The
Plaintiff was not paid the agreed-upon wages and commissions he
was promised when he relocated from Illinois to California
When Plaintiff separated, his final paycheck did not include his
unpaid wages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lindsey Wagner, Esq.
          SCOTT WAGNER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          3900 W Alameda Ave St. 1200
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (213) 377 5200
          Facsimile: (561) 653 0020


MR. WHITE RESTAURANT: Michel Suit Seeks Minimum Wage under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
GASPAR MICHEL On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MR. WHITE RESTAURANT, LLC, f/k/a
CLARK COOPER RESTAURANTS, LLC, d/b/a BRASSERIE 19, WILLIAM G.
COOPER and CHARLES E. CLARK, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-
00990 (S.D. Tex., March 29, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime, minimum wage, and unpaid wages as liquidated damages,
as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this action
provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff Michel was employed at
Brasserie 19 as a server. The Defendants paid Plaintiff less than
minimum wage while he worked as a server (i.e. $2.13/hour) --
taking advantage of a tip credit, which allowed Defendants to
include in its calculation of Plaintiff's wages a portion of the
amounts that he received in tips. The Plaintiff received tips
from Defendants' customers. Without any written or verbal notice,
Plaintiff was forced to participate in a mandatory tip pool,
whereby Defendants required Plaintiff and its other servers to
contribute a percentage of their total sales during each shift
(25%) to a tip pool wholly controlled by Defendants.

Defendants automatically deducted this 25% from Plaintiff's tips
during each paycheck. Independent of how much money was taken
from Plaintiff's bi-weekly check, upon information and belief,
the bussers, one of the only known recipients of the tip pool
made the same amount of money every two weeks. Defendants' tip
pool did not meet the requirements of a valid tip pool because a
portion of the tips were retained by the restaurant and/or
distributed to employees who do not customarily and regularly
receive tips, and it required Plaintiff to contribute a greater
percentage than is customary and reasonable.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Terrence B. Robinson, Esq.
Laura A. Hernandez, Esq.
Joanna M. Nakamoto, Esq.
THE TB ROBINSON LAW GROUP
7500 San Felipe St., Suite 800
Houston, TX 77063
Telephone: (713) 568 1723
Facsimile: (713) 965 4288
E-mail: TRobinson@TBRobinsonlaw.com
        LHernandez@TBRobinsonlaw.com
        JNakamoto@TBRobinsonlaw.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: "Ray" Stayed Pending Outcome in "Hoggard"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Myron H. Thompson of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Alabama, Northern Division, granted the Defendant's a
motion to stay the case HAROLD RAY, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC
OF DELAWARE, d/b/a Champion Mortgage Company, Defendant, Civil
Action No. 2:17cv99-MHT (M.D. Ala.).

The Plaintiff filed the putative nationwide class-action lawsuit
asserting claims of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and
negligence related to the defendant mortgage company's home
inspections for its reverse mortgage customers.  The Defendant
filed a motion to stay the case while another similar lawsuit
earlier filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia proceeds.

The lawsuit is now before the Court on the recommendation of the
U.S. Magistrate Judge that the motion to stay be granted.  Also
before the Court are the Plaintiff's objections to the
recommendation, and his included requests for preservation
discovery and for the Defendant to be required to provide notices
to the court shortly after any critical developments in the other
case.

After an independent and de novo review of the record, Judge
Thompson concludes that the Magistrate Judge's recommendation
should be adopted.  Accordingly, he overruled the objection and
adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation.

The Judge granted the motion to stay, and the case is stayed
while the case of Hoggard, et al., v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC of
Delaware, d/b/a Champion Mortgage Company, 1:17-cv-99-TK (D.D.C.)
is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.

Judge Thompson directed the Defendant file reports explaining the
status of the Hoggard litigation (i) on the first Monday of every
third month, beginning in April 2018, and (ii), within 14 days of
any decision denying class certification, granting dismissal of
any claims, or entering judgment on any claims in the Hoggard
case, attaching a copy of the relevant opinions or orders.

The Plaintiff's request for preservation discovery is referred
back to the Magistrate Judge.  The case is administratively
closed in the Court during the pendency of the stay.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/1fDVyB from Leagle.com.

Harold Ray, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Hemmings --
ahemmings@hemmingsandstevens.com -- Hemmings & Stevens PLLC, pro
hac vice, Joseph Holland Aughtman -- jay@aughtmanlaw.com -- The
Aughtman Law Firm, Kenneth Jay Grunfeld, Golomb & Honik PC, pro
hac vice, Richard Moss Golomb, Golomb & Honik PC, pro hac vice &
Jimmy Spurlock Calton, Jr., Calton & Calton.

Nationstar Mortgage LLC of Delaware, doing business as,
Defendant, represented by Danielle Kara Greco --
danielle.greco@troutman.com  -- Troutman Sanders LLP, Dennis Kyle
Deak -- kyle.deak@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac
vice & John C. Lynch -- john.lynch@troutman.com -- Troutman
Sanders LLP, pro hac vice.


NETGEAR INC: Fails to Safeguard Consumers' Files, Sassine Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHEL SASSINE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NETGEAR, INC., a Delaware
corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-01821-HRL (N.D.
Cal., March 23, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by
Defendant's violation of California's Unfair Competition Law,
breach of express warranties pursuant to Cal. Comm. Code, breach
of contract, and (in the alternative) unjust enrichment.

The Defendant Netgear is a computer networking company that sells
networking hardware to consumers, businesses, and service
providers. Among the products Netgear sells is its Network
Attached Storage devices, branded under the "ReadyNAS" product
line. In general, a NAS is an enclosure containing a number of
hard drives that connects to a user's local network and acts as a
centralized storage hub. Authorized users on the local network
can access the NAS and its files.

The primary purpose of a NAS is to store, backup, and share files
across a network, such as photographs, documents, music, and
videos. Consumers pay a premium for a NAS over conventional hard
drives or traditional external drives (e.g., USB hard drives)
because NAS devices offer additional file protections and
redundancies, that is, synchronized copies of data for backup
purposes.

Indeed, Netgear advertised that its ReadyNAS devices offer "5
levels of protection" that safeguard against file loss. The
protections include anti-virus protection and built-in redundant
storage in the event of a hard drive failure. Beyond the built-in
protections, Netgear's other advertised feature for the ReadyNAS
product line was its "ReadyCLOUD" functionality. With ReadyCLOUD,
users could connect to their ReadyNAS devices even when not on
their local network. Through this remote connection over the
Internet, users could manage their ReadyNAS device and access
files on their local ReadyNAS device.

Despite Netgear's express promises to safeguard consumers' files,
in March of 2017, Netgear remotely triggered the wholesale
destruction of its customers' data. As a consequence of Netgear's
Deletion Command, consumers' family photographs, videos, and
business documents (among other files entrusted to the purported
protections of the ReadyNAS devices) were deleted without
warning. Worst yet, and due to the design of the ReadyNAS
devices, the Deletion Command caused irreversible deletion, which
was further exacerbated by Netgear's failure to notify users that
their personal files were deleted. As a result, users lost out on
any chance of recovering deleted files.

Netgear Inc. is a global computer networking company based in San
Jose, California, in the United States, with additional offices
in around 25 other countries. It produces networking hardware for
consumers, businesses, and service providers.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Lily E. Hough, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212 9300
          Facsimile: (415) 373 9435
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  lhough@edelson.com


OCWEN MORTGAGE: "Gray" Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Richard Gray and Kimberly Gray,
On behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, and As
Private Attorney Generals, the Plaintiffs, v. Ocwen Mortgage
Servicing, Inc., a U.S. Virgin Islands corporation; Ocwen
Financial Corporation, a Florida corporation; and Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. L18-00373, was removed
from the Contra Costa Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on March
26, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-
01864-JD to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge James Donato.

Ocwen Financial is one of the leading mortgage servicing
companies in America, serving over 1.5 million customers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Kenneth Lee Marshall, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4070
          Telephone: (415) 675 3400
          Facsimile: (415) 675 3434
          E-mail: klmarshall@bryancave.com


OVERSTOCK.COM: Morris Sues over Stock Price Drop
------------------------------------------------
BLAKE MORRIS and DENNIS ROSSETTI, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. OVERSTOCK.COM,
INC., PATRICK BYRNE, and JONATHAN E. JOHNSON, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00271-PMW (D. Utah, March 29, 2018), seeks to
recover compensatory damages caused by Defendants' violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a securities class action on behalf of Plaintiffs and
all other persons or entities, except for Defendants, who
purchased, or otherwise acquired, Overstock common stock between
August 3, 2017 and March 26, 2018, inclusive. Overstock is an
online retailer that also purports to be an "advancer of
blockchain technology," such as Bitcoin. However, as recent
events have revealed, Overstock's foray into "blockchain
technology" has been little more than a thinly veiled strategy to
take advantage of the Bitcoin frenzy. During the Class Period,
Defendants represented that Overstock was well-positioned to
capitalize on the "revolutionary" blockchain technology and
deliver "great value to Overstock's shareholders," through, among
other things, the Company's Medici Ventures business and its
tZERO trading platform. Defendants further represented, in
October 2017, that they planned to raise up to $500 million in a
"coin offering," consisting of sales of new digital coins for
projects based on the blockchain technology of the digital
currencies Bitcoin and Ethereum.

These representations drove the price of Overstock from $16.45
per share, on August 3, 2017, to a high of $86.90 per share, on
January 8, 2018, an increase of more than 500% in five months.
But the truth was that: (1) Overstock's coin offering was highly
problematic and potentially illegal; and (2) the Company's Medici
business was hemorrhaging money.

On March 1, 2018, when Overstock announced that the SEC had
requested information about its initial coin offering, the
Company's stock fell 4.4% to $57.75 from the February 28, 2018
share price of $60.40. Then, on March 15, 2018, the Company
stated that "the [SEC] investigation could result in a delay of
the tZero security token offering, negative publicity for tZero
or us, and may have a material adverse effect on us or on the
current and future business ventures of tZero." Overstock also
disclosed that the SEC was conducting an examination of advisers
at tZERO, the Company's blockchain subsidiary. Further, it was
revealed that Overstock's Medici unit had lost $22 million for
2017, despite the fact that Bitcoin prices increased by 1,375%
during the same period of time. On this news, the Company's stock
fell 5.1% from $48.20 to $45.70. Just 10 days later, on March 26,
2018, Overstock announced that it planned to offer 4,000,000
common stock shares in an underwritten public offering. On this
news, the Company's stock fell nearly 15%.

Overstock.com, Inc. is an American internet retailer
headquartered in Midvale, Utah, near Salt Lake City. Patrick M.
Byrne founded the company in 1997 and launched the company in May
1999.[BN]

Attorneys for Blake Morris and Dennis Rossetti:

Heather M. Sneddon, Esq.
Jared D. Scott, Esq.
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG, P.C.
50 West Broadway, Suite 700
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2035
Telephone: (801) 534 1700
Facsimile: (801) 364 7697
E-mail: hsneddon@aklawfirm.com
        jscott@aklawfirm.com

     - and -

Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
Rhiana L. Swartz, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223 6444
Facsimile: (212) 223 6334
E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
        rswartz@scott-scott.com

     - and -

Corey Holzer, Esq.
Marshall Dees, Esq.
Alexandria Rankin, Esq.
HOLZER & HOLZER LLC
1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
Atlanta, GA 30338
Telephone: (770) 392 0090
Facsimile: (770) 392 0029
E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
        mdees@holzerlaw.com


PALISADES CLEANING: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
HERIBERTO HERNANDEZ and JUAN JIMENEZ-LOPEZ, individually and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
PALISADES CLEANING SERVICE, INC., and MERCEDES NUNEZ,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 152827/2018 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., March 29, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime
compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, all of the work that Plaintiffs and
the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs have performed has been assigned
by Defendants, and/or Defendants have been aware of all of the
work that Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs have
performed. As part of its regular business practice, Defendants
have intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly engaged in a
pattern, practice, and/or policy of violating the FLSA with
respect to Named Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs. This
policy and pattern or practice includes, but is not limited to,
willfully failing to compensate Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs the properly due minimum wages and overtime wages for
all of the hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek. The Defendants are aware of or should have been aware
that federal law required them to pay Plaintiffs and the FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs the properly due wages at the minimum wage
rate and wages at an overtime premium for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per workweek.

Palisades Cleaning is family own and operated. PCS is a service
design to support the busy lifestyle of today, offering 100%
customer satisfaction, consistent quality workmanship, reasonable
rates and on-demand flexibility.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
301 North Harrison Street, Suite 9F, No. 306
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (201) 687 9977
E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com


PATENAUDE & FELIX: White Sues over Unauthorized Background Check
----------------------------------------------------------------
NIEYSHA WHITE, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. PATENAUDE & FELIX, APC, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00622-JLS-BGS (S.D. Cal., March 27,
2018), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendant's
unauthorized and unlawful credit inquiries under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant acquired Plaintiff's credit
report through unauthorized inquiries of Plaintiff's "consumer
report" as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1681a(d)(1).

According to the complaint, sometime around 2012, Plaintiff
obtained a Wal-Mart branded Synchrony Bank credit card.
Subsequently, Synchrony Bank assigned the Debt to Defendant to
initiate collection efforts of the Debt. On April 24, 2017,
Plaintiff filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California under
case number 17-02363-LA7. Plaintiff's Synchrony Debt was included
in Plaintiff's Bankruptcy Petition. On April 25, 2017, the
Bankruptcy Court sent Synchrony Bank notice of the bankruptcy
filing electronically.

On July 25, 2017, Plaintiff received an Order of Discharge
pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 727. The Synchrony Debt was
included in the Order of Discharge; meaning that the Debt had
been eliminated, the account was closed, and Plaintiff was no
longer personally liable for the Debt. On July 28, 2017, the
Bankruptcy Court sent Plaintiff's Order of Discharge to Synchrony
Bank electronically. During Plaintiff's Bankruptcy, neither
Synchrony Bank nor Defendant filed proceedings to declare the
Debt "non-dischargeable" pursuant to 11 U.S.C. At no point during
the pendency of the bankruptcy did the parties enter into a
reaffirmation agreement. Accordingly, the Synchrony Debt was
completely discharged through bankruptcy and the account was
closed.

However, upon review of Plaintiff's Transunion credit report
dated September 28, 2017, Plaintiff discovered that on September
3, 2017, several weeks after the Synchrony Debt was discharged
and the account was closed, Defendant impermissibly obtained
Plaintiff's consumer credit report by submitting an unauthorized
"account review inquiry" to Transunion. By accessing Plaintiff's
credit report, albeit unlawfully, Defendant was on actual notice
of Plaintiff's bankruptcy discharge and the fact that the
Synchrony account it was attempting to collect was discharged and
closed. Nevertheless, on December 29, 2017, Defendant submitted a
second unauthorized "account review inquiry" to Transunion. The
Plaintiff did not conduct any business nor incur any additional
financial obligations to Defendant for which Defendant was
authorized or permitted to inquire into Plaintiff's credit
worthiness. The account for which Defendant was attempting to
collect was discharged, closed, and no longer existed as of July
25, 2017.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          409 Camino Del Rio South, Ste 101B
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 222 7429
          Facsimile: (866) 431 3292
          E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com


PRAXAIR INC: Faces "Hassan" Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PRAXAIR, INC. The
case is styled as Louie Hassan in his individual capacity and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRAXAIR,
INC., a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02811 (C.D. Cal., April 5, 2018).

Praxair, Inc. is an American worldwide industrial gases company.
It is the largest industrial gases company in North and South
America, and the third-largest worldwide by revenue.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


Q'MAX SOLUTIONS: Court Refuses to Certify Classes in "Sanchez"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Q'MAX SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Q'MAX AMERICA, INC., PATRIOT SOLIDS CONTROL, and PATRIOT DRILLING
SOLUTIONS, Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-cv-01382-CMA-KLM (D.
Colo.), Judge Christine M. Arguello of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado denied the Plaintiff's (i) Motion
for Class Certification of State Law Claims, and (ii) Motion for
Conditional Certification of under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate oil and gas industry service
companies that provide individuals to work at their client's oil
and gas facilities.  The Plaintiff worked as a Consultant for the
Defendants for approximately three months.  He alleges that,
during that time, the Defendants violated the FLSA, the Colorado
Wage Claim Act ("CWCA"), and the Colorado Minimum Wage Order by
misclassifying Plaintiff and failing to pay him overtime
compensation.

The Plaintiff adds that Defendants misclassified numerous
employees as non-employee consultants, contractors, or
independent contractors and improperly paid them day rates
without overtime compensation.  As a result, the Plaintiff
commenced the action seeking compensation for himself and on
behalf of other allegedly misclassified and underpaid
Consultants.  He now seeks to certify a collective class to
pursue the FLSA claim and a Rule 23 class to pursue his Colorado
wage claims.

The Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of the class of all
individuals who, during any time within the past three years,
worked for some or all of the Defendants in the United States and
were classified as non-employees pursuant to either any version
of the Master Service Agreement or any similar contract.

In Pennsylvania, the following FLSA collective class has already
been conditionally certified: All current and former mud
engineers/drilling fluid consultants and solids control operators
of the Q'Max/Patriot who were classified as independent
contractors and paid a day-rate during the last three years.

Judge Arguello concludes that the choice-of-law provision in the
MSA does not confer upon the Plaintiff, who performed no work in
Colorado, standing to bring, on behalf of himself or others, non-
contractual claims under Colorado's labor laws.  To conclude
otherwise would defeat the clear geographical limits expressed in
the CWCA and the Colorado Wage Order, and would run afoul of the
well-established presumption against the extraterritorial
application of state laws.

Based on this conclusion, the Judge says she needs not address
the Plaintiff's arguments with respect to the Rule 23
certification requirements.

For these reasons, Judge Arguello denied the Plaintiff's (i)
Motion for Conditional Certification of the FLSA Claim, and
Motion for Class Certification of State Law Claims.  Moreover,
pursuant to her analysis, the Judge, sua sponte, dismissed the
Plaintiff's Claim Two and Claim Three for lack of standing.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/7dZ2AY from Leagle.com.

Joseph Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, represented by Peter David Winebrake --
pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com -- Winebrake & Santillo, LLC, Robert
Andrew Santillo -- asantillo@winebrakelaw.com -- Winebrake &
Santillo, LLC & Brian David Gonzales --
Bgonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com -- Brian D. Gonzales, PLLC.

Q'Max America, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Bryce Jordan
-- djordan@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC.


RITE AID: Moore Appeals E.D. Pennsylvania Decision to 3rd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Kyra Moore filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Kyra Moore v. Rite Aid Hdqtrs Corp., Case No. 2-
13-cv-01515, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 7, 2018, the
District Court issued a Memorandum granting the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss the case.  Alternative Motion for Summary
Judgment and Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is both
denied as moot.

Following her conversation with Rite Aid, the Plaintiff received
an Adverse Action Notice exactly five business days after the
date of the Pre-Adverse Action Notice stating that she had not
been hired for the position.  Plaintiff contends she was rejected
for employment solely as a result of her being classified 'Non-
Competitive' by Rite Aid's agent LexisNexis.  After receiving the
Adverse Action Notice, she also initiated a dispute with
LexisNexis, which eventually removed her adverse record from the
Esteem database.

The Class Action Complaint set forth one count against Rite Aid
on behalf of a putative class for violation of 15 U.S.C. Section
1681b(b)(3) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which requires that
any person using a consumer report for employment purposes who
intends to take any adverse action based in whole or in part on
the report against an applicant for employment must provide the
applicant with a copy of the report and a description in writing
of the consumers rights, as prescribed in 15 U.S.C. Section
1681g(c)(3), before taking such adverse action.

The appellate case is captioned as Kyra Moore v. Rite Aid Hdqtrs
Corp., Case No. 18-1551, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant KYRA MOORE, On Behalf of Herself and Others
Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Irv Ackelsberg, Esq.
          LANGER GROGAN & DIVER PC
          The Bell Atlantic Tower, Suite 4130
          1717 Arch Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 320-5660
          E-mail: iackelsberg@langergrogan.com

               - and -

          Lauren Brennan, Esq.
          James A. Francis, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
          100 South Broad Street
          Land Title Building, 19th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          E-mail: lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Sharon M. Dietrich, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
          1424 Chestnut Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 981-3719
          E-mail: sdietrich@clsphila.org

Defendant-Appellee RITE AID HDQTRS CORP, DBA Rite Aid Corp, is
represented by:

          Caroline M. Austin, Esq.
          Dana B. Klinges, Esq.
          Sean Zabaneh, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          United Plaza
          30 South 17th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 979-1887
          E-mail: caustin@duanemorris.com
                  dklinges@duanemorris.com
                  SSZabaneh@duanemorris.com


ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATON: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Spates Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SOL SPATES and WESLEY LEWIS, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v.
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATON SYSTEMS, INC. and ADRIAN CARRIERS, LLC,
the Defendants, Case No. 2018-CH-03875 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.,
March 26, 2018), seeks to recover proper wages under the Illinois
Wage Payment and Collection Act.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit, on behalf of
themselves and a class of persons similarly situated, who have
performed delivery driving work for Defendants in the State of
Illinois at any time during the applicable limitations period,
and who were classified as independent contractors rather than
employees.

Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that although Defendants
classified them and other similarly situated delivery drivers as
independent contractors, they were in fact Defendants' employees
under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated drivers had no control
over the amount(s) charged for their delivery services. They were
not permitted to negotiate with retail customers regarding the
rates charged for their services. The Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated drivers were paid similar fixed rates per
delivery, set by the Defendants, which drivers were not permitted
to negotiate. The Defendants did not allow Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated drivers to work for other companies, and
Defendants' management advised Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated drivers that performing delivery services for other
companies would result in termination of their employment.

The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated drivers typically
worked full time, either five or six days per week. Usually the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated drivers worked
approximately 45 to 60 hours per week. The Defendants, at their
sole discretion, made deductions from Plaintiffs' and other
similarly situated drivers' compensation checks for such costs
as, among other things, damage claims, physical damage insurance,
load insurance, "rent" for the Qualcomm units, a so-called tax
escrow, fuel, fuel taxes, toll payments, direct deposit fees,
truck repairs and maintenance. The Plaintiffs and similarly
situated drivers either lease or lease-to-own their trucks
through the Defendants.

However, when the Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated
drivers' employment has ended, the Defendants seize the drivers'
trucks, regardless of whether the driver has taken the lease-to-
own option, and the amount paid by the drivers on the trucks is
not remitted to the drivers. The Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated drivers performed services, pickup and delivery of
containers an equipment, which was/is within the usual course of
business of the Defendants. Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated drivers perform some of their work within facilities
controlled by Defendants. The Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated drivers were entirely dependent upon Defendants for
their work, as they were not allowed and as a practical matter
could not work for other employers. Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated drivers were not in an independently
established trade, occupation, profession or business.

Roadrunner Transportation acquired Adrian Carriers in April 2013
for approximately $14.2 million. After Roadrunner acquired Adrian
Carriers, Adrian Carriers continued operating under the oversight
of Roadrunner, and Adrian Carriers was rebranded as Roadrunner
Intermodal Services. Operational decisions have been made jointly
between Adrian employees and Roadrunner Employees.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Catherine Mitchell, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: 312-233-1550
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  cmitchell@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

          Harold Lichten, Esq.
          Thomas Fowler, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994 5800
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  tfowler@llrlaw.com


ROSSMOYNE INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Rodriguez Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
LUZ RODRIGUEZ, GABRIEL RODRIGUEZ, VENTURA RODRIGUEZ and ANDRES
ANGIANO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ROSSMOYNE, INC., a California
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. BC699515 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 26, 2018), seeks to
recover minimum and straight time wages and overtime compensation
under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiffs for all hours worked (including minimum wages,
straight time wages, and overtime wages), failed to provide
Plaintiffs with uninterrupted meal periods, failed to authorize
and permit Plaintiffs to take uninterrupted rest periods, failed
to maintain accurate records of the hours Plaintiffs worked,
failed to indemnify Plaintiffs for necessary business expenses,
failed to timely pay all final wages to Plaintiffs when
Defendants terminated Plaintiffs' employment, and failed to
furnish accurate wage statements to Plaintiffs.

Rossmoyne is a full service construction company serving the
greater Los Angeles area for over 35 years.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          Allen Feghali (SBN 301080)
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 232 3128
          Facsimile: (213) 232 3125
          E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
                  justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com
                  allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com


SAN MATEO HEALTH: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wage, Palomares Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
OLGA PALOMARES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE SAN MATEO HEALTH
COMMISSION dba THE HEALTH PLAN OF SAN MATEO, a California
Corporation; and DOES 1 - 100, the Defendants, Case No.
1001191604 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 29, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime pay and minimum wage under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have uniformly subjected
Plaintiff and all Class Members to uniform policies and practices
including unlawful labor practices, including the intentional and
willful failure to: pay minimum wage for all hours worked, pay
for all overtime hours worked, keep accurate records of total
hours worked; furnish accurate itemized wage statements to
Plaintiff and the other Class Members that accurately stated the
hours worked; and immediately pay Plaintiff and the other
Class Members all earned wages upon their separation from their
positions at Defendants.

The Defendants hired Palomares as a UR Nurse for HPSM. On a daily
basis, she and other HPSM Nurses, were expected to meet certain
goals and work long hours.  Palomares and other HPSM Nurses
typically worked 50+ hours a week.  Palomares worked with and
communicated with other HPSM Nurses at HPSM, who indicated they
worked similarly long hours.  Palomares' manager was also aware
of the number of hours Palomares and other HPSM Nurses were
working.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Matthew S. Da Vega, Esq.
Matthew H. Fisher, Esq.
DA VEGA | FISHER | MECHTENBERG LLP
232 E. Anaparnu St.
Santa Barbara, CA 94085
Telephone: (805) 232 4471
Facsimile: (877) 535 9358
E-mail: mfisher@mdmflaw.com
        mdavega@mdmflaw.com


SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC: "Tousignant" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Tousignant and Heather Welsch, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Schneider Electric USA, Inc.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-10439 (D. Mass., March 7, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Joshua Tousignant is an adult resident of Gun Barrel
City, Texas. Plaintiff worked as a warehouse associate from July
2017 through February 2018 at Defendant's warehouse in Athens,
Texas.

Plaintiff Heather Welsch is an adult resident of Kemp, Texas.
Plaintiff worked as a warehouse associate from July 2017 through
present at Defendant's warehouse in Athens, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
      Tamra Givens, Esq.
      LEMBERG LAW, LLC
      43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor
      Wilton, CT 06897
      Tel: (203) 653-2250
      Fax: (203) 653-3424
      E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com


SEARS HOLDINGS: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Kloppel" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MIKE KLOPPEL and WILSON ADAMS, Plaintiffs, Case # v.
SEARS HOLDINGS CORPORATION, SEARS ROEBUCK & COMPANY, and
HOMEDELIVERYLINK, INC., Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-6296-FPG (),
Judge Frank P. Geraci, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York (i) granted Sears' Motion to
Dismiss; (ii) granted in part and denied in part
HomeDeliveryLink's Motion to Dismiss; and (iii) denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike.

In this putative class action, Kloppel and Adams allege that the
Defendants misclassified them as independent contractors rather
than employees and took illegal deductions from their pay while
they performed delivery services for the Defendants in New York
State.

The Plaintiffs, along with other similarly situated individuals
they seek to represent, delivered Sears merchandise to customers'
homes throughout New York State.  They contracted with Defendant
HDL, a third party logistics provider, rather than directly with
Defendant Sears.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant HDL treated them as
independent contractors even though they were rightfully
employees under New York law.  They further allege that Defendant
HDL unlawfully deducted certain expenses directly from the
compensation it paid to the Plaintiffs, including when HDL
determined, in its sole discretion, that a delivery had been made
in a manner it deem to be unsatisfactory (e.g., damaged goods,
damage to customer property).  HDL would also deduct other
expenses from the compensation it paid such as the cost of truck
rental and fuel, and the costs of workers' compensation insurance
and general liability insurance from the compensation it paid to
the Plaintiffs.  Finally, the Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants failed to furnish the Plaintiffs with an accurate
statement of wages listing hours worked, rates paid, gross wages,
allowances, deductions taken, and net wages paid.

The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  Additionally, the
Plaintiffs move to strike one of the arguments in Defendant HDL's
reply brief, stating that HDL's argument that the only state laws
not preempted by the FAAAA are expressly defined in the FAAAA's
list of exceptions was raised for the first time in HDL's reply
brief.

Regarding Defendant HDL's Motion to Dismiss, the Defendant argues
that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act
("FAAAA") expressly preempts the New York State Commercial Goods
Transportation Industry Fair Play Act.  The Plaintiffs argue in
response that the FAAAA's preemption clause does not cover the
Fair Play Act.

Judge Geraci finds that while Defendant HDL has not demonstrated
that the Fair Play Act has a significant effect on its rates,
routes, or services, it argues that it need not do so when the
state law at issue expressly refers to motor carrier rates,
routes or services.  The FAAAA indeed preempts state laws that
explicitly refer to rates, routes, or services regardless of the
state law's effect on those three things, but the Fair Play Act
is no such law.  For these reasons, the Judge will deny the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' N.Y. Lab. Law Section
862-b claim, but the Court may revisit the preemption issue in
later stages of this litigation.

Because the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint relates solely to
Defendant HDL's conduct, and not to Defendant Sears' conduct, the
Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have no claim for relief against
Sears.  The Plaintiffs concede that Sears is not alleged to have
directly participated in HDL's alleged violations, but argue that
Sears is liable for HDL's conduct as the Plaintiffs' "joint
employer" with HDL.  The Plaintiffs argue that, as their "joint
employer," Sears is liable for their New York labor law claims.
The Judge Court disagrees.  Accordingly, he will grant Defendant
Sears' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' labor law claims.

The Plaintiffs raise an unjust enrichment claim against both the
Defendants based on the same underlying factual allegations as
their labor law claims.  Because the unjust enrichment claim is
entirely duplicative, Judge Geraci will dismiss as to both the
Defendants.

Finally, regarding the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike, the Judge
finds that HDL made that argument, however, in reply to the
Plaintiffs' arguments in opposition to HDL's Motion to Dismiss.
Because a reply brief responds to issues that the opposing party
raised, HDL did not err.  He will therefore deny the Plaintiffs'
Motion.

For the reasons stated, Judge Geraci denied Defendant HDL's
Motion to Dismiss as to the Plaintiffs' New York Labor Law
claims, but granted as to the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment
claim.  He granted Defendant Sears' Motion to Dismiss in full,
and dismissed the case against Defendant Sears.  The Clerk of
Court is directed to terminate Defendants Sears Holdings
Corporation and Sears, Roebuck &  Co. as parties to this action.
The Judge denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2018 Decision and Order
is available at https://is.gd/11LRA6 from Leagle.com.

Mike Kloppel & Wilson Adam, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony S.
Almeida, The Sattiraju Law Firm, P.C., pro hac vice, Benjamin J.
Weber -- bweber@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., pro
hac vice, Harold L. Lichten -- hlichten@llrlaw.com -- Lichten &
Liss-Riordan, P.C., pro hac vice, Ravi Sattiraju , The Sattiraju
Law Frim, P.C., pro hac vice, Samuel A. Alba --
sam@legalsurvival.com -- Friedman & Ranzenhofer, P.C. & Shannon
Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.,
pro hac vice.

Sears Holdings Corporation & Sears, Roebuck & Company,
Defendants, represented by Brendan T. Killeen --
brendan.killeen@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP &
Michael J. Puma , Morgan -- michael.puma@morganlewis.com -- Lewis
& Bockius LLP.

HomeDeliveryLink, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew J.
Butcher -- ABUTCHER@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis Garvin Light
Hanson & Feary, P.C., pro hac vice, Charles Andrewscavage --
CANDREWSCAVAGE@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson &
Feary, P.C. & Rodney O. Personius -- rop@personiusmelber.com --
Personius Melber LLP.


SETERUS INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Whitt" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, D. Randolph Whitt, Plaintiff, v. Seterus, Inc. and
Federal National Mortgage Association, Defendants, C/A No. 3:17-
1753-MBS (D. S.C.), Judge Margaret B. Seymour of the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia
Division, (i) denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss, (ii)
rendered moot the Defendants' motion to strike, and (iii) denied
the Plaintiff's motion to remand.

On or about Aug. 1, 2014, Defendant Fannie Mae brought a
foreclosure action in the Court of Common Pleas, Lexington
County, South Carolina, against the Plaintiff based on nonpayment
of a Note.  The Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended answer
and counterclaims in the Foreclosure Action on or about March 27,
2015, asserting: (1) Breach of Contract/Breach of the Duty of
Good Faith and Fair Dealing; and (2) Dual Tracking in violation
of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  On Dec. 10, 2015,
Defendant Fannie Mae filed a motion for summary judgment in the
Foreclosure Action that was granted on April 29, 2016 by Special
Referee Lisa Lee Smith.

On June 1, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a separate lawsuit against
the Defendants in the Court of Common Pleas, Lexington County,
South Carolina ("Whitt I").  The Defendants removed the case to
federal court on July 5, 2016.  The Plaintiff alleged that the
Defendant Seterus, Inc., acting as a loan servicer and agent for
Defendant Fannie Mae, offered a modification of the mortgage loan
on Feb. 18, 2016, during the pendency of the foreclosure suit.
He further alleged that he was denied a loan modification on May
9, 2016, and that between Feb. 18, 2016 and May 9, 2016, the
Defendants (i) scheduled a foreclosure hearing, (ii) attended a
foreclosure hearing and presented evidence, (iii) submitted a
judgment of foreclosure, (iv) filed a judgment for foreclosure
after signature by the judge, and (v) scheduled a foreclosure
sale.  He also alleged that the Defendants held a foreclosure
hearing without proper notice to him.

According to the Plaintiff, the pursuit of the foreclosure during
the pendency of the loan modification was prima facie evidence of
improper 'dual tracking' by the Defendants.  He also argued that
the Defendants participated in the conduct set forth in the
complaint with other residents in South Carolina.

As a result, the Plaintiff alleged that the proposed class action
would be composed of all persons (i) whose properties were
foreclosed upon, during the pendency of the Defendants' sham Loan
Modification offers, while the Defendants were pursuing a
Foreclosure action, and persons (ii) who received improper Notice
of Foreclosure Hearings.

On March 16, 2017, the Court issued an order dismissing the
Plaintiff's complaint based on the Younger abstention doctrine.
The Court found that the Plaintiff's Foreclosure Action was an
ongoing state proceeding and noted that foreclosure actions call
into question important state issues, where state courts serve as
the best venue for adjudication.  As a result, the Defendants'
motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice, and the
Defendants' motion to strike class allegations was denied as
moot.

The Special Referee issued an order in the Foreclosure Action on
April 10, 2017, granting in part and denying in part Fannie Mae's
motion for summary judgment.  A hearing was scheduled for June 6,
2017, as to the remaining issues in dispute, but was adjourned by
mutual consent for 60 days.  The instant action was commenced in
state court on June 1, 2017 and was removed by the Defendants to
the Court on July 5, 2017 ("Whitt II").

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for a class action, Rule
23, South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure (First Cause of
Action); Breach of Contract, Covenant of Good Faith and Fair
Dealing (Second Cause of Action); Civil Conspiracy (Third Cause
of Action); violation of S.C. Code. Ann. Section 29-3-630, which
requires debt secured must be established before sale by
mortgagee (Fourth Cause of Action); Dual Tracking (Fifth Cause of
Action).

On July 13, 2017, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim and a motion to strike class
allegations.  They Defendants argue that the Court should again
rely on the abstention doctrine to dismiss the Plaintiff's
complaint.  They assert that the Foreclosure Action is still
pending in state court and trial was scheduled for August 2017.
With respect to the class action, the Defendants argue that the
Plaintiff's proposed class does not meet the requirements of Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(a) and further contend that the proposed class is
not ascertainable under any circumstances, and must be dismissed.

In response, the Plaintiff argues that the Defendants' motions
have been ruled on by the Court's prior order and therefore are
barred by the doctrine of res judicata.  The Defendants filed a
reply alleging that the Plaintiff incorrectly applied the res
judicata doctrine to the removal process.

On July 31, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand,
contending that the Defendants are barred by the doctrine of res
judicata and cannot bring the action to federal court.  The
Plaintiff argues that the issue of federal jurisdiction has been
conclusively and finally determined and thus the court cannot re-
litigate this question.  On Aug. 14, 2017, the Defendants filed a
reply requesting that the Court reaches the merits of the
Plaintiff's complaint and dismiss with prejudice.

After reviewing the Plaintiff's complaint in the instant action,
Judge Seymour finds that the Plaintiff seeks monetary damages on
all causes of action and does not seek equitable or declaratory
relief against the Defendants.  Based on the language of
Quackenbush, she must deny the Defendants' motion to the extent
it seeks dismissal based on the abstention doctrine.

The Judge also finds that the proceedings in the case would
result in simultaneous litigation of the same issues and might
interfere with the state foreclosure proceeding.  Further, a
determination by the state court concerning the Foreclosure
Action would be binding on the Court and can preclude the
Plaintiff from asserting the same claims.  For these reasons, the
Judge will exercise her discretion and stay proceedings in the
action, pending conclusion of the state Foreclosure Action.

Based on this, Judge Seymour (i) denied the Defendants' motion to
dismiss, for failure to state a claim, with leave to refile such
motion at a later date; (ii) rendered moot the Defendants' motion
to strike; and (iii) denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand as
the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action.  The
parties will submit a status report within six months or at the
time the underlying action is resolved, whichever is earlier.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2018 Order and Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/ZVdzR7 from Leagle.com.

D Randolph Whitt, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Griffith,
III, Austin and Rogers & Richard Lee Whitt, Austin and Rogers.

Seterus Inc & Federal National Mortgage Association, Defendants,
represented by Graham Howard Claybrook --
gclaybrook@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods.


SHORE FUNDING: "Cunningham" TCPA Suit Stayed Pending ACA Decision
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Arthur D. Spatt of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York granted the Defendant's motion to stay the
case, CRAIG CUNNINGHAM on behalf of himself And others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SHORE FUNDING SOLUTIONS INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-2080 (ADS)(AKT)(E.D. N.Y.).

The Plaintiff commenced the putative class action against the
Defendant, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA").  The action is based on the
Defendant's alleged use of an automatic telephone dialing system
to deliver text messages to the Plaintiff's phone, without the
prior express consent of the Plaintiff.

Presently before the Court is a motion by the Defendant
requesting that the Court stay the case until the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia issues a decision in ACA
Int'l v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, No. 15-1211 ("ACA"), a case
currently pending before it.  Oral argument in ACA was heard on
Oct. 19, 2016.

The issues before the DC Circuit in ACA are unquestionably
relevant to the legal issues present in the case at bar.  As the
Defendant alleges in its motion papers, the definition of an
"automatic telephone dialing system" under the TCPA is quite
relevant to the instant case.

Assessing the various interests, Judge Spatt finds that a stay in
the case is warranted pending the DC Circuit's decision in ACA.
Although it is not immediately clear how long before the DC
Circuit issues its decision, it will likely be within the next
few months.  Such a short-term stay is unlikely to adversely
impact the parties in the case.

Moreover, the Court and the parties share an interest in
conserving resources while a case is pending that may clarify
issues raised in the instant case.  This will minimize the risk
of de minimis motion practice.  There are no issues that affect
the public interest or non-parties to the case, that the Court is
aware of, that warrant cause for restraint.  The Court joins
other district courts all across the nation in concluding that
the various factors weigh in favor of granting a stay until the
DC Circuit decides ACA.

For these reasons, Judge Spatt granted the Defendant's motion to
stay.  Within seven days of the issuance of the DC Circuit
decision in ACA, the parties will file a joint letter informing
the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2018 Memorandum of
Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/RyguO2 from
Leagle.com.

Craig Cunningham, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Aytan Yehoshua Bellin, Bellin
& Associates LLC & Erik L. Shawn, Bellin & Associates LLC.

Shore Funding Solutions Inc., Defendant, represented by Clifford
B. Olshaker, Law Offices of Clifford B. Olshaker.


SIGMA DESIGNS: Stein Balks at Asset Sale to Silicon Laboratories
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT STEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SIGMA DESIGNS, INC., J. MICHAEL
DODSON, MARTIN MANNICHE, SALEEL AWSARE, and ELIAS NADER, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01879-JSW (N.D. Cal., March 27,
2018), seeks to enjoin the Defendants from holding shareholder
vote on the Asset Sale and taking any steps to consummate the
Asset Sale unless, and until, material information is disclosed
to Sigma shareholders sufficiently in advance of the vote on the
Asset Sale or, in the event the Asset Sale is consummated, to
recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the
Exchange Act.

The action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of
himself and the other public holders of the common stock of Sigma
Designs, Inc. against the Company and the members of the
Company's board of directors for their violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
Regulation G, 17 C.F.R. section 244.100 in connection with the
asset sale of a portion of its business to Silicon Laboratories
Inc.

On December 7, 2017, the Board caused the Company to enter into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which Company
shareholders would have received $7.05 in cash per share of
Company common stock, a deal valued at $282 million. Under the
Agreement's terms, consummation of the Merger was subject to the
satisfaction of certain conditions by Sigma, including the sale
or shut down of Sigma's television and set-top box business and
the amendment or termination of certain contracts pursuant to the
Agreement, the failure of which allowed the parties to convert
from a merger transaction to an asset sale of "all of the assets
which relate to our Z-Wave business, including all of our equity
interest in certain subsidiaries engaged in the Z-Wave business,
and the assumption by Silicon Labs of all of our liabilities
related to our Z-Wave business, for $240 million in cash".

On January 23, 2018, it was reported that Sigma could not meet
the conditions to the merger and the parties proceeded with the
asset sale. According to the terms, Sigma shareholders stand to
receive between $5.82 and $6.58 per share via two separate
distributions from the proceeds of the Asset Sale, representing a
potential reduction from the Merger Consideration of 17% and 7%,
respectively. As contemplated in the Agreement, the Asset Sale
must be approved by Sigma shareholders.

On March 19, 2018, to convince Sigma shareholders to vote in
favor of the Asset Sale, the Board authorized the filing of a
materially incomplete and misleading Definitive Proxy Statement
on a Schedule 14A with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
materially incomplete and misleading Proxy independently violates
both Regulation G (17 C.F.R. section 244.100) and SEC Rule 14a-9
(17 C.F.R. 240.14a-9), each of which constitutes a violation of
Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On March 22, 2018, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC,
which disclosed that Thinh Q. Tran, the Company's founder and, up
until January 19, 2018, the President, CEO, and Director, had
founded a new company that would purchase the Company's Smart TV
and settop box business for approximately $4.7 million in cash.
Tellingly, this was the portion of Sigma's business that needed
to be sold in order to allow shareholders to receive the full
Merger Consideration. While touting the fairness of the
Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the Proxy,
Defendants have failed to disclose certain material information
that is necessary for shareholders to properly assess the
fairness of the Asset Sale, thereby violating SEC rules and
regulations and rendering certain statements in the Proxy
materially incomplete and misleading.  In particular, the Proxy
contains materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning the financial projections for the Company that were
prepared by the Company and relied upon by the Board in
recommending the Company's shareholders vote in favor of the
Asset Sale. The financial projections were also utilized by
Sigma's financial advisor, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., in
conducting the valuation analyses in support of its fairness
opinion that the consideration to be received by Sigma via the
Asset Sale was fair from a financial point of view to the
Company. It is imperative that the material information that has
been omitted from the Proxy is disclosed prior to the forthcoming
shareholder vote in order to allow the Company's shareholders to
make an informed decision regarding the Asset Sale.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


SLEEPY'S LLC: "Hargrove" Class Certification Bid Denied
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SAM HARGROVE, ANDRE HALL, MARCO EUSEBIO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SLEEPY'S, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 10-cv-
01138 (D. N.J.), Judge Peter G. Sheridan of the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey denied without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

In 2010, Plaintiffs Hargrove, Hall, and Eusebio, who were all
delivery drivers for Sleepy's", filed a complaint in the Court,
on behalf of a putative class, alleging that Sleepy's
misclassified them as independent contractors rather than
employees, and thus denied them protections and benefits under
the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act ("ERISA"), the
Family Medical Leave Act, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law.
Specifically, they allege that Sleepy's withheld and diverted
money from their wages in violation of New Jersey's Wage Payment
Law.  They also allege that they were not paid overtime for their
work, a claim that would also arise under the New Jersey Wage and
Hour Law.

Generally, Sleepy's is a New York-based mattress retailer that
adopts a comprehensive delivery process.  They operate a facility
in Robbinsville, New Jersey.  The only merchandise dispatched
from the Robbinsville terminal is Sleepy's merchandise sold to
Sleepy's customers, or transfers from the terminal to another
Sleepy's facility.  Sleepy's runs approximately 50-60 trucks per
day, and sometimes as many as 85-90 trucks during peak season out
of the Robbinsville facility.

According to Sleepy's, deliveries are performed by contractors.
Sleepy's requires its contractors to sign Independent Driver
Agreements ("IDA").  Pursuant to the IDA, drivers are classified
as independent contractors.  The IDA provides for a non-exclusive
relationship, meaning that the drivers are considered independent
contractors, and may make deliveries for other companies while
not performing deliveries for Sleepy's.  Contractors and any
helpers are required to wear Sleepy's uniforms and Sleepy's ID
badges and display Sleepy's advertising on their trucks.
Pursuant to the IDA, contractors pay for their own workers
compensation insurance, and list Sleepy's as "certificate holder"
on their policies.  They also purchase motor vehicle insurance
and list Sleepy's as an additional insured on their policy.

The drivers are also required to agree that while performing
deliveries for Sleepy's they will not carry merchandise for any
other business until [they] finished the delivery manifest given
by Sleepy's.  The Plaintiffs contend that, between January 2007
and December 2016 (class period), Sleepy's has contracted with at
least 193 individuals to perform deliveries out of its facility
in Robbinsville.

After the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, on
March 29, 2012, the Court entered an order granting Sleepy's
motion for summary judgment and denying the Plaintiffs' cross-
motion.  The decision was appealed and remanded by the Third
Circuit who asked for the advice of the Supreme Court of New
Jersey regarding which test to apply to determine the nature of
an employment relationship under the New Jersey Wage Payment Law
and the New Jersey Wage and Hour law. The Supreme Court deemed
the "ABC test" to be most appropriate.  On remand, the Court
granted the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and
denied Sleepy's motion for summary judgment.

Following the remand, the Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Count
8, 9, 10, and 11, which arose under the laws of Massachusetts,
New York, Connecticut, and Maryland.  However, the following
claims remain: Breach of Contract (Count I and II); Mistake
(Count III); Rescission (Count IV); Claim for Plan Enforcement
under the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act (ERISA)
(Count V); Violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
(Count VI); Violations of New Jersey Wage Payment Law (NJWPL)
(Count VII); and violations of New Jersey Wage and Hour law
(Count VIII).  The Plaintiffs now seek certification of the class
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

As this Court understands it, the proposed class members would
have to meet three criteria that define the class: (1) worked
full-time making deliveries for Sleepy's and thus were
misclassified as independent contractors; (2) were subject to
improper deductions; and (3) worked over 40 hours per week
without being paid over-time (time-and-a-half).

On December 13, 2017, the Court held oral argument on the motion
for class certification.  At the hearing, the Court requested
clarification as to the methodology used by the Plaintiff to
determine the proposed class members.  The Court also provided
the parties with the option to depose Ms. Shuford which they did
on Dec. 20, 2017.  Thereafter, parties submitted supplemental
briefs for consideration by the Court.

Overall, notwithstanding the additional information provided by
Ms. Shuford's deposition, Judge Sheridan is still unable to
resolve all disputes regarding the definition of this class.
There are "gaps" in the record provided, as Ms. Shuford
recognized, that would make assessing the size, as proposed by
the Plaintiff, tenuous or speculative.

While the standard for ascertainability does not mandate
identification of all class members at certification, the Judge
finds that the Plaintiffs still must show how the class members
can be identified.  Here, identifying the members of the class
would require specific fact-finding as to each individual.  Thus,
at this time, based on the information provided, the Court is
unable to grant the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Accordingly, he denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/WYaddg from Leagle.com.

SAM HARGROVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, ANDRE HALL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated & MARCO EUSEBIO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by ANTHONY
L. MARCHETTI, Jr. -- AMarchetti@MarchettiLawFirm.com -- MARCHETTI
LAW, P.C.

SLEEPY'S LLC, Defendant, represented by MARC DAVID ESTEROW --
mesterow@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON PC, PAUL CALVIN LANTIS
-- plantis@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & THEO E.M.
GOULD -- tgould@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON PC.

SLEEPY'S LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by MARC DAVID ESTEROW,
LITTLER MENDELSON PC & THEO E.M. GOULD, LITTLER MENDELSON PC.

SLEEPY'S LLC, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by MARC DAVID
ESTEROW, LITTLER MENDELSON PC, PAUL CALVIN LANTIS, Littler
Mendelson, P.C. & THEO E.M. GOULD, LITTLER MENDELSON PC.


SOLID BIOSCIENCES: Faces "Watkins" Suit over January IPO
--------------------------------------------------------
JAMES WATKINS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SOLID BIOSCIENCES, INC., ILAN
GANOT, JENNIFER ZIOLKOWSKI, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC,
GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, LEERINK PARTNERS, LLC, NOMURA SECURITIES
CO., LLC, and CHARDAN CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-10587 (D. Mass., March 27, 2018), seeks to recover
compensatory damages as a result of Defendants' violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a class action on behalf of persons and entities
that: a) acquired common stock of Solid Biosciences pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's false and/or misleading
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
the Company's January 25, 2018 initial public offering and/or
acquired Solid Biosciences' securities between January 25,
2018, and March 14, 2018.

Solid Biosciences purportedly seeks to cure Duchenne muscular
dystrophy, or DMD. The Company's lead product candidate, SGT-001,
is a gene transfer under development to restore functional
dystrophin protein expression in patients' muscles. The Company's
therapy uses adeno-associated virus (AAV) to deliver the
transgene into the patient.

On January 2, 2018, the Company filed its IPO prospectus with the
SEC, which forms part of the IPO Registration Statement that was
declared effective on January 25.  The Company sold 7,000,000
shares of common stock at a price of $16.00 per share. The
Company received proceeds of approximately $112 million from the
IPO, net of underwriting discounts and commissions. The proceeds
from the IPO were purportedly to be used to fund research and
develop a cure for DMD.

On January 30, 2018, an article was published by various medical
experts highlighting the risks of studies using high doses of
gene therapies using adeno-associated virus (AAV). One of the
article's co-authors was Dr. James Wilson, a former member of the
Solid Biosciences' advisory board.

On this news the Company's shares fell $1.20 per share, or over
5%, to close on January 30, 2018 at $22.50 per share. On March
14, 2018, after the close of trading, the Company published a
press release announcing that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration had placed a clinical hold on the SGT-001 Phase
I/II clinical trial, IGNITE DMD.

On March 15, 2018, Solid Biosciences' share price fell $16.99 per
share, or over 60%, to close at $9.32 per share on March 15,
2018. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially
false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that
(1) Solid Biosciences' lead drug candidate SGT-001 had a high
likelihood of causing adverse events in patients; (2) Solid
Biosciences misled investors regarding the toxicity of SGT-001;
and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements in
the Registration Statement regarding Solid Biosciences' business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or
misleading. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages.

Solid Biosciences Inc., a life science company, engages in
identifying and developing various therapies for duchenne
muscular dystrophy in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Glen DeValerio, Esq.
          Daryl Andrews, Esq.
          ANDREWS DEVALERIO LLP
          265 Franklin Street, Suite 1702
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 936 2796
          E-mail: glen@andrewsdevalerio.com
                  daryl@andrewsdevalerio.com

               - and -

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201 9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201 9160


SPROUTS FARMERS: Public Employees Fund Sues Over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., J. Douglas Sanders, Amin N.
Maredia, Donna Berlinski, Andrew S. Jhawar, Shon Boney, Joseph
Fortunato, Lawrence P. Molloy, Steven H. Townsend, AP Sprouts
Holdings, LLC, AP Sprouts Holdings (Overseas), L.P., Barclays
Capital Inc. and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-00695 (D. Ariz., March 2, 2018), seeks to pursue remedies
under the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the
underwriting of Sprouts secondary public offering for an
aggregate of 15,847,800 shares of Sprouts common stock by AP
Sprouts Holdings, LLC and AP Sprouts Holdings (Overseas), L.P.
which closed on or about March 10, 2015.

The complaint says the Company's 2014 10-K did not offer any
qualifying discussion of then-current trends in produce price
deflation or the effects of such deflation on the Company's sales
growth or outlook. Sprouts' stock price fell $2.73 per share, or
11.62 percent, to close at $20.77 per share on August 7, 2015 --
well below the $35.30 offering price.

Barclays Capital Inc. and Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC are financial
services companies that acted as underwriters of the Offering.

Sprouts operates a chain of grocery markets with 208 stores in 13
states as of June 28, 2015. It offers fresh, natural and organic
produce.

Plaintiff provides retirement and related benefits for all
Mississippi state and public education employees, officers of the
Mississippi Highway Safety Patrol, and certain elected officials,
among others. It purchased Sprouts common stock and lost
substantially. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James S. Christian, Esq.
      CHRISTIAN ANDERSON PLC
      5050 North 40th Street, Suite 320
      Phoenix, AZ 85018
      Telephone: (602) 478-6828
      Email: James@ChristianAndersonLaw.com

             - and -

      James W. Johnson, Esq.
      Michael H. Rogers, Esq.
      James T. Christie, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 907-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
      Email: jjohnson@labaton.com
             mrogers@labaton.com
             jchristie@labaton.com


SYNERGY PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Rose" Securities Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wendell Rose, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Synergy Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Gary S.
Jacob, Gary G. Gemignani, Marino Garcia and Troy Hamilton,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01344 (S.D. N.Y., March 1, 2018),
seeks damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, as well as
their reasonable attorney's fees, expert fees, and other costs
and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

Synergy is a pharmaceutical company with only one commercial
product, plecanatide, a prescription medication approved under
the trademark name Trulance (TM) for the treatment of adults with
chronic idiopathic constipation. Defendants misrepresented that
Trulance has a superior side-effect profile to its competitors
and that they misrepresented that a loan the company had secured
would fund the launch of Trulance without diluting shareholders.
Synergy was unable to meet the undisclosed loan agreement
conditions to obtain the second tranche of $100 million in
financing, which required it to have a least $128 million in cash
or cash equivalents and as a result, Synergy needed to issue
shares and dilute shareholders.

On this news, Synergy's share price fell $0.28, or approximately
10.3% from the previous trading day's closing price of $2.72, to
close at $2.44 on November 13, 2017. The next trading day,
Synergy's share price fell another $0.41, or approximately 16.8%
from the previous trading day's closing price, to close at $2.03
on November 14, 2017. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard W. Gonnello, Esq.
      Sherief Morsy, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
      Email: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
             smorsy@faruqilaw.com


TRI-BOROUGH CERTIFIED: "Rodriguez" Suit Alleges NYLL Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anyely Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Tri-Borough Certified Home Care Ltd. et
al., Case No. 152047/2018 (Sup. N.Y., March 7, 2018), seeks to
recover wages under the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Anyely Rodriguez was at all relevant times a home
health care attendant employed in New York by Defendants to
provide personal home health care and assistance to Defendants'
clients in their homes. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a home
health aid from approximately June 2014 through approximately
October 2016.

The Defendants are primarily engaged in providing nursing and
home health aide services at the residences of their clients.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRICO WEB LLC: "Rojas" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages, Damages
---------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Rojas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Trico Web, LLC and Donald Juiliano,
Individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-03092, (D. N.J., March
2, 2018), seeks overtime wages, compensatory and liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and all other legal and
equitable remedies under the Fair Labor Standards and Act and the
New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

Defendants own and operate a full service printing company,
serving clients' printing needs throughout the United States and
Europe. Rojas was employed by Trico as a laborer, performing
assembly, packing, moving and maintenance duties from in or about
May, 2013, through in or about early September, 2016. He
routinely worked 50-60 hours per day, five to six days per week,
all without overtime premium. Defendants automatically deducted
thirty minutes per shift for a meal break, despite the fact that
Rojas routinely was required to and did work through his break
and was unable to take the time off.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
      Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      301 N Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
      Princeton, NJ 08540
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      Email: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com
             AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com


UNITED CONTINENTAL: Sacchi Sues over Flight Cancellation Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN SACCHI and STEPHEN SIMONI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. UNITED CONTINENTAL
HOLDINGS, INC. and UNITED AIRLINES, INC., the Defendants, Case
No. 2018-CH-03805 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., March 23, 2018),
seeks to recover damages, restitution, statutory damages,
punitive damages, sanctions, interest, court costs, attorneys'
fees, and injunctive relief for Defendants' systematic practice
of breaching its contracts with thousands of consumers
nationwide.

According to the complaint, for approximately nine months,
United.com informed its customers that, for passengers who
"[c]hoose to cancel" a flight and use the ticket's value toward
another United flight within one year of the original issue date
that "[n]o change fee will be required." This statement was
false. Customers who cancelled their flight by clicking on the
"[c]hoose to cancel" button and then applied the value of their
canceled ticket toward a new ticket within one year of the
original purchase date were in fact charged a fee. All claims
asserted herein arise out of Defendants' contract breaches and
are a common fact pattern as to each member of the Class.

United Continental is a publicly traded airline holding company
headquartered in the Willis Tower in Chicago. UCH owns and
operates United Airlines, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kyle Shamberg, Esq.
          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC
          211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 750 1265
          Facsimile: (312) 750 159l
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
                  kshamberg@litedepalma.com


UNITED STATES: Almanza Appeals Ruling to Court of Federal Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs MANUEL ALMANZA, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in their lawsuit styled Almanza, et al. v. U.S., Case No.
1:13-cv-00130-EDK, in the United States Court of Federal Claims.

The appellate case is captioned as Almanza, et al. v. U.S., Case
No. 18-1701, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 26, 2018, the
Court of Federal Claims issued an Opinion and Order granting in
part the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for an Award of Attorney
Fees, Expenses and Costs in the case.

The original plaintiffs in this case were 290 Customs and Border
Protection Officers (CBPOs) and Border Patrol Agents (BPAs) who
are now or were formerly employed by U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, Department of Homeland Security (CBP).  They filed
this action to recover overtime pay for time that they spent
studying outside of regular working hours while attending CBP's
Detection Canine Instructor Course.

Thereafter, the parties entered into a settlement agreement as to
the claims of the CBPOs.  Under the settlement, Plaintiffs agreed
to dismiss their COPRA and Fair Labor Standards Act claims with
prejudice in exchange for payment by the government of
$1,716,000.

In its Order approving the agreement, the Court requested that
the parties file supplemental briefs addressing the effect, if
any, of the Court's order approving the settlement agreement on
the government's arguments: 1) that Plaintiffs are not prevailing
parties; and 2) that Plaintiffs have not been awarded any
judgment as is required to recover attorneys' fees under the
FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

Plaintiffs have requested an award of $2,983,219.95 in attorneys'
fees, as well as $28,568.87 in expenses and costs.

In its Order approving attorney fees, the Court rejects the
Plaintiffs' arguments that an upward adjustment to the lodestar
amount is warranted based on additional factors referenced in
Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19
(5th Cir. 1974), overruled in part by Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489
U.S. 87, 90 (1989).

Hence, the Court ruled that the Plaintiffs are entitled to a
total award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $1,498,703,
broken down as follows:

   -- For the services of David L. Kern: 1,807.55 hours
      x $450/hour = $813,398.

   -- For the services of Mark Greenwald: 601.4 hours
      x $450/hour = $270,630.

   -- For the services of Robert Gaudet: 564.15 hours
      x $380/hour = $214,377.

   -- Paralegal services: 1,741.72 hours x $115/hour = $200,298.

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

   * Entry of Appearance was due on April 3, 2018;

   * Certificate of Interest was due on April 3, 2018;

   * Docketing Statement is due on April 19, 2018;

   * Appellant/Petitioner's brief is due on May 21, 2018.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants MANUEL ALMANZA, et al., AND OTHER SIMILARLY
SITUATED PERSONS, are represented by:

          David Luis Kern, Esq.
          KERN LAW FIRM
          309 East Robinson Avenue
          El Paso, TX 79902
          Telephone: (915) 542-1900
          E-mail: dkern@kernkalman.com

Defendant-Cross-Appellant UNITED STATES is represented by:

          Albert Salvatore Iarossi, Esq.
          DIRECTOR, COMMERCIAL LITIGATION BRANCH, CIVIL DIVISION
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          PO Box 480
          Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 616-3755
          Facsimile: (202) 514-8624
          E-mail: albert.s.iarossi@usdoj.gov


UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Hower Sues over Damaged Frozen Embryos
------------------------------------------------------------
TATYANA HOWER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, c/o Brennan Manna & Diamond LLC 200 Public Square,
Suite 3270 Cleveland, OH 44114 and PETER CONSTANTINO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, c/o
Brennan Manna & Diamond LLC 200 Public Square, Suite 3270
Cleveland, OH 44114, the Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS
HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., c/o Janet L. Miller, Statutory Agent 3605
Warrensville Center Road, Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122; 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, c/o Janet L.
Miller, Statutory Agent 3605 Warrensville Center Road, Shaker
Heights, Ohio 44122; UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS MEDICAL GROUP, INC. c/o
Janet L. Miller, Statutory Agent 3605 Warrensville Center Road,
Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122; 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
895243 (Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga Cty., March 27,
2018), seeks to recover damages, equitable relief, and other
remedies from Defendants as a result of their misconduct causing
irreplaceable damage to Plaintiffs' frozen eggs and embryos.

According to the complaint, the Defendants had been preserving,
protecting, and storing Plaintiffs' and the other Class Members'
eggs and embryos at a University Hospitals Fertility Center
located at the Ahuja Medical Center in Beachwood, Ohio. The
damage occurred when the temperature rose in a large storage tank
in which Defendants had been preserving, protecting, and storing
approximately 2,000 of Plaintiffs' and the other Class Members'
egg and embryo specimens. In what can only be characterized as
gross negligence and an utter breach of trust, decency, and
responsible stewardship, Defendants destroyed the hopes, dreams,
and futures of hundreds, if not thousands, of prospective Ohio
parents and families.

Recognizing the extent and consequences of its misconduct,
Defendants have reached out to Plaintiffs and the other Class
Members to advise them of Defendants' misconduct and that the
consequence of their misconduct is that Plaintiffs' and the other
Class Members' frozen eggs and embryos -- eggs and embryos that
they entrusted to Defendants and were relying on Defendants for
their preservation and safekeeping -- may have been destroyed or
irretrievably damaged. One of University Hospitals'
representatives is reported saying, "It's absolutely
devastating."

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.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey C. Miller, Esq.
          Victoria L. Ferrise, Esq.
          BRENNAN, MANNA & DIAMOND LLC
          200 Public Square, Suite 3270
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 658 2323
          Facsimile: (216) 658 2157
          E-mail: jcmiller@bmdllc.com
                  vlferrise@bmdllc.com

               - and -

          Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
          Lawrence J. Lederer, Esq.
          Barbara A. Podell, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875 3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875 4604
          E-mail: ssavett@bm.net
                  llederer@bm.net
                  bpodell@bm.net


UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Brown Sues over Damaged Embryos
-----------------------------------------------------
KATHRYN BROWN 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;
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 895170 (Ohio Court Of Common
Pleas, Cuyahoga Cty., March 26, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiff
and other Class members were injured as a result of the
Defendants' conduct which caused irreparable and permanent damage
to their frozen eggs.

The Defendants are in the business of protecting, preserving,
extracting and storing Plaintiffs' 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 Plaintiff and other Class
members. 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.

The 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 are not offering them proper compensation and
psychological counseling.

University Hospitals, one of the nation's leading health care
systems, provides high-quality, patient-centered medical care at
locations throughout Northeast Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is 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


US BEAUTY MART: "Hyun" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
HYUN IK SHIN on behalf of himself and other similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. US BEAUTY MART, INC., and KEN CHUNG, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01314-SCJ (N.D. Ga., March 29,
2018), seeks to recover overtime wages, liquidated damages,
interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

This case is brought on behalf of only those current and former
employees who received straight rates, not one and one-half times
their regular rates, and were requested to work over 40 hours in
a work week. The similarly situated employees are uniformly have
been paid the straight time rate for hours worked over 40 in a
work week under the same or similar compensation scheme. The
Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees, typically
worked greater than 40 hours each week.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


US TOBACCO: Court Enters Amended Final Judgment in "Speaks" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James C. Dever, III, of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, has entered
her Amended Final Judgment that will incorporate the Final
Approval Order on the Class Settlement in the case, TERESA M.
SPEAKS, TOBY SPEAKS, STANLEY SMITH, EDDIE BROWN, ROBERT
POINDEXTER, MIKE MITCHELL, ROY L. COOK, ALEX SHUGART, H. RANDLE
WOOD, ROBIN ROGERS, and DANIEL LEE NELSON, Plaintiffs, v. U.S.
TOBACCO COOPERATIVE, INC. f/k/a FLUE-CURED TOBACCO COOPERATIVE
STABILIZATION CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 5:12-CV-729-D
(E.D. N.C.).

On Feb. 20, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
final approval of a class action settlement, and entered a Final
Approval Order.  Thus, it certifies the Settlement Class.
Accordingly, Judge Dever approved the final class action
settlement.

The Settlement Class includes all individuals, proprietorships,
partnerships, corporations, and other entities that are or were
shareholders and/or members of U.S. Tobacco at any time during
the Class Period, without any exclusion, including any heirs,
representatives, executors, powers-of-attorney, successors,
assigns, or others purporting to act for or on their behalf with
respect to U.S. Tobacco and/or the Settled Claims.

All Settled Claims as against the Defendant and the Released
Parties are dismissed with prejudice.  Judge Dever expressly
directed the Clerk of Court immediately to enter the Amended
Final Judgment.  Upon entry, the Court decrees that the document
be deemed an Amended Final Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2018 Amended Final
Judgment is available at https://is.gd/Jugb1S from Leagle.com.

Teresa M. Speaks, Toby Speaks, Stanley Smith, Eddie Brown, Robert
Poindexter, Mike Mitchell, Roy L. Cook, Alex Shugart, H. Randle
Wood, Robin Rogers & Daniel Lee Nelson, Plaintiffs, represented
by Gary K. Shipman -- gshipman@shipmanlaw.com -- Shipman &
Associates, LLP, Namon Leo Daughtry -- leodaughtry@hotmail.com --
Daughtry, Woodard, Lawrence & Starling & William Grainger Wright,
Sr. -- wright@shipmanlaw.com -- Shipman and Wright, LLP.

U.S. Tobacco Cooperative, Inc., Defendant, represented by Derek
Lawrence Shaffer -- derekshaffer@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn
Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, Lee M. Whitman -- lwhitman@wyrick.com --
Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton, LLP & Paul J. Puryear, Jr. --
ppuryear@wyrick.com -- Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton, LLP.

Nellirea Miles, On Behalf of Herself and James D. Miles,
Deceased, Interested Party, pro se.

James A. Miles, Interested Party, pro se.

Melvin M McElveen, Interested Party, pro se.

Sharp Farms, Objector, represented by James L. Ward, Jr. ,
McGowan Hood & Felder LLC, Philip R. Isley -- pisley@bmlilaw.com
-- Blanchard, Miller, Lewis & Isley, P.A., Charles Alan Runyan,
Runyan & Platte & John L. Coble -- jlc@mwglaw.com -- Marshall,
Williams & Gorham.

Pender Sharp, Objector, represented by Philip R. Isley,
Blanchard, Miller, Lewis & Isley, P.A. & John L. Coble, Marshall,
Williams & Gorham.

David L. Rose, E. Jerome Vick, Vick Family Farming Partnership,
E.J. Vick Farming Company, LLC, Jerome B Vick, J.B. Rose & Sons,
Inc., Charles Allen Rose, Sr., Cheryl G Rose, Sheree B. Rose,
Estate of James B. Rose, Jr. & Estate of James B Rose, III,
Objectors, represented by Christopher S. Battles --
cbattles@shanahanmcdougal.com -- Shanahan Law Group, PLLC &
Kieran J. Shanahan -- kieran@shanahanmcdougal.com -- Shanahan Law
Group, PLLC.

North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services &
South Carolina Department of Agriculture, Amicuss, represented by
Anne J. Brown , NC Department of Justice.


VALIDUS HOLDINGS: Witmer Balks at AIG Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------
COLLEEN WITMER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. VALIDUS HOLDINGS, LTD., ED
NOONAN, MAHMOUD ABDALLAH, MICHAEL CARPENTER, MATTHEW GRAYSON,
JEFFREY GREENBERG, KARIN KIRTLER-GARVEY, JOHN HENDRICKSON, JEAN-
MARIE NESSI, MANDAKINI PURI, GAIL ROSS, THERESE VAUGHAN, and
CHRISTOPHER WATSON, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04265
(D.N.J., March 26, 2018), seeks to enjoin the defendants and all
persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing a proposed merger transaction, and in
the event the defendants consummate the proposed transaction,
rescind it and set it aside, or award rescissory damages.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on
January 22, 2018, pursuant to which Validus Holdings, Ltd. will
be acquired by American International Group, Inc. and Venus
Holdings Limited.  On January 21, 2018, Validus's Board of
Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan
of merger with AIG. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, stockholders of Validus will receive $68.00 in cash
for each share of Validus they own.

On March 7, 2018, defendants filed a preliminary proxy statement
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement
omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges herein that defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement.

Validus Holdings, Ltd. provides reinsurance coverage, insurance
coverage, and insurance linked securities management services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Reinsurance,
Insurance, and Asset Management.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623 3000
          Facsimile: (973) 623 0858
          E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295 5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654 7530
          E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324 6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631 1305
          E-mail: rm@maniskas.com


VILLAGE FAMILY: Underpays Therapists, Yahalom Claims
----------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY YAHALOM, an Individual, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and the general public, the
Plaintiff, v. THE VILLAGE FAMILY SERVICES, INC., a California
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No.BC699642 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 26, 2018), seeks to
recover overtime compensation and minimum wages under the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by
Defendants in California during the Class Period. She was not
covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement during that
time. She is no longer employed by Defendants. As a Therapist,
Plaintiff was improperly classified as an independent contractor,
despite failing to meet any test to be such. By paying Plaintiff
and her colleagues hourly, Defendants classified Plaintiff and
her colleagues as non-exempt employees. Defendants concede this
point by already paying and classifying Therapists throughout
California as non-exempt "hourly" employees.

The Plaintiff was never relieved of all duties for a meal period
at any time during her employment by Defendants. Likewise, during
her employment by Defendants, Plaintiff was never relieved of her
duties so that she could take a rest period. Plaintiff was never
paid any meal or rest period premium compensation by Defendants,
despite never being provided a legally-compliant meal or rest
period.

The Plaintiff, and those others similarly situated, were
misclassified as independent contractors. This misclassification
forced them to pay self-employment tax, as well as deprived them
of various benefits that they should have. The failure to
properly classify Plaintiff and those similarly situated also
deprived them of compensation for overtime and meal and rest
breaks, as well as pay for preparation and other time not
"billed" directly to clients. Plaintiff complained about this
illegal misclassification, upon learning she could not receive
state benefits related to her pregnancy disability. As a result,
Plaintiff was retaliated against, receiving a cut in pay by more
than half and then was ultimately forced out of work with
Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alireza Alivandivafa, Esq.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 1990
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 570 2238
          Facsimile: (310) 300 1015

               - and -

          Azad M. Marvazy, Esq.
          LIGHT LAW GROUP, APC
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 1990
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 241 3422
          Facsimile: (424) 273 8884


VITAS HEALTHCARE: "Williams" Suit Alleges FCRA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Jazzina Williams, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Vitas Healthcare Corporation of California and Does
1-10, Case No. 18-564850 (Calif. Super., March 7, 2018), is
brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Plaintiff Jazzina Williams is and at all relevant times was a
resident of Elk Grove and Sacramento, California. Plaintiff
applied for employment with Defendants in or about late April,
2016, continues to remain employed by Defendants, and continues
to be subjected to Defendants' invalid Background Investigation
Authorization and Release forms, says the complaint.

Defendant Vitas Healthcare Corp of California provides end-of-
life care to patients who are terminally ill. The company
provides nurses and other specialized and qualified staff at the
patients home. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin F. Woodall, Esq.
      WOODALL LAW OFFICES
      100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 413-4629
      Fax: (866) 937-4109
      E-mail: kevin@kwoodalllaw.com


WAL-MART STORES: Count VIII Survives Dismissal Bid in "Johnson"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Benita Y. Pearson of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted in part and
denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case,
SHELLEY JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES EAST INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:17CV1894 (N.D. Ohio).

The Plaintiff, the mother of minor child B.C., purchased a
Mainstays patio set from the Warren, Ohio Wal-Mart sometime in
2009.  This patio set included chairs.  The Plaintiff alleges
that, on or about Sept. 3, 2009, one of the chairs collapsed
while B.C., the Plaintiff's then three-year old son, was sitting
in the chair.  The collapse of the chair caused B.C.'s left
middle finger to become stuck in the chair, tearing a tendon in
the finger.  B.C. underwent surgery to replace the damaged
tendon.  Post-surgery, B.C. completed physical therapy, but he
has not regained normal use of the finger, and the Plaintiff
alleges that the impairment is permanent.

The Plaintiff has filed a putative Class Action Complaint.  In
her Complaint, she posits eight counts: (1) violation of the Ohio
Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. Section 1345.01, et seq.; (2)
violations of state consumer protection statutes; (3) violations
of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act;1 (4) negligence;
(5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (6) unjust
enrichment; (7) negligence;2 and (8) violation of the Ohio
Products Liability Act, R.C. Section 2307.71, et seq.  The
Plaintiff alleges all counts as both individual and class claims.

Judge Pearson granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
motion to dismiss.  She granted the motion as to all counts
except Count VIII, the Ohio Products Liability Act claim.  Thus,
all of the Plaintiff's claims except Count VIII are dismissed
with prejudice.  Additionally, the Judge dismissed without
prejudice claims of absent putative class members for all Counts,
except Count VIII.

The Judge finds, among other things, that the Defendant fails to
cite to a case holding that the Plaintiff must plead an
alternative design in a products liability action.  Moreover,
Oblak v. Integra Lifesciences Corp., a case upon which the
Plaintiff relies, did not hold that a plaintiff must plead an
alternative design.  Rather, it held that manufacturing and
design defect claims require allegations that the defendant
manufactured the product; that the product was used by the
plaintiff, that the product failed while being used by the
plaintiff; and, that the portion of the product that failed could
be identified and is so identified in the complaint.  She says
the Plaintiff's complaint contains allegations sufficient to
satisfy this standard.  Consequently, Count VIII survives.

The Court will schedule a telephonic case management conference
to complete the case management schedule.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/NLxGfl from Leagle.com.

Shelley Johnson, on behalf of her minor son B.C., Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Ashton R. Smith -- ashton@jonesward.com -- Jones
Ward, Jasper D. Ward, IV -- jasper@jonesward.com -- Jones Ward,
pro hac vice & Michelle L. Kranz -- michelle@toledolaw.com --
Zoll & Kranz.

Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. & Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., Defendants, represented by Karen L. Giffen --
kgiffen@thinkgk.com -- Giffen & Kaminski, Jan L. Roller --
jroller@thinkgk.com -- Giffen & Kaminski & Tina Y. Rhodes --
trhodes@thinkgk.com -- Giffen & Kaminski.


WAL-MART STORES: "Palmer" Sues Over Mislabeled Eggs
---------------------------------------------------
Brian Palmer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Cal-Maine Foods,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00459, (N.D. Cal., March 2,
2018), seeks monetary damages, including but not limited to,
compensatory, incidental, and consequential damages, punitive
damages, attorney fees and costs incurred by counsel for
Plaintiffs in accordance with California's Unfair Competition Law
and California's False Advertising Law and the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

Cal-Maine is in the business of production and marketing of shell
eggs to consumers nationwide via retail stores such as Wal-Mart.
Its labels claims that its laying hens are free range. Consumers
typically pay a significant premium for such eggs, due to the
touted improvements to the welfare of laying hens, which is
itself important to consumers as well as the perceived health
benefits from eating the eggs of better treated hens. However,
Plaintiff claims otherwise and asserts that
Cal-Maine's hens are confined in pens. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 920
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Tel: (213) 330-7150
      Email: melaine@hbsslaw.com

             - and -

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Tel: (206) 623-7292
      Email: steve@hbsslaw.com


WALTERS TIMMONS: Fails to Pay All Wages, Hernandez Says
-------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL GIRON HERNANDEZ, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. WALTERS
TIMMONS ENTERPRISES, INC., a California Corporation; dba
TIMMONS OF LONG B, the Defendant, Case No. BC699630 (Cal. Super.
Ct., March 26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all current and past
aggrieved employees alleges that Defendants failed to timely
compensate employees for non-sales or non-productive activities,
failed to authorize and permit paid rest periods, failed to
provide meal periods, and failed to pay all wages owed upon
termination.

Walter Timmons Enterprises retails automobiles and accessories.
The Company offers new and used passenger cars, vans, and sports
utility vehicles, as well as automotive parts distribution,
finance, and maintenance services. Walter Timmons Enterprises
serves customers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Strauss, Esq.
          Andrew C. Ellison, Esq.
          Rabiah A. Rahman, Esq.
          STRAUSS & STRAUSS, APC
          121 N. Fir Street, Suite F
          Ventura, CA 93001
          Telephone: (805) 641 6600
          Facsimile: (805) 641 6607
          E-mail: mike@strausslawyers.com
                  andrew@strausslawyers.com


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Court Endorses "Abarca" Classes Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, EZEQUIEL OLIVARES ABARCA, ALFREDO ALESNA JR., DAVID
CAGLE, STEPHEN L. DAVIS, FRANK EADS, and KENNETH J. SURMAN,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., DRIVERS MANAGEMENT, LLC,
and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants. WILLIAM SMITH, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of
the general public, Plaintiff, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a
C.L. WERNER, INC., a corporation, and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case Nos. 8:14CV319, 8:15CV287 (D. Nev.), Magistrate
Judge Michael D. Nelson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nebraska recommended that (i) the Plaintiffs' Renewed
Motion for Class Certification be granted, and (ii) the
Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Exhibits Offered in
Support of Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification be
denied.

On June 4, 2014, Antonia Russell filed a putative class action
against Werner in California state court for violations of
California wage and hour laws.  On Aug. 25, 2014, Werner removed
the case to the Northern District of California.  On Oct. 6,
2014, the case was transferred to the district.

On March 30, 2015, an amended complaint was filed by Russell,
Abarca, Alesna, Cagle, Davis, Eads and Surman against Werner and
Drivers Management.  By joint stipulation of the parties, Russell
was dismissed as a party on April 24, 2015, and on Sept. 17,
2015, the Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint adding
claims under Nebraska wage and hour laws.

On May 12, 2015, Smith filed a putative class action against
Werner in California state court for violations of California
wage and hour laws.  On June 26, 2015, Werner removed the case to
the Northern District of California.  On July 31, 2015, the case
was transferred to the district.

On Nov. 19, 2015, the captioned cases were consolidated for all
purposes, including trial, and Case No. 8:14cv319 was deemed the
Lead Case.  The Court set March 1, 2016, as the deadline to
complete discovery limited to class certification and April 1,
2016, as the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file a motion to
certify a class.

On April 1, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify two
classes: a Nebraska Class and a California Class.  The operative
pleading at that time was the Plaintiffs' third amended
complaint, which defined the California Class as all truck
drivers who worked or work in California for Werner after the
completion of training at any time since four years before the
filing of the legal action until such time as there is a final
disposition of the lawsuit.

On Oct. 28, 2016, Senior District Judge Lyle E. Strom entered a
Memorandum and Order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  Judge Strom abstained from addressing the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify the "Nebraska Class," and granted
them leave to file a fourth amended complaint to attempt to
provide the Court with an adequately defined and clearly
ascertainable definition for the California Class.

On Nov. 9, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint.
On Dec. 29, 2016, Judge Strom sustained the Defendants' motion to
strike portions of the Plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint as it
contained new allegations not limited to redefining the
Plaintiffs' proposed California Class, in violation of the
court's previous order.

The Plaintiffs re-filed their fourth amended complaint on Jan. 6,
2017.  Their fourth amended complaint purports to bring claims
individually and on behalf of similarly situated current and
former truck drivers whom Werner employed to work in California
after the completion of training, and defines the California
Class as all truck drivers who, while working for Werner, picked
up and/or dropped off a load in the state of California after the
completion of training at any time since four years before the
filing of the legal action until such time as there is a final
disposition of the lawsuit.

With respect to the Nebraska Class, Plaintiffs purport to bring
claims individually and "on behalf of similarly situated current
and former truck drivers whom Werner employed to work anywhere
after the completion of training.  The Plaintiffs allege
violations of Nebraska law, which Werner has expressly agreed
would apply to truck driver employment and define the Nebraska
Class as all truck drivers who worked or work anywhere for Werner
after the completion of training at any time since four years
before the filing of this legal action until such time as there
is a final disposition of this lawsuit.

The California Class Plaintiffs allege the Defendants' policies
violate the California Labor Code, California Industrial
Commission Wage Orders, and the California Unfair Competition Law
by: (1) failing to provide duty free meal/rest periods (Claim
One); (2) failing to pay for off-the-clock work (Claim Two); (3)
making improper deductions from paychecks for income earned
(Claim Three); (4) failing to provide itemized pay statements as
required under California law (Claim Four); and (5) engaging in
unlawful business acts and unfair competition for the misconduct
alleged in (1)-(4) (Claim Five).  Claim Six seeks recovery under
the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA")3 to the extent
recovery for the preceding claims is not obtained.

The Nebraska Class Plaintiffs allege the Defendants violated the
Nebraska Wage and Hour Act ("NWHA") by paying less than the
minimum wage (Claim Seven) and the Nebraska Wage Payment and
Collection Act ("NWPCA") by failing to timely pay earned wages,
failing to provide accurate itemized pay statements, and making
improper wage deductions (Claim Eight).

The California Class requests a declaratory judgment that: (1)
the Defendants violated the California Labor Code, California
Welfare Commission wage orders, and California Unfair Business
Practices Act/Unfair Competition Law; (2) the time during which
the California Class members are on duty in California
constitutes compensable hours of employment for purposes of the
California Labor Code and California Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders; (3) California Class members are entitled
to an award for the unpaid wages, wages for absence of duty free
meal/rest periods, recovery of improper deductions from pay
earned in California, waiting time penalties, penalties for
absence of properly itemized wage statements/record maintenance,
and any other applicable statutory penalties; (4) the Defendants
must make restitution and disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains;
(5) equitable distribution be made of unpaid residue of any
recovery pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section
384; (6) injunctive relief is appropriate to prohibit future
violations; and (7) penalties should be awarded under PAGA.

The Nebraska Class requests a declaratory judgment that: (1)
Defendants violated the NWHA and NWPCA, (2) the time during which
the Nebraska Class members are working anywhere constitutes
compensable hours of employment for purposes of Nebraska law; (3)
Nebraska Class members are entitled to an award for the unpaid
wages, recovery of improper deductions, and any applicable
statutory penalties; (4) and Defendants must pay an additional
amount to the State Treasurer pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. Sec 48-
1232.

Defendants raise numerous affirmative defenses, including: (1)
the Plaintiffs consented in writing that their employment with
Werner was Nebraska-based and subject to Nebraska law; (2) the
Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part because there
is a conflict of laws prohibiting the extra-territorial
application of California law; the Plaintiffs' claims are barred
by (3) ratification and the (4) statute of limitations; and (5)
the Plaintiffs' claims are preempted by the Dormant Commerce
Clause and the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act.

On May 26, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the instant renewed motion
to certify a California Class and Nebraska Class.  They seek to
certify the California and Nebraska classes as defined by their
fourth amended complaint.  They state in their brief that the
proposed California Class asserts claims "for work performed in
California" regardless of a driver's residency.  They also
alternatively suggest that the Court certify a more narrowly
defined California Class limited to Werner drivers who were
California residents.  They further request that the Court
appoints the individually named Plaintiffs in Case No. 8:14cv319
as the class representatives and to appoint the class counsel.

In support of their renewed motion, the Plaintiffs filed the
Supplemental Declaration of Justin Swidler, and the Declaration
of Jacqueline Thompson.  The Defendants have filed a Motion to
Strike Exhibits Offered in Support of Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion
for Class Certification.

Having rigorously analyzed the requirements of Rule 23,
Magistrate Judge Nelson finds that the Plaintiffs have
established that certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2)
and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Nebraska Class defined as all truck
drivers who worked or work anywhere for Werner after the
completion of training at any time since four years before the
filing of the legal action until such time as there is a final
disposition of the lawsuit.

The Magistrate Judge further finds that the Plaintiffs have
established that certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2)
and Rule 23(b)(3) of the alternative California Class defined as
all truck drivers who, while working for Werner, were California
residents and picked up and/or dropped off a load in the state of
California after the completion of training at any time since
four years before the filing of the legal action until such time
as there is a final disposition of the lawsuit.

Upon consideration, he recommended to the Hon. Joseph F.
Bataillon, Senior United States District Court Judge, that (i)
the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification be
granted; (ii) the Court certifies the alternative California
Class limited to California residents; (iii) the Court certifies
the Nebraska Class; (iv) the Court appoints the named Plaintiffs
in Case No. 8:14CV319 as the class representatives; and (v) the
Court appoints Swartz Swidler, LLC (by Justin Swidler, and
Richard Swartz), Law Offices of James M. Sitkin (by James M.
Sitkin), Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho (by David Borgen,
James Kan, and Raymond Wendell), and the Turley Law Offices (by
William Turley, David Mara, and Jamie Serb) as the Class Counsel.

Magistrate Judge Nelson denied the Defendants' Motion to Strike
Plaintiffs' Exhibits Offered in Support of Plaintiffs' Renewed
Motion for Class Certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2018 Findings and
Recommendation and Order is available at https://is.gd/Pl4OH6
from Leagle.com.

Ezequiel Olivares Abarca, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Alfredo Alesna, Jr., individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, David Cagle, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Stephen L. Davis,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Frank
Eads, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated
& Kenneth J. Surman, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by David A. Borgen --
dborgen@gbdhlegal.com -- GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN LAW FIRM, pro hac
vice, James M. Sitkin -- jsitkin@sitkinlegal.com -- LAW OFFICES
OF JAMES M. SITKIN, pro hac vice, Justin L. Swidler --
jswidler@swartz-legal.com -- SWARTZ, SWIDLER LAW FIRM, Laura L.
Ho -- lho@gbdhlegal.com -- GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN LAW FIRM, pro hac
vice, Raymond A. Wendell -- rwendell@gbdhlegal.com -- GOLDSTEIN,
BORGEN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice & Richard S. Swartz --
rswartz@swartz-legal.com -- SWARTZ, SWIDLER LAW FIRM.

Werner Enterprises, Inc. & Drivers Management, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Brandon J. Crainer, FRASER, STRYKER LAW FIRM,
Elizabeth A. Culhane, FRASER, STRYKER LAW FIRM, Joseph E. Jones,
FRASER, STRYKER LAW FIRM & Kathryn A. Dittrick, FRASER, STRYKER
LAW FIRM.

William Smith, Interested Party, represented by David A. Borgen,
GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN LAW FIRM, Raymond A. Wendell, GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN
LAW FIRM & William D. Turley -- bturley@turleylawfirm.com --
TURLEY LAW FIRM.


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Petrone Appeals D. Neb. Ruling to 8th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Phillip Petrone, et al., filed an appeal from a
Memorandum & Order entered on February 9, 2018, in their lawsuit
entitled Philip Petrone, et al. v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., et
al., Case Nos. 8:11-cv-00401-LSC and 8:12-cv-00304-LSC, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha.

The appellate case is captioned as Philip Petrone, et al. v.
Werner Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-1574, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 2, 2018, a
class of student drivers' attempt at a new trial in a class
action against Werner Enterprises has been denied.

In May 2017, a federal jury in Nebraska awarded nearly $780,000
to Werner student drivers who weren't paid for rest breaks of 20
minutes or less.  However, the class asked that the judgment be
altered or amended, arguing that the jury's verdict was based on
an erroneous legal standard. Specifically, the student drivers
were requesting a partial judgment "as to the compensability of
sleeper berth time" or a partial new trial.  The plaintiffs
sought almost $2.2 million in attorney's fees, as well as about
$200,000 in nontaxable costs and $10,000 each for the named
plaintiffs.

The Nebraska federal judge didn't grant a new trial, saying
"there has been no miscarriage of justice that justifies amending
the judgement and/or granting a new trial."

Instead, the Plaintiffs were awarded $337,293 in attorney's fees,
$133,276 in nontaxable costs and expenses, and $10,000 for each
of the four named plaintiffs.

The class action is made up of more than 50,000 student drivers
from August 2008 until Aug. 1, 2014.

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

   -- Transcript is due on or before April 25, 2018;

   -- Appendix is due on May 7, 2018;

   -- Brief of Appellants Phillip Petrone, et al., is due on
      May 7, 2018;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant; and

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the
      court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellee brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Philip Petrone, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all those similarly situated, are represented by:

          Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 Kings Highway, N., Suite 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          E-mail: jboyette@swartz-legal.com
                  rswartz@swartz-legal.com
                  jswidler@swartz-legal.com

               - and -

          Joseph L. Messa, Jr., Esq.
          Thomas N. Sweeney, Esq.
          MESSA & ASSOCIATES
          123 South 22nd Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 568-3500
          E-mail: jmessa@messalaw.com
                  tsweeney@messalaw.com

Defendants-Appellees Werner Enterprises, Inc., doing business as
Werner Trucking, and Drivers Management, LLC, are represented by:

          Patrick Joseph Barrett, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Culhane, Esq.
          Joseph Edward Jones, Esq.
          FRASER STRYKER PC LLO
          500 Energy Plaza
          409 S. 17th Street
          Omaha, NE 68102-2663
          Telephone: (402) 341-6000
          E-mail: pbarrett@fraserstryker.com
                  eculhane@fraserstryker.com
                  jjones@fraserstryker.com


WYNN RESORTS: "Ferris" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
John V. Ferris and Joann M. Ferris, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Wynn Resorts Limited, Stephen A.
Wynn, Craig Scott Billings, Stephen Cootey, and Matthew O.
Maddox, Case No. 2:18-cv-00479 (D. Nev., March 13, 2018), seeks
to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Wynn Resorts' securities between February 28,
2014 and January 25, 2018, both dates inclusive.

Plaintiffs John V. Ferris and Joann M. Ferris acquired Wynn
Resorts securities at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period and were damaged upon the revelation of corrective
disclosures, says the complaint.

Defendant Wynn Resorts owns and operates luxury hotels and
destination casino resorts. The Company owns and operates Wynn
Las Vegas and Encore in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Wynn Macau and
Wynn Palace in Macau, China, and it is currently constructing a
new $2.4 billion property called Wynn Boston Harbor in Everett,
Massachusetts.

The Individual Defendants are officers of Wynn Resorts and
possessed the power and authority to control the contents of Wynn
Resorts' SEC filings, press releases, and other market
communications. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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




                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.
Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche
Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G.
Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter A.
Chapman at 215-945-7000.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *