CAR_Public/180412.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Thursday, April 12, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 74



                            Headlines


A10 NETWORKS: Shah Alleges Misleading Financial Reports
AAA COURIERS: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Morales Says
ACA SECURITY: Fails to Timely Pay Final Wages, Slaughter Says
AI MEDICAL: Faces "Kiler" Suit in New York Superior Court
AKORN INC: "Joshi" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation

ALPHA RECOVERY: "Hudson" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
AMAZING HOME: "Pierre" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Law
ARAMARK FOOD: "Tirado-Hannon" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
ARDENT COMPANIES: "Orozco" Suit Moved to C.D. California
AT&T MOBILITY: Suit Over 'Unlimited Data' Escapes Arbitration

BALLARD POWER: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
BASS PRO: "Anderson" Suit Alleges MMPA Violation
BELLICUM PHARMA: Robbins Geller Files Class Action
BEST BUY: Fails to Pay Hourly Wages, Lovig Says
BROOKLYN DENTAL: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Kiler Claims

CANCER GENETICS: Phetteplace Alleges Securities Law Violations
CAPITAL ONE: "Augustine" Suit Alleges FCRA Violation
CAR WASH: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
CELEBRATE AT SNUG HARBOR: Underpays Catering Staff, Suit Claims
CEMEX SAB: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

CIGNA HEALTH: CA Moves Forward for Alleged Drug Overcharging
CLICKSPARK LLC: Illegally Contacted Class, "Ivey" Suit Alleges
COME LAND: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Robles Says
COMERICA BANK: "Baker" Suit Alleges Fraud and Negligence
COMICBOOK.COM: Website Not Accessible to Deaf, Sullivan Claims

CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Clermont Sues over Debt Collection
CRACKER BARREL: "Vest" Suit Moved to Western Dist. of Missouri
CREDIT SUISSE: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
CREDIT SUISSE: Milberg Tadler Files Suit Over XIV Notes
CRESCENT GUARDIAN: "Quinn" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA

CSRA INC: "Fallness" Suit Challenges Sale to General Dynamics
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Bell et al. Sue over Family Medical Leave Act
CUMMINS ENTERPRISES: "Lopez" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under FLSA
CYNTHIA'S TOUCH: "Sedgwick" Suit Seeks OT Pay under FLSA
CYPRESS SECURITY: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action

DARP INC: Sued by Fochtman for Forcing Residents to Work W/o Pay
DIRECTV LLC: Illegally Debits Customers' Accounts, Valdez Says
DIVERSITY BUSINESS: Fails to Provide Rest Breaks, Gary Says
DOES 1-100: Atlantic Trading Suit Alleges CEA Violation
EAT REAL SNACKS: Condon Files False Labeling Suit in N.Y.

ENERCON FEDERAL: "Jimerson" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
EVIO GROUP: "Cortes" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
FACEBOOK INC: Used Private Info to Influence Elections, Suit Says
FACEBOOK INC: Allowed 3rd Party to Mine User Data, Labajo Claims
FACEBOOK INC: Allowed 3rd Party to Mine User Data, Picha Claims

FADARO FANCY FOODS: "Zamora" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under FLSA
FLORIDA: South Florida Homeowners to Split $42MM in State Money
FOOT LOCKER: Faces Securities Suit by Warren Police Retirees
FOOT LOCKER: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
FORD MOTOR: Website Not Accessible to Deaf, Sullivan Says

GLOBAL CONTROL: "Fahnestock" Disputes Collection Letter
GLOBAL FITNESS: Gascho Seeks High Court Review of 6th Cir. Ruling
GO WITH THE FLOW: "Haug" Suit Moved to C.D. California
GOLD'S GYM: Zemel Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
GOOGLE LLC: Class Action Suit Advances Against Firm

GT ADVANCED: June 28 Fairness Hearing on $27MM Class Settlement
HARRIS & HARRIS: "Bartz" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Settles Lawsuit, Will Change Labor Policy
HITACHI CHEMICAL: June 7 Hearing on $66.9MM Class Settlement
HITCHCOCK AUTOMOTIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Janabajal Claims

HOME DEPOT: "Howard" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
HUDSON MARKET: "Cuautle" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wage under FLSA
HUDSON'S BAY: Fails to Secure Personally Identifiable Information
INTEL CORP: Faces "Henderson" Suit in Oregon Over Defective CPUs
INTEL CORPORATION: Processors Have Security Flaw, New Castle Says

INTEL CORPORATION: "Jones" Suit Moved to District of Oregon
J.S. PALUCH: Fails to Reimburse Employees for Business Expenses
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bailey Sues over Talcum Powder Based Products
LADY JANE'S HAIRCUTS: Siroka Seeks Minimum Wage & OT under FLSA
LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: Witmer Balks at Merger Deal with Granite

LIFETIME KIA: Warren Truck Sues over Unsolicited Fax Ads
LONGFIN CORP: Reddy Says Financial Reports Misleading
MADISON COUNTY, MS: Black Residents File Class Action
MADISON COUNTY, MS: ACLU Says Data Shows Discriminatory Policing
MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: "Akerman" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation

MANITOBA FLOOD: Court Approves $90MM Flood Class Settlement
MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS: Kennedy Seeks OT Pay under FLSA
MARIE CALLENDER: "Carter" Suit Moved to C.D. California
MCKESSON CORPORATION: Reeses Sue over Opioid Drug Sales
MDL 2741: "Pica" Suit vs. Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal.

MEND HEALTH: Fails to Pay All Wages & Overtime, Ramos Says
METRO CHRYSLER: Brutus Seeks Minimum Wage & OT under Labor Law
MICRO FOCUS: Wolff Sues over Plunge in Stock Price
MIDLAND CREDIT: Slater Says Debts Collection Practices "Illegal"
MIZUHO BANK: July 12 Hearing on $30MM Euroyen Settlement

MONAT GLOBAL: Company Faces Four Class Action Lawsuits
MONAT GLOBAL: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action
MULTI-STATE LOTTERY: Class Suit Seeks Money Due to Rigged System
NEW YORK JETS: Class-Action Lawsuit Over Personal Seat Licenses
NEW ZEALAND: Law Professor Advises Checkpoint Targets to Sue

NEXEN CORP: Hegedus Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
NHL: Judge to Decide if Concussion Lawsuit is Class Action
NORTHEAST CREDIT: Faces Class Suit Over Overdraft Fees
NORWEGIAN AIR: Mazzini et al. Sue over Cancelled, Delayed Flights
OHM GROUP: "Alom" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations

PACIFIC VIAL: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Barragan Says
PACTIV LLC: Refuses to Pay All Wages to Class, "Ceniceros" Claims
PCL CIVIL: N.Carolina Islands Power Outage Could Yield $10MM Deal
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Payout Triggers Deep 4Q Loss
PICON PENZINI: "Callejas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

QUALCOMM INC: "Evans" Suit Alleges Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
QUDIAN INC: "Song" Suit Alleges Misleading IPO Documents
QUEBEC: Negotiations Stall in Highway 13 Blizzard Suit
ROADSTAR TOWING: "Rogers" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
RON HERMAN: Violates Wage and Hour Laws, Pham Says

SANIMAX: South St. Paul Residents File Class-Action Lawsuit
SCHULTE HOSPITALITY: Georges, Rankins Sue over Biometric Data
SIMM ASSOCIATES: Matsui Sues over Debt Collection Practices
SOLID BIOSCIENCES: IPO Prospectus Misleading, "Walsh" Suit Claims
SONY CORP: PS3 Buyers Could Get $65 Following Class Settlement

STRAD ENERGY: "Ruberto" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
STARKIST CO: Warner Sues over Product Labels' Heart-Check Mark
SWAN LAKE: Class Action Suit Explained
TEZOS: Judge Picks LTL Attorneys to Lead Groundbreaking Suit
THINK FINANCE: "Banks" Suit Moved to Northern District of Texas

U.S. SECURITY: "Burrola" Suit Moved to S.D. California
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Says Firm Silences Sexually Abused Women
ULTA BEAUTY: Claimsfiler Reminds of May 1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
ULTA BEAUTY: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action
UNDER ARMOUR: Murray Sues over Consumer Data Breach

VENMO LLC: "Babar" Suit Alleges False Advertising
WAGEWORKS INC: Has Issued False Financial Statements, GERS Claims
WELLS FARGO: Customers Could Have More Time to File Claims
WESTLAKE SERVICES: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Yeganeh Says
WHITE GLOVE: "Cedeno" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law

WOOLERY PAINTING: "Almendares" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
WOLVERINE WORLD: Cedar Springs Residents Part of New Suit
WHOLE FOODS: Sued Over Kombucha Products False Advertising
YANGTZE LLC: "Wang" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA

* Legislation Bans Fed Workers From Staying at Trump Properties




                            *********


A10 NETWORKS: Shah Alleges Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------
KETANKUMAR SHAH, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. A10 NETWORKS, INC., LEE
CHEN, GREG STRAUGHN, SHIVA NATARAJAN, AND TOM CONSTANTINO, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01772-VC (N.D. Cal., March 22, 2018),
is a federal securities class action on behalf of all persons and
entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise
acquired the publicly traded securities of A10 between February
9, 2016 and January 30, 2018, both dates inclusive.

Defendant A10 provides software and hardware solutions in the
United States and internationally. A10 is a Secure Application
Services (TM) company, providing a range of high-performance
application networking solutions that help organizations ensure
that their data center applications and networks remain highly
available, accelerated and secure. The Company is incorporated in
Delaware and its principal executive offices are located at 3
West Plumeria Drive, San Jose, California 95134. A10's securities
trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol
"ATEN."

The Defendant Lee Chen is the founder and has been the Chief
Executive Officer of A10 at all relevant times. Defendant Greg
Straughn was A10's Chief Financial Officer from the beginning of
the Class Period until February 9, 2017. Defendant Shiva
Natarajan served as A10's interim CFO from February 2017 until
June 2017. Defendant Tom Constantino has been A10's CFO since
June 2017.

Each of the Individual Defendants: (a) directly participated in
the management of the Company; (b) was directly involved in the
day-to-day operations of the Company at the highest levels; (c)
was privy to confidential proprietary information concerning the
Company and its business and operations; (d) was directly or
indirectly involved in drafting, producing, reviewing and/or
disseminating the false and misleading statements and information
alleged herein; (e) was directly or indirectly involved in the
oversight or implementation of the Company's internal controls;
(f) was aware of or recklessly disregarded the fact that the
false and misleading statements were being issued concerning the
Company; and/or (g) approved or ratified these statements in
violation of the federal securities laws.

The Company is liable for the acts of the Individual Defendants
and its employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior and
common law principles of agency because all of the wrongful acts
complained of herein were carried out within the scope of their
employment. The scienter of the Individual Defendants and other
employees and agents of the Company is similarly imputed to the
Company under respondeat superior and agency principles.

A10 Networks is a U.S. public company, based in San Jose, Calif.,
that provides a range of high-performance application security
and networking solutions that help organizations ensure that
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785 2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226 4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


AAA COURIERS: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Morales Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS MORALES, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AAA COURIERS, INC., a
California corporation; CLASSIC COURIERS, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. BC698806 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 21, 2018), seeks to
recover minimum and straight-time wages and overtime compensation
under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants
as a courier from approximately December 2016 to January 2018.
The Defendants paid Plaintiff on an hourly basis and classified
him as non-exempt from overtime. During his employment for
Defendants, Plaintiff typically worked at least 5 days in a
workweek and at least 8 hours per day, but there were also times
when Plaintiff worked shifts greater than 10 and 12 hours in a
workday, and there were also times when Plaintiff worked all 7
days in a workweek. Throughout his employment, Defendants failed
to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked (including minimum wages,
straight time wages, and overtime wages), failed to provide
Plaintiff with meal periods, failed to authorize and permit
Plaintiff to take rest periods, failed to indemnify Plaintiff for
necessary business expenses, failed to timely pay all final wages
to Plaintiff when he terminated his employment, and failed to
furnish accurate wage statements to Plaintiff.

AAA Couriers is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business from Hollywood,
California.[BN]

Attorneys for Carlos Morales:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 18>80
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 232 3128
          Facsimile: (213) 232 3125
          E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
                  justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com


ACA SECURITY: Fails to Timely Pay Final Wages, Slaughter Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
DARRYL SLAUGHTER, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ACA SECURITY SYSTEMS, LP, a
California limited partnership; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
the Defendant, Case No. BC699237 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 21,
2018), seeks to recover final wages under the California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, Defendants have wrongfully failed to
provide Plaintiff and the Class with timely and duty-free meal
periods. Defendants regularly required Plaintiff and the Class to
work in excess of five consecutive hours a day without providing
a 30-minute, continuous and uninterrupted, duty-free meal period
for every five hours of work, or without compensating Plaintiff
and the Class for meal periods that were not provided by the end
of the fifth hour of work or tenth hour of work. Defendants did
not adequately inform Plaintiff and the Class of their right to
take a meal period by the end of the fifth hour of work, or, for
shifts greater than 10 hours, by the end of the tenth hour of
work. Moreover, Defendants did not have adequate written policies
or practices providing meal periods for Plaintiff and the Class,
nor did Defendants have adequate policies or practices regarding
the timing of meal periods. Defendants also did not have adequate
policies or practices to verify whether Plaintiff and the Class
were taking their required meal periods. Accordingly, Defendants'
policy and practice was to not provide meal periods to Plaintiff
and the Class in compliance with California law.

Throughout the statutory period, Defendants have wrongfully
failed to authorize and permit Plaintiff and the Class to take
timely and duty-free rest periods. Defendants regularly required
Plaintiff and the Class to work in excess of four consecutive
hours a day without Defendants authorizing and permitting them to
take a 10-minute, continuous and uninterrupted, rest period for
every four hours of work (or major fraction of four hours), or
without compensating Plaintiff and the Class for rest periods
that were not authorized or permitted.[BN]

Attorneys for Darryl Slaughter:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          Justin F. Marquez, 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


AI MEDICAL: Faces "Kiler" Suit in New York Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against AI Medical Urgent Care PLLC. The
case is captioned as MARION KILER, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AI MEDICAL URGENT
CARE PLLC d/b/a FIRST RESPONSE URGENT CARE, the Defendant, Case
No. 505680/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 21, 2018).

AI Medical is an urgent care clinic in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016


AKORN INC: "Joshi" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Joshi Living Trust, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Akorn, Inc., Rajat Rai, Duane A. Portwood,
and Randall E. Pollard, Case No. 1:18-cv-01713 (N.D. Ill., March
8, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the
Securities Exchange Act.

This is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities, other than
Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Akorn from March 1, 2017
through February 26, 2018, inclusive seeking to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of federal
securities laws.

Plaintiff, as set forth in the attached Certification, acquired
Akorn securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the corrective
disclosures.

Defendant Akorn develops, manufactures, and markets specialized
generic and branded pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter drug
products, and animal health products in the United States and
internationally. Akorn is a Louisiana corporation with its
headquarters located at 1925 W. Field Court, Suite 300, Lake
Forrest, Illinois 60045. Akorn securities trade on the NASDAQ
under the ticker symbol "AKRX."

Defendant Rajat Rai has been the Company's Chief Executive
Officer since May 21, 2010.

Defendant Duane A. Portwood has been the Company's Chief
Financial Officer and Executive Vice President since October 30,
2015.

Defendant Randall E. Pollard has been the Company's Chief
Accounting Officer since August 2015, and Senior Vice President
and Corporate Controller since April 2015. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew T. Heffner, Esq.
      Matthew T. Hurst, Esq.
      HEFFNER HURST
      30 North LaSalle Street
      Twelfth Floor
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 346-3466
      Fax: (312) 346-2829
      E-mail: mheffner@heffnerhurst.com
              mhurst@heffnerhurst.com

          - and -

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Ave, 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 686-1060
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
              pkim@rosenlegal.com


ALPHA RECOVERY: "Hudson" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Daryl Hudson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Alpha Recovery Corp and JH Portfolio Debt Equities,
LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-01461 (E.D. N.Y., March 8, 2018), is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Plaintiff Daryl Hudson is a resident in Kings County, New York.

Defendant Alpha Recovery Corp is a Colorado Corporation with
principal place of business in Arapahoe County, Colorado.

Defendant JH Portfolio Debt Equities, LLC is a California Limited
Liability Company with principal place of business in Los Angeles
County, California.

Defendants are regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection
of debts allegedly owed by consumers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMAZING HOME: "Pierre" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIE L. PIERRE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMAZING HOME CARE SERVICES LLC,
AMAZING HOME CARE PROVIDERS INC., INTERGEN HEALTH LLC, and JOSEPH
STENFELD a/k/a JOSEPH STEINFELD individually, the Defendants,
Case No. 506759/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 4, 2018), seeks to
recover overtime pay under the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants are primarily engaged in providing nursing and
home health aide services at the residences of its clients.
Defendants employed Plaintiff as a home health aide/home
attendant at various locations throughout New York, and
maintained control, oversight, and direction over Plaintiff in
regard to timekeeping, payroll, and other employment practices,
and functioned as employers pursuant to the NYLL.

While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff regularly worked more
than 40 hours per week. Plaintiff would clock in and out every
shift using Defendants' timekeeping system. Plaintiff generally
worked 4 consecutive 24-hour shifts per week, beginning at 8:00
a.m. on Friday and ending at 8:00 a.m. on Tuesday. Occasionally
Plaintiff would work additional shifts that lasted less than 24-
hours. On average, Plaintiff would work approximately 96 hours
per week. The Plaintiff was only paid for approximately 13 hours
of her 24-hour shifts. Plaintiff was not paid any hourly rate for
the other 11 hours worked. Thus, because of Defendant's improper
compensation policies, Plaintiff was not paid for 44 or more
hours per pay period, in direct violation of the NYLL.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Gaylord, Esq.
          BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
          400 Jericho Turnpike Suite 226
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Telephone: (516) 742 4949
          Facsimile: (516) 742 1977


ARAMARK FOOD: "Tirado-Hannon" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANNA TIRADO-HANNON, the Plaintiff, v. ARAMARK FOOD & SUP
SERVICES, ARAMARK SERVICES, INC., and JOHN DOE ENTITIES 1 THROUGH
10, all whose true names are unknown, the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-05402 (D.N.J., April 4, 2018), seeks to recover overtime
pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State
Wage and Hour Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was improperly paid a
salary for her hours worked. The Plaintiff routinely worked six
days per week. The Plaintiff routinely worked conservatively 65
hours per week. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at one and
one half times her regular rate of pay for her overtime hours
worked in each work week.

Aramark provides food service, facilities and uniform services to
hospitals, universities, school districts, stadiums and other
businesses around the world.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, No. 306
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (201) 687 9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595 0308
          E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com
                  JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


ARDENT COMPANIES: "Orozco" Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Edgar Orozco, an individual, for
himself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ardent
Companies, Inc., a Louisiana company and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV00925, was removed from
the Santa Barbara County Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Western Division -
Los Angeles) on April 3, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:18-cv-02763-GW-SS to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge George H. Wu.

Ardent is a group of companies operating as a privately held real
estate investment and asset management firm that combines the
disciplines of research and comprehensive due diligence with a
commitment to long-term relationships creating compelling risk
adjusted returns for investors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Anthony Strauss, Esq.
          Andrew Clayton Ellison, Esq.
          Aris Edmund Karakalos, Esq.
          STRAUSS AND STRAUSS APC
          121 North Fir Street Suite F
          Ventura, CA 93001
          Telephone: (805) 641 6600
          Facsimile: (805) 641 6607
          E-mail: mike@strausslawyers.com
                  andrew@strausslawyers.com
                  aris@strausslawyers.com

Attorneys for Ardent Companies, Inc.:

          Joshua D. Kienitz, Esq.
          Perry K. Miska, Jr., Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          333 Bush Street 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 399 8451
          Facsimile: (415) 358 4566
          E-mail: jkienitz@littler.com
                  pmiska@littler.com


AT&T MOBILITY: Suit Over 'Unlimited Data' Escapes Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal judge
has breathed new life into a class action lawsuit claiming that
AT&T Mobility misled consumers by marketing certain data plans as
"unlimited" while at the same time slowing the data speeds for
consumers who crossed certain use thresholds.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of
California, who had previously routed the suit to arbitration, on
March 14 granted the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration,
agreeing that AT&T's arbitration clause is now unenforceable
under a California Supreme Court ruling that was handed down
while his earlier ruling was pending on appeal.

AT&T's lawyers at Mayer Brown previously convinced Chen to route
the lawsuit to arbitration in April 2016 based on language in the
company's user agreement with customers. That ruling was upheld
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in December
2017.
But while the case was pending at the Ninth Circuit, the
California Supreme Court ruled in McGill v. Citibank, N.A. that
an arbitration agreement that waves the right to seek public
injunctive relief in any forum is contrary to California public
policy and therefore unenforceable.

In March 14 ruling, Chen held that the McGill rule would apply to
the California-based named plaintiffs in the AT&T case, and that
plaintiffs counsel at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein hadn't
waited too long to raise new arguments.

Mayer Brown's Archis Parasharami passed a request for comment
along to an AT&T spokesman, Marty Richter .

"We respectfully disagree with the decision and we plan to
appeal," said Richter in an email statement.

Michael Sobol, Esq., of Lieff Cabraser didn't immediately respond
to a message seeking comment. [GN]


BALLARD POWER: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of Ballard Power Systems Inc. ("Ballard" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: BLDP) securities between September 30,
2016, and January 25, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Ballard investors have until March 20, 2018 to file a lead
plaintiff motion.

To obtain information or actively participate in the class
action, please visit the Ballard page on our website at
www.glancylaw.com/case/ballard-power-systems-inc. Investors that
suffered losses on their Ballard investments are encouraged to
contact Lesley Portnoy of GPM to discuss their legal rights in
this class action at 310-201-9150 or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com.

On January 25, 2018, Spruce Point Capital Management published a
report asserting, among other things, that Ballard misrepresented
its operations. For example, the report alleges that contrary to
Ballard's public statements, "there are no demonstration lines
operating in Guangdong and that no bus lines are in service in
Sanshui or Yunfu." The report further stated that local press
releases indicate that Foshan has produced 114 fuel cell vehicle
buses, but that a Foshan employee claimed that "far fewer buses
have been produced to date and only 11 are licensed." On this
news, shares of Ballard fell $0.52, or over 13%, to close at
$3.27 on January 25, 2018, thereby injuring investors.

The Complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
Company had overstated the operations of its China-based partners
Broad Ocean and Synergy JV; (ii) Ballard's technologies had not
been deployed in China to the extent the Company had represented;
and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Ballard shares traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, and class
members suffered significant losses and damages.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/GPM_LLP.

If you purchased shares of Ballard during the Class Period you
may move the Court no later than March 20, 2018 to ask the Court
to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you
have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley
Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-
9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

Contacts:

     Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     Los Angeles, CA
     Tel: 310-201-9150
     Tel: 888-773-9224
     Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com
            lportnoy@glancylaw.com [GN]


BASS PRO: "Anderson" Suit Alleges MMPA Violation
------------------------------------------------
Dustin Anderson and Franklin Gonzales, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC,
Case No. 6:18-cv-03077 (W.D. Mo., March 9, 2018), is brought
against the Defendant for violation of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act and unjust enrichment.

This is a class action brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of all
consumers in the United States who attempted to purchase a Johnny
Morris Carbonlite 2.0 rod and reel combo during Defendant's 2018
Spring Fishing Classic, but were unable to do so because
Defendant failed to stock sufficient quantities of the product to
meet reasonably anticipated demand.

Plaintiffs, Frank Gonzales and Dustin Anderson, are Missouri
residents and at all times relevant to this complaint (1)
received the advertisement for Defendant's 2018 Spring Fishing
Classic, which included the advertised sale on the Johnny Morris
Carbonlite 2.0 rod and reel combo, (2) visited Defendant's store
in Springfield, Missouri with the express intention to purchase
the Carbonlite 2.0, and (3) were unable to do so because
Defendant did not have any Carbonlite 2.0 in stock.

Defendant, Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, is a Missouri limited
liability company. Defendant operates 82 retail stores across the
United States and Canada. Defendant markets and sells a wide
variety of hunting, fishing, and outdoor gear at these retail
stores and online. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Nathan A. Duncan, Esq.
      Craig R. Heidemann, Esq.
      DOUGLAS, HAUN & HEIDEMANN, P.C.
      111 West Broadway, P.O. Box 117
      Bolivar, MO 65613
      Tel: (417) 326-5261
      Fax: (417) 326-2845
      E-mail: nathan@dhhlawfirm.com
              craig@dhhlawfirm.com


BELLICUM PHARMA: Robbins Geller Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed that a class action
has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of Bellicum
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. securities during the period between May 8,
2017 and January 30, 2018 (the "Class Period"). This action was
filed in the Southern District of Texas and is captioned Rudy v.
Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-00795.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from February 6, 2018. If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
David C. Walton of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-
1058, or via e-mail at davew@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of
this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/bellicum/.Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Bellicum and certain of its officers and/or
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Bellicum operates as a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company
focused on discovering and developing novel cellular
immunotherapies for various forms of cancer. The Company's lead
product candidate is BPX-501, an adjunct T-cell therapy
administered after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell
transplantation ("HSCT"), also known as bone marrow
transplantation. During the Class Period, Bellicum represented
that BPX-501 was in multiple clinical trials to evaluate the
drug's ability to improve patient outcomes by enhancing the
recovery of the immune system following an HSCT procedure.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose adverse information regarding BPX-501,
Bellicum's lead product candidate. Specifically, defendants
failed to disclose that a substantial undisclosed risk of
encephalopathy (brain damage) was associated with BPX-501. As a
result of defendants' false statements and/or omissions, the
price of Bellicum shares was artificially inflated during the
Class Period, with its stock price reaching a high of $13.98 per
share on June 22, 2017.

Then on January 30, 2018, after the market closed, Bellicum
announced that it had "received notice from the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) that U.S. studies of BPX-501 have been
placed on a clinical hold following three cases of encephalopathy
deemed as possibly related to BPX-501. Bellicum is awaiting
formal communications from the FDA to determine the requirements
for resuming studies, and will be working closely with the FDA to
address their questions." On this news, the price of Bellicum
stock fell $2.12 per share, or more than 25%, to close at $6.08
per share on January 31, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Bellicum securities during the Class Period (the "Class"). The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including
actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller is widely recognized as a leading law firm
advising and representing U.S. and international investors in
securities litigation and portfolio monitoring. With 200 lawyers
in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history. For the third
consecutive year, the Firm ranked first in both the total amount
recovered for investors and the number of shareholder class
action recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 Report. Robbins Geller
attorneys have shaped the law in the areas of securities
litigation and shareholder rights and have recovered tens of
billions of dollars on behalf of the Firm's clients. Robbins
Geller not only secures recoveries for defrauded investors, it
also implements significant corporate governance reforms, helping
to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Please
visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.

         David C. Walton, Esq.
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Tel: 800-449-4900
         Email: davew@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


BEST BUY: Fails to Pay Hourly Wages, Lovig Says
-----------------------------------------------
NIKOLA LOVIG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BEST BUY L.P., a Virginia limited
Partnership, the Defendant, Case No. RG18899577 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
April 3, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid hourly wages under
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide him and
all other similarly situated individuals with meal and rest
periods; pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest
periods at the regular rate of pay; pay them at least minimum
wage for all hours worked; pay them overtime wages at the correct
rate; pay them double time wages at the correct rate; pay them
overtime and/or double time wages by failing to include all
applicable remuneration in calculating the regular rate of pay;
provide them with accurate written wages statements; and pay them
all of their final wages following separation of employment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Scott Leviant, Esq.
          William M. Pao, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverley Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888 7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888 0109
          E-mail: Shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  scott@setareh1aw.com


BROOKLYN DENTAL: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Kiler Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARION KILER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BROOKLYN DENTAL GROUP, P.C., the
Defendant, Case No. 505681/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 21, 2018),
seeks to put an end to systemic civil rights violations committed
by Defendant against the blind in New York State and across the
United States.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind
individuals throughout New York State equal access to the goods
and services Defendant provides to its non-disabled customers
through http://www.martinbodekdds.com/ The Website provides to
the public a wide array of the goods, services, and other
programs offered by Defendant. Yet, the Website contains numerous
access barriers that make it difficult, if not impossible, for
blind customers to use the Website. The Defendant thus excludes
the blind from the full and equal participation in the growing
Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the
common marketplace and daily living.

Brooklyn Dental is a full service Dental Office Located in
Flatbush Brooklyn specializing in complete dental procedures and
dental services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016


CANCER GENETICS: Phetteplace Alleges Securities Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
BEN PHETTEPLACE, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CANCER GENETICS, INC.,
PANNA L. SHARMA, JOHN A. ROBERTS, AND IGOR GITELMAN, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-05612 (D.N.J., April 5, 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 and entities, other than
Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly
traded securities of Cancer Genetics from March 23, 2017 through
April 2, 2018, inclusive.

On October 12, 2015, Cancer Genetics issued a press release
entitled, "Cancer Genetics, Inc. Finalizes Purchase of Los
Angeles-based Molecular Profiling Laboratory, Response Genetics,
Inc., Adding $10-$12M in Annual Revenue and Establishing a
National Clinical Sales Footprint" which announced that Cancer
Genetics closed its acquisition of Response Genetics, Inc., a
molecular profiling laboratory on October 9, 2012.

On March 23, 2017, the Company filed a Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2016 with the SEC, which provided the
Company's year-end financial results and position as of December
31, 2016. The 2016 10-K was signed by Defendants Sharma, Roberts,
and Gitelman. The 2016 10-K also contained signed certifications
pursuant to Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 by Defendants Sharma and
Roberts attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the
disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal
controls over financial reporting, and the disclosure of all
fraud.

Cancer Genetics is an emerging leader in the field of
personalized medicine, offering products and services that enable
cancer diagnostics as well as treatments that are tailored to the
specific genetic profile of the individual. Products and services
being developed at CGI are poised to transform cancer
patient.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
          South Orange, NJ 07079
          Telephone: (973) 313 1887
          Facsimile: (973) 833 0399
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


CAPITAL ONE: "Augustine" Suit Alleges FCRA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Ophelia Augustine, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Capital One Auto Finance, Inc., Case No.
3:18-cv-00511 (S.D. Calif., March 9, 2018), seeks damages and
injunctive relief for Defendant's violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Plaintiff Ophelia Augustine is a natural person who resides in
the County of San Diego, State of California, whose credit report
was affected by at least one unauthorized inquiry by Defendant.

Defendant Capital One Auto Finance, Inc. provides vehicle
financing. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAR WASH: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAR WASH HEADQUARTERS INC. dba MISTER
CARWASH, a Foreign Profit Corporation and JEFFREY BURR, the
Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-00504-PGB-GJK (Fla. Cir. Ct,
Seminole Cty., April 3, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees were regularly required to
work in excess of 40 hours a workweek but were not paid overtime
compensation as required by FLSA.

The Defendant operates car wash and express lube services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
          WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
          One Progress Plaza
          200 Central Avenue No. 400
          St. Petersburg, FL 33701
          Telephone: (727) 822 1111
          Facsimile: (727) 898 2001
          E-mail: Pleadings@theFlawfirm.com
                  lechnerj@theFlawfirm.com
                  sonia@theFlawfirm.com


CELEBRATE AT SNUG HARBOR: Underpays Catering Staff, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
VINCENT SETTECASI and BARRY ROBINSON, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CELEBRATE AT SNUG
HARBOR, LLC d/b/a RELISH CATERERS; FRANK CRETELLA; JEANNE
CRETELLA; COLLEEN REMAURO; CLAUDINE REVERE; and any other related
entities, the Defendants, Case No. 152508/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
March 21, 2018), seeks to recover compensation, including
gratuities that they were deprived of plus interest, attorneys'
fees, and costs under New York Labor Law.

Defendants provide customers and potential customers with
documents including bills, menus, contracts, invoices,
correspondence with sales staff, and other catering related
documents that refer to a "service charge" or other mandatory
charge of approximately 20% for the administration of a banquet
and/or catered event. These documents do not contain adequate
disclaimers to ensure that a reasonable patron would understand
that the Mandatory Charge is not a gratuity and will not be
distributed to the event service staff.

Defendants failed to include an adequate disclaimer on all
documents containing pricing information, as required by Labor
Law Sec. 196-d and its implementing regulations. For example,
Defendants' wedding reception brochure for Defendants' Snug
Harbor location, states that prices are subject to a "20%
administrative fee" with no disclaimer advising customers that
the administrative fee is not a gratuity and will not be
distributed to the catering service workers who work the event.

The Plaintiffs were in fact only paid a flat hourly wage when
they worked at Defendants' catered events and did not receive
their portion of the Mandatory Charge. The Defendants have
engaged in a policy and practice of failing to pay the Mandatory
Charge to the Named Plaintiffs and, upon information and belief,
similarly situated employees. The Defendants instead retained the
money for their own benefit in violation of Labor Law Article.

Defendants provide catering services.[BN]

Attorneys for the Named Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Laura R. Reznick, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873 9550


CEMEX SAB: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Cemex, S.A.B. de C.V.  and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, and docketed under 18-cv-02352, is on
behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Cemex American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs")
between August 14, 2014 and March 13, 2018, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Plaintiff 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 "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Cemex ADRs between August
14, 2014, and March 13, 2018, both dates inclusive, you have
until May 15, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact Robert
S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone
number, and the number of shares purchased.

Cemex is a global building materials company that produces,
distributes, and markets cement, ready-mix concrete, aggregates,
and related building materials. Cemex operates throughout the
Americas, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Cemex executives
had engaged in an unlawful bribery scheme in connection with the
Company's business dealings in Colombia; (ii) discovery of the
foregoing conduct would likely subject the Company to heightened
regulatory scrutiny and potential criminal sanctions; (iii) the
Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial
reporting; and (iv) as a result, Cemex's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 23, 2016, post-market, Cemex disclosed the Company's
dismissal of two senior executives after an internal probe found
that payments worth $20 million relating to a land deal in
Colombia had breached company protocols.

On this news, Cemex's American depositary receipt ("ADR") price
fell $0.17, or 2.28%, to close at $7.26 on September 26, 2016.

On December 9, 2016, Cemex disclosed receipt of a subpoena from
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission seeking information
about irregular payments made at the Company's Colombia unit.

Then, on March 14, 2018, Cemex disclosed that the U.S. Department
of Justice is investigating the Company over payments made by the
Company related to a cement plant it is building in Colombia to
determine whether any violations of federal bribery laws
occurred.

On this news, Cemex's ADR price fell $0.12, or 1.64%, to close at
$7.21 on March 14, 2018.

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

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Tel: 888-476-6529 Ext. 9980
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


CIGNA HEALTH: CA Moves Forward for Alleged Drug Overcharging
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Storace, writing for Connecticut Law Tribune, reports that
a federal judge in Connecticut has denied most of Cigna Health
and Life Insurance's claims in its request to dismiss a lawsuit
which alleges it artificially inflated prescription drug costs in
violation of the health insurance policies of its clients.

The March 12 ruling by U.S. District Judge Warren Eginton means
the class-action lawsuit against both Cigna and OptumRx Inc. will
move forward. The insurance giant hired OptumRx as its pharmacy
benefits manager to negotiate drug prices on behalf of Cigna and
the Cigna network.

The October 2016 lawsuit, filed on behalf of five individuals who
were covered by Bloomfield-based Cigna, alleges the two companies
conspired over several years to make consumers pay higher prices
for prescription drugs. The defendants allegedly misrepresented
the costs of the drugs through increased charges to patients and
then "clawbacks" to get a larger portion of patients' payments.
In his ruling, Eginton, who presides in Bridgeport, wrote, in
part: "The court finds the plaintiffs have plausibly alleged more
than an entitlement to lower-cost prescription drugs or breach of
contract. . . . . The complaint plausibly alleges the defendant
CIGNA acted with scienter by alleging that it intentionally
sought to charge excess amounts for prescription drugs and that
it required the pharmacies to conceal from the insureds the
amounts of the prescription drug costs."

The lawsuit claims violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organization Act against both defendants. Eginton denied
the motion to dismiss most claims, but did dismiss the RICO claim
against OptumRx, while keeping the RICO claim against Cigna.

The lawsuit cites numerous alleged examples of the defendants and
their agents taking clawback and/or so-called spread payments
thousands of times each day from pharmacies across the country.
Examples cited in the lawsuit show a class member in November
2014 paid a pharmacy a $20 co-payment for the prescription drug
Amlodipine Besylate, 1,043 percent more than the actual $1.75 fee
paid to the pharmacist. Without disclosing it to the consumer,
the lawsuit alleges, the defendants clawed back the $18.25
overcharge.

In another cited case, a class member, also in November 2014,
paid a pharmacy a $20 co-payment for the prescription drug
Clopidogrel, a 468 percent premium over the actual $3.52 fee paid
to the pharmacist. Again without disclosing it to the customer,
defendants clawed back the $16.48 overcharge, the lawsuit states.

Craig Raabe, Esq. a partner with Izard, Kindall and Raabe in West
Hartford and attorney for the plaintiffs, called Eginton's
decision, "A great ruling for consumers. We now look forward to
going into the discovery phase."

That phase, Raabe told the Connecticut Law Tribune, should
determine "the mechanism and scope of the overcharges. Discovery
will also determine how much in overcharges there have been and
how many people were overcharged. We are seeking reimbursement
for the class for all of the overcharges."

Raabe said his office became involved in the case after getting a
call from a client. "We received a complaint about drug
overcharges, investigated the issue thoroughly and discovered the
overcharge scheme set forth in the complaint," he said.

Cigna is represented by Brian Shaffer, Esq. --
brian.shaffer@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in
Philadelphia. Shaffer did not respond to a request for comment
March 13.

OptumRx, a subsidiary of the Minnesota-based United Health Care,
is represented by Michelle Grant, Esq. --
grant.michelle@dorsey.com -- of Dorsey & Whitney in Minnesota.
Grant also did not respond to a request for comment.

The five plaintiffs are Kimberly Negron, Daniel Perry, Courtney
Gallagher, and Nina and Roger Curol. The plaintiffs are from four
states: Massachusetts, New Jersey, Washington and Louisiana. [GN]


CLICKSPARK LLC: Illegally Contacted Class, "Ivey" Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
MEGAN IVEY, an individual, and RONNIESSA TOLEFREE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. CLICKSPARK, LLC,
a New York Limited Liability Company; and DOE INDIVIDUALS,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:18-at-00288 (E.D. Cal.,
March 9, 2018), seeks damages resulting from the alleged illegal
actions of the Defendants in contacting the Plaintiffs, as well
as knowingly and willfully contacting the Plaintiffs on their
cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

ClickSpark, LLC, is a New York limited liability company (with
its founding roots within the last 10 years in the Bay Area of
California).  Based in Henrietta, New York, ClickSpark regularly
engages in allegedly aggressive and reckless marketing as an
agent for profit educational entities.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the
Plaintiffs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          David L. Weisberg, Esq.
          KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
          12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90066
          Telephone: (310) 507-7924
          Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
          E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
                  david@kristensenlaw.com

               - and -

          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
          2700 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1120
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 554-2377
          Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
          E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com


COME LAND: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Robles Says
-----------------------------------------------------
AIDA ROBLES, on behalf of herself and others similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. COME LAND MAINTENANCE SERVICE
CO., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; and DOES 1 TO 100,
Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC700958 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
April 5, 2018), alleges that the Defendants engaged in the
illegal practice of requiring all non-exempt employees, including
Plaintiff, to work four or more hours without a rest period in
violation of the I.W.C. Wage Order, California Labor Code and
other relevant laws, rules, orders, requirements and regulations.
Defendants further required all non-exempt employees, including
the plaintiff, to work five and more hours without a meal break.
The Defendants also engaged in the illegal practice of requiring
some non-exempt employees at the Come Land Maintenance, including
Plaintiff, to work eight or more hours per day and/or more than
forty hours per work week without providing time and a half-
pay.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shoham J. Solouki, Esq.
          SOLOUKI & SAVOY, LLP
          Grant Joseph Savoy, Esq.
          316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (213) 814 4940
          Facsimile: (213) 814 2550


COMERICA BANK: "Baker" Suit Alleges Fraud and Negligence
--------------------------------------------------------
Mark Baker, Cornerstone Growth LP, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Comerica Bank, Case No. 18-cv-
60524 (S.D. Fla., March 12, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for aiding and abetting fraud and breach of fiduciary
duty, and negligence.

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a class of investors
seeking to recover their losses resulting from the Woodbridge
Ponzi scheme.

Plaintiff Mark Baker is a citizen of the State of Florida and
resides in Weston, Florida.  Mr. Baker has invested more than
$400,000 with Woodbridge.

Plaintiff Cornerstone Growth LP is a limited partnership with its
principal place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada.  Cornerstone
Growth invested $50,000 with Woodbridge.

Defendant Comerica Banker is a Texas banking association with its
principal place of business in Dallas, Texas. Defendant held and
managed the Woodbridge bank accounts, through which Shapiro ran
thousands of transactions and more than a billion dollars to
operate his fraudulent scheme.   [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Harley S. Tropin, Esq.
      Gail A. McQuilkin, Esq.
      Rachel Sullivan, Esq.
      Robert J. Neary, Esq.
      Daniel Maland, Esq.
      KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP
      2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Tel: (305) 372-1800
      Fax: (305) 372-3508
      E-mail: hst@kttlaw.com
              gam@kttlaw.com
              rs@kttlaw.com
              rn@kttlaw.com
              dmaland@kttlaw.com


COMICBOOK.COM: Website Not Accessible to Deaf, Sullivan Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP SULLIVAN, JR., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COMICBOOK.COM, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02522 (S.D.N.Y., March 21, 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.comicbook.com.The
Website provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, and other 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. 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.

ComicBook, LLC, doing business as Pop Culture Media, operates as
an entertainment media company and focuses on pop culture. It
operates Comicbook.com, a website that provides fans with the
superhero and anime news, comic inspired, television shows, and
gaming media updates; and PopCulture.com.[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


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Clermont Sues over Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------
JEAN CLERMONT, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILIARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiff(s), v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC. AND
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-3, the Defendant,
Case No. 705091/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 4, 2018), seeks to
recover damages caused by Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the New York General Business Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' acts and practices
have been directed entirely at consumers. Defendants' acts and
practices have a broad impact on the New York consuming public
and the courts of the State of New York. Defendants' collection
acts are part of a recurring practice against large numbers of
consumers in furtherance of its business model of increasing debt
volume while decreasing the costs of each case, thus enhancing
profitability. Defendants' offending collection practices have
the capacity and tendency to deceive and mislead a significant
percentage of consumers in a material way because they deprive
consumers of state and federal rights and protections. These acts
contribute to an increasing number of personal bankruptcies, and
lead to marital instability and job loss, all of which are
significant social concerns that applicable federal and state
consumer protection laws were designed to prevent.

The Defendant is a collection agency regularly engaging in the
business of collecting debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Simon Goldenberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SIMON GOLDENBERG PLLC
          818 East 16th Street
          Brooklyn, NY, 11230


CRACKER BARREL: "Vest" Suit Moved to Western Dist. of Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Vest, On behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1816-CV04150 was removed from the
Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The Western
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-00262-ODS to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleged that Defendant denied her and similarly
situated individuals certain minimum wages and overtime in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Cracker Barrel is an American chain of combined restaurant and
gift stores with a Southern country theme.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Heather M. Lake, Esq.
          CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE LLP
          2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 750
          Kansas City, MO 64108-4600
          Telephone: (816) 472 6400
          Facsimile: (816) 472 6401
          E-mail: hlake@constangy.com


CREDIT SUISSE: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Credit Suisse Group AG in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired VelocityShares Inverse VIX Short Term Exchange
Traded Notes (NYSE:XIVH) ("Notes") on the open market from
January 29, 2018, through February 5, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges Plaintiff and each member of the Class
purchased the Notes pursuant to a registration statement
including prospectuses and pricing supplements (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") that was active during the Class
Period. The Registration Statement was materially false and
misleading about a metric crucially important to investors.

On February 5, 2018, at 4:00 p.m. EST, the regular-hours market
for the trading of the Notes closed. The Notes' last trading
price was $99.  Less than 30 minutes later, during the after-
hours market, the price of the Notes had dropped to $70.01.  By
4:45 pm, the price had dropped to $42.81 and then by 6:28 p.m.
the price had declined to a low of $10.16, a drop of
approximately 89.74% from its closing value.

On February 6, 2018, Credit Suisse issued a press release stating
that it was accelerating the Maturity Date of the Notes.  The
Complaint further alleges that Credit Suisse obtained substantial
financial benefits by accelerating the Maturity Date, because the
Notes' value was depressed (and Credit Suisse's redemption
payment obligation was reduced) by the acceleration.  According
to the Complaint, although Plaintiff and members of the Class
sustained devastating losses as a result of Defendants' conduct,
Credit Suisse itself escaped without damage.  As reported by
Bloomberg on February 6, 2018, "Credit Suisse says it has not
suffered any trading losses related to the exchanged-traded
note[.]"

If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this
class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory
M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300,
or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.
[GN]


CREDIT SUISSE: Milberg Tadler Files Suit Over XIV Notes
-------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP has filed a class action on
behalf of purchasers of the VelocityShares Inverse VIX Short Term
Exchange Traded Notes (Nasdaq: XIV) during the Class Period of
January 29, 2018, through February 5, 2018, inclusive.

If you bought XIV during the Class Period and sustained damages,
you can seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff in the action by
filing a motion with the Court no later than May 14, 2018.

The complaint is filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendants Credit
Suisse AG and Janus Index & Calculation Services LLC.  It alleges
that the registration statement, prospectus and pricing
supplement issued on January 29, 2018, was materially false and
misleading because it misrepresented the updating and accuracy of
an important valuation metric, the Intraday Indicative Value, and
failed to disclose that: (i) contrary to representations, the
Intraday Indicative Value was not updated every 15 seconds based
on the relevant index real time calculation of the relevant index
(SPVXSPID) applying the real time prices of the relevant VIX
futures contracts; and (ii) the Intraday Indicative Value was not
an accurate gauge of the economic value of the Notes.    It also
alleges that the representation of the Intraday Indicative Value
was materially false and misleading because it did not reflect
the proper calculation of that metric.

On February 5, 2018, between 4:10 p.m. and 5:09 p.m., the
Intraday Indicative Value, was incorrectly represented to be
between $24.7 to $28.6 per Note.  The Intraday Indicative Value
between 4:10 p.m. and 5:09 p.m. -- had it been calculated as
Credit Suisse represented in the registration statement -- was
between $4.22 and $4.4 per Note, materially less than the
inflated amount of $24.7 to $28.6 per Note.   Beginning at 5:10
p.m., the Intraday Indicative Value began to update, showing a
value of $4.22 per Note.  XIV was inflated as a result of the
inflated Intraday Indicative Value, trading at $92.80 per Note at
4:09 p.m. and falling to $37.34 per Note at 5:10 p.m. The trading
price of the Notes hit a low of $10 per Note at 6:30 p.m. and
closed at $15.43 at 8:00 p.m.   On February 6, 2018, Credit
Suisse issued a press release stating that it was accelerating
the Maturity Date of the Notes. Their last trading day was
February 20, 2018.

If you bought XIV during the Class Period and sustained damages,
you have until May 14, 2018 to file a motion with the Court
requesting  that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.   A
lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be
appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class
member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members,
and that the class member will adequately represent the class.
Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Milberg Tadler
Phillips Grossman LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve
as your counsel in this action.

         Andrei Rado, Esq.
         Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, 19th Fl.
         New York, NY 10119
         Email: arado@milberg.com [GN]



CRESCENT GUARDIAN: "Quinn" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY QUINN, the Plaintiff, v. CRESCENT GUARDIAN, INC. AND
MARIAN H. PIERRE, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03576 (E.D.
La., April 4, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

In February 2017, Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a
security guard in connection with Defendants' business providing
security guard services in the New Orleans area. The Defendants
have a payroll policy whereby they deduct the following expenses
from employees' paychecks: uniforms, state licensing fees,
photographs and "other expenses." These deductions reduce
employees' wages below the federally mandated $7.25 per hour for
every hour worked during one or more pay periods while they work
for Defendants. For example, during Plaintiff's first week
working for Defendants, he was paid $21.37 for 14 hours of work.
Accordingly, these deductions are in direct violation of the
FLSA.

Defendants have failed to properly disclose or apprise Plaintiff
and the FLSA Collective Action Plaintiffs of their rights under
the FLSA. Due to the intentional, willful, and unlawful acts of
Defendants, Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Action Plaintiffs
suffered lost compensation in the amount of the difference
between what they were paid by Defendants and the federally-
mandated minimum wage, plus liquidated damages.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
          Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON + JACKSON
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 599 5953
          Facsimile: (888) 988 6499
          E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net
                  mjackson@jackson-law.net


CSRA INC: "Fallness" Suit Challenges Sale to General Dynamics
-------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD FALLNESS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. CSRA INC., LARRY PRIOR, NANCY KILLEFER,
KEITH B. ALEXANDER, SANJU K. BANSAL, MICHELE A. FLOURNOY, MARK A.
FRANTZ, SEAN O'KEEFE, MICHAEL E. VENTLING, BILLIE I. WILLIAMSON,
CRAIG MARTIN, JOHN F. YOUNG, GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION, and
RED HAWK ENTERPRISES CORP., Case No. 2:18-cv-00440-GMN-CWH (D.
Nev., March 9, 2018), stems from a proposed transaction pursuant
to which CSRA will be acquired by General Dynamics Corporation
("Parent") and Red Hawk Enterprises Corp. ("Merger Sub).

On February 9, 2018, CSRA's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with General
Dynamics.  Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger
Sub commenced a tender offer, currently set to expire at 11:59
p.m., New York City time, on April 2, 2018, to acquire all of
CSRA's outstanding common stock for $40.75 in cash for each share
of CSRA common stock.

If the Tender Offer is completed, Merger Sub will be merged with
and into the Company, and the Company will continue as the
surviving corporation as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.

CSRA is a Nevada corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in Falls Church, Virginia.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

CSRA is a pure-play provider of information technology services
to the U.S. government.  The Company seeks to deliver tailored,
innovative, and efficient offerings to its customers and scale to
its strategic partners.  As of March 31, 2017, CSRA had
approximately 18,500 employees executing more than 1,000
projects.

Parent is a Delaware corporation and a party to the Merger
Agreement.  Merger Sub is a Nevada corporation, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Parent, and a party to the Merger Agreement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Gayan, Esq.
          KEMP, JONES & COULTHARD LLP
          Wells Fargo Tower, 17th Floor
          3800 Howard Hughes Parkway
          Las Vegas, NV 89169
          Telephone: (702) 385-6000
          E-mail: m.gayan@kempjones.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800


CSX TRANSPORTATION: Bell et al. Sue over Family Medical Leave Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Bell, Jeremy Bright, Andrew Brown, Jared Brown, Jeff
Burgess, Hank Crossman Jr., Nathan Dove, Ken Enlow, Jason Ewing,
Justin Foringer, Scott Gales, Barry Gillum, Lamont Paulk, Joseph
Richarson, Moussa Sayed, Chris Scott, Jason Siewert, William
Wasdin, Cleatis Webb, and Jeffrey Whisner, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CSX
Transportation, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00744-MJG
(D. Md., March 13, 2018), seeks compensatory damages, damages for
loss of income, back pay, lost benefits, consequential damages,
front pay, liquidated damages, and other damages in an amount to
be determined by trier of fact.

CSX operates the third largest railroad in the U.S.  The company
operates a 365-days-a-year business, meaning employees are needed
for work on weekends and holidays. While CSX employees understand
that working on weekends and holidays comes with the territory,
they did not anticipate having to work through serious illness,
miss their children's births, or choose between caring for their
sick loved ones and losing their jobs. These activities of course
make up the core substantive conduct protected by the Family
Medical Leave Act. Yet CSX has engaged in a brazen pattern and
practice of unlawfully discouraging FMLA leave and retaliating
against workers who rely on the FMLA's protection.

CSX has done so in three ways. First, CSX unlawfully inflates the
amount of time employees are charged for FMLA leave. Department
of Labor regulations require employers to account for [FMLA]
leave using an increment no greater than the shortest period of
time that the employer uses to account for use of other forms of
leave provided that it is not greater than one hour. CSX,
however, account for FMLA leave by the day instead of by the
hour. Second, in 2015, the company implemented an attendance
policy that explicitly punishes employees for taking lawful FMLA
leave. Third, beginning in 2017 and continuing to the present,
CSX has terminated or suspended over 100 employees on the
allegations that these employees has fraudulently taken FMLA
leave.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew Darby, Esq.
          BERMAN, SOBIN, GROSS, FELDMAN & DARBY, LLP
          1301 York Road, Suite 600
          Lutherville, MD 21093
          Telephone: (410) 769 5400
          Facsimile: (410) 769 9201
          E-mail: pmdarby@bsgfdlaw.com

               - and -

          Nicholas D. Thompson, Esq.
          THE MOODY LAW FIRM
          500 Crawford Street, Suite 200
          Portsmouth, VA 23704
          Telephone: (757) 393 4093
          Facsimile: (757) 397 7257
          E-mail: nthompson@moodyrrlaw.com

               - and -

          Adam W. Hansen, Esq.
          APOLLO LAW LLC
          400 South 4th Street, Suite 401M - 250
          Telephone: (612) 927 2969
          Facsimile: (419) 793 1804
          E-mail: adam@apollo-law.com


CUMMINS ENTERPRISES: "Lopez" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE RAMOS and GREGARIO LOPEZ, Individually and on Behalf of All
Those Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. CUMMINS ENTERPRISES,
INC., and KEVIN CUMMINS, Jointly and Severally, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01465-CAP (S.D. Ga., April 5, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime premium pay pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a commercial construction, demolition, and
excavation company called Cummins Enterprises, Inc. based out of
Cartersville, Georgia.

Plaintiff Ramos worked for Cummins Enterprises as a welder.
Plaintiff Lopez worked for Cummins Enterprises as a welder's
helper.

The Plaintiffs were paid straight-time for all hours worked,
despite working in excess of 40 hours per week throughout their
employment. The exact number of employees who have suffered the
same unpaid overtime wage injury as Plaintiffs, and have yet to
receive redress is unknown at this time, but believed to be at
least 20.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brandon A. Thomas, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC
          1800 Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 343 2441
          Facsimile: (404) 352 5636
          E-mail: brandon@brandonthomaslaw.com


CYNTHIA'S TOUCH: "Sedgwick" Suit Seeks OT Pay under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
KYM SEDGWICK, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED UNDER 29 USC
216(B), the Plaintiff, v. CYNTHIA'S TOUCH SENIOR SERVICES
INC. and CYNTHIA RATCLIFF, Individually, the Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-01080 (S.D. Tex., April 5, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other Caregivers
like her, were required to work in excess of 40 hours a week. The
Defendants attempted to circumvent the FLSA protections by
misclassifying Plaintiff and other Caregivers as "independent
contractors" in order to deny them overtime wages. Instead of
paying overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours a week,
the Defendants paid Plaintiff and her fellow Caregivers a flat
hourly-rate and in a manner that failed to compensate them
overtime wages for overtime worked. This collective action seeks
to recover the unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages owed
to these misclassified Caregivers.

Cynthia's Touch Senior Services Incorporated offers in-home care
services for families.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Forester, Esq.
          D. Matthew Haynie, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 210 2100
          Facsimile: (214) 346 5909


CYPRESS SECURITY: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco labor law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Cypress
Security, LLC, alleging that the company failed to provide
mandatory meal and rest breaks to its security guard employees.
The Cypress Security lawsuit, Case No. CGC-18-564791, is
currently pending in the San Francisco County Superior Court for
the State of California.

According to the class action complaint's allegations, the
company's security guard employees were allegedly unable to take
off duty meal breaks due to their rigorous work schedules.
California labor laws require an employer to provide an employee
required to perform work for more than five (5) hours during a
shift with, a thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal break prior
to the end of the employee's fifth (5th) hour of work and a
second uninterrupted meal break when employees are required to
work ten (10) hours. The complaint alleges that the company did
not provide their security guard employees who forfeited meal
breaks additional compensation under the law.

The class action complaint also alleges DEFENDANT allegedly fails
to provide PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA
CLASS with complete and accurate wage statements which fails to
show, among other things, the correct wages paid for missed meal
and rest breaks. Cal. Lab. Code Sec 226 provides that every
employer shall furnish each of his or her employees with an
accurate itemized wage statement in writing showing, among other
things, gross wages earned and all applicable hourly rates in
effect during the pay period and the corresponding amount of time
worked at each hourly rate.

If you think your company is violating the California Labor Code
and would like to know if you qualify to make a claim, please
contact attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq. -- NICK@BAMLAWCA.COM
-- by calling (858) 952-0354.

Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is an employment law
firm with offices located in San Diego, Los Angeles, San
Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago that dedicates its
practice to helping employees, investors and consumers fight back
against unfair business practices, including violations of the
California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. [GN]


DARP INC: Sued by Fochtman for Forcing Residents to Work W/o Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK FOCHTMAN, CORBY SHUMATE, MICHAEL SPEARS, ANDREW DANIEL,
FABIAN AGUILAR, and SLOAN SIMMS individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DARP, INC., HENDREN PLASTICS, INC.,
and JOHN DOES 1-29, Case No. 5:18-cv-05047-TLB (W.D. Ark.,
March 9, 2018), is a class action for alleged violations of the
Arkansas Constitution's prohibition on slavery, unpaid minimum
wage and overtime under the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, and for
violations of the Arkansas Human Trafficking Act of 2013.

DARP, Inc., is a foreign corporation that operates in Decatur,
Arkansas.  DARP can be served via its registered agent, Raymond
Jones, in Ft. Gibson, Oklahoma.  DARP was founded in 2001 by
Raymond Jones, a convicted meth cook and dealer.  DARP has two
sixty-bed men's facilities in Decatur that houses hundreds of
male residents.  "DARP" is an acronym for "Drug and Alcohol
Recovery Program."  DARP purports to be a "faith based alcohol
and drug recovery program."

The Plaintiffs contend that DARP is an unregulated "recovery
program" and is not a licensed drug treatment program.  DARP
claims to operate counseling and rehabilitation services.

The Plaintiffs attended DARP for court-ordered rehabilitation
services.  Instead of receiving counseling and treatment,
however, Plaintiffs were forced to work for various for-profit
businesses in Arkansas, including Hendren Plastics, performing
demanding, dangerous manual labor for no pay, according to the
complaint.

Hendren Plastics, Inc., is a domestic corporation with
headquarters in Gravette, Arkansas.  The Doe Defendants are
currently unknown.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Holleman, Esq.
          Timothy Steadman, Esq.
          Jerry Garner, Esq.
          HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          1008 West Second Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 975-5040
          Facsimile: (501) 975-5043
          E-mail: jholleman@johnholleman.net
                  tim@johnholleman.net
                  jerry@johnholleman.net


DIRECTV LLC: Illegally Debits Customers' Accounts, Valdez Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY VALDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DIRECTV, LLC; CABLE VISION
CCTV, INC.; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendant(s), Case No.
3:18-cv-00663-JM-JMA (S.D. Cal., April 3, 2018), alleges that the
Defendants debit the Plaintiff's and the putative Class members'
bank accounts on a recurring basis without first obtaining a
written authorization signed or similarly authenticated for
preauthorized electronic fund transfers from the Plaintiff's and
also the putative Class members' accounts, thereby violating
Section 907(a) of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.

According to the complaint, on or around February 12, 2018, CCTV
contacted Plaintiff and, acting as DIRECTV, offered to sell
DIRECTV services to Plaintiff. CCTV asked Plaintiff to provide
his debit card number over the phone, representing that CCTV
would only charge $1, in order to determine that Plaintiff's debt
card was valid.  On or around February 14, 2018, Plaintiff
cancelled the services with Defendants, prior to any installation
of any equipment or activation of any services from DIRECTV. CCTV
represented to Plaintiff that no charges would be made on the
debit card provided. Later that day, Plaintiff discovered that
Defendants made two charges to her debit card without his
consent; one for $390.58 and another for $433.45. Defendant's
automatic withdrawals caused an overdraft on Plaintiff's bank
account, causing her actual injury in the form of additional
fees. Plaintiff never provided Defendant with any authorization
to deduct these sums of money from Plaintiff's banking account.
Further, Defendants did not provide to Plaintiff, nor did
Plaintiff execute, any written or electronic writing
memorializing or authorizing these recurring or automatic
payments. The Plaintiff alleges such activity to be in violation
of the EFTA.

DirecTV is an American direct broadcast satellite service
provider based in El Segundo, California and is a subsidiary of
AT&T.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


DIVERSITY BUSINESS: Fails to Provide Rest Breaks, Gary Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID GARY, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DIVERSITY BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, INC., a
California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC699138 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 21, 2018),
seeks to recover minimum and regular wages under the California
Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have acted
intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious
disregard to the rights of all employees in that they failed to
authorize and permit rest breaks in conformity with California
law, failed to reimburse their employees for all work related
expenses, failed to properly compensate their employees for
minimum and regular wages for all hours worked, failed to pay
reporting time pay, and failed to provide accurate itemized wage
statement.

Diverse Business Solutions is a Human Resource and Business
Consulting firm that partners with small to midsized companies to
help with their Human Resources needs.[BN]

Attorneys for David Gary:

          Peter M. Hart, Esq.
          Peter Choi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART
          12121 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 205
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 478 5789
          Facsimile: (509) 561 6441


DOES 1-100: Atlantic Trading Suit Alleges CEA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Trading USA, LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Does 1-100, Case No. 1:18-cv-01754
(N.D. Ill., March 9, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the anti-manipulation provisions of the Commodity
Exchange Act.

This action arises from Defendants' alleged manipulation of the
final settlement price of futures and options contracts linked to
the Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index, products
traded on the CBOE and the CBOE Futures Exchange, an affiliate of
the CBOE.

Plaintiff Atlantic Trading USA, LLC is an Illinois limited
liability company with its principle place of business in
Chicago. At all material times, Atlantic Trading was a
proprietary trading firm that traded in a variety of financial
instruments. During the Class Period, Atlantic Trading regularly
traded VIX contracts, held the contracts through settlement, and
suffered financial losses as a result of the manipulation alleged
herein.

Defendants, Does 1-100, are persons and entities that directly or
indirectly inappropriately influenced or attempted to influence
the settlement price of VIX contracts. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Anthony F. Fata, Esq.
      Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
      CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER AND
      SPRENGEL LLP
      150 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 3000
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Tel: (312) 782-4880
      Fax: (312) 782-4485
      E-mail: afata@caffertyclobes.com
              dherrera@caffertyclobes.com


EAT REAL SNACKS: Condon Files False Labeling Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
Franco Condon individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Eat Real Snacks USA LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-01497
(E.D.N.Y., March 10, 2018), alleges that the Company's
representation, description and identification of certain of its
products are false and misleading.

The relevant products are "Quinoa Puffs," "Quinoa Chips," "Lentil
Chips," and "Hummus Chips," sold to consumers in bags of various
sizes through third-parties via brick-and-mortar stores and
online.

The Products each represent through their name that that they are
derived exclusively from quinoa, lentils and chickpeas and tout
the unique benefits from their namesake ingredients, the
Plaintiff asserts.  The Plaintiff contends, among other things,
that the Quinoa Products are misleading because despite their
names they are puffs and chips derived mainly from corn.

Eat Real Foods USA, LLC, is a Georgia limited liability company
with a principal place of business in Marietta, Georgia.  The
Company is a subsidiary of the United Kingdom snack food
conglomerate, Cofresh.

Eat Real Foods manufactures and sells snack products made from
lentils, chickpeas and quinoa under the brand "EatReal"
accompanied by slogans and advertising promoting the healthy and
unique aspects of its Products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          1 Penn Plaza, Suite 2527
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 792-0046
          Facsimile: (212) 563-7108
          E-mail: joshua@levinepstein.com

               - and -

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          891 Northern Blvd., Suite 201
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 303-0552
          Telephone: spencer@spencersheehan.com


ENERCON FEDERAL: "Jimerson" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Rashad Jimerson, individually and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. Enercon Federal
Services, Inc. and Fluor-BWXT Portsmouth LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-
00201 (S.D. Ohio, March 8, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Faire Wage
Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

Plaintiff Rashad Jimerson is an individual, United States
citizen, and living in the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiff
was jointly employed by Defendants as a Radiological Control
Technician beginning in approximately November 2017 until
approximately March 2018 at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion
Plant in Piketon, Ohio.

Defendant Enercon Federal Services, Inc. is a foreign for-profit
corporation licensed to conduct business in the State of Ohio.
Defendant EFS's principal place of business is located at 500
Townpark Lane, Kennesaw, GA 30144. According to its website,
Defendant EFS is an architectural engineering, environmental,
technical and management services firm providing a broad range of
professional services to private, public, and government sector
clients throughout the United States.

Defendant Fluor-BWXT Portsmouth LLC is a domestic limited
liability company that operates the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion
Plant in Piketon, Ohio. According to its website, Defendant FBP
is the U.S. Department of Energy's contractor for the
decontamination and decommissioning of the Portsmouth site, and
Defendant FBP works cooperatively with the DOE, employees, labor
groups, subcontractors, regulators, and other parties to see that
Portsmouth site decontamination project is completed. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
      COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
      1457 S. High St.
      Columbus, OH 43207
      Tel: (614) 949-1181
      Fax: (614) 386-9964
      E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

          - and -

      Peter Contreras, Esq.
      CONTRERAS LAW, LLC
      P.O. Box 215
      Amlin, OH 43002
      Tel: (614) 787-4878
      Fax: (614) 923-7369
      E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com


EVIO GROUP: "Cortes" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM G. CORTES and other similarly-situated individuals v.
EVIO GROUP LLC, a/k/a EVIO'S PIZZA & GRILL, ELIO F. SOLARI, and
SANDRO SOLARI, individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-20907-JEM (S.D.
Fla.,
March 9, 2018), seeks to recover from the Defendants regular
wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and costs and
reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Evio Group LLC, also known as Evio's Pizza & Grill, is a Florida
corporation, having place of business in Miami-Dade County,
Florida, where the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant.  The
Individual Defendants are the owners/partners/managers of the
Defendant Corporation.

Evio's Pizza & Grill is a pizza restaurant located at 12600
Biscayne Blvd., in North Miami, Florida.  The restaurant also
offers, burgers, sandwiches, pitas, salads, and other fast-food
preparations.[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
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


FACEBOOK INC: Used Private Info to Influence Elections, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JACKIE WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC. and CAMBRIDGE
ANALYTICA, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00535-RDP (N.D.
Ala., April 4, 2018), alleges that the Defendants conspired and
secretly used Personal Information to influence the numerous
elections across the nation, including the 2016 Presidential
election. Facebook allowed Cambridge Analytica to "mine" the
highly-sensitive profile data from over 50 million Facebook users
to manipulate voters in the hopes of controlling the results of
the elections. CA used this mined Personal Information to unleash
a highly-targeted and inflammatory advertisement campaign meant
to influence the elections.

Defendants' conduct shows an utter disregard for privacy and
protection of Facebook users' Personal Information. To be clear,
this Personal Information was supposed to be protected, and used
for only expressly disclosed and limited purposes. However,
Defendants exceeded whatever limited authorization they had been
granted by allowing the improper collection and use of the
Personal Information. Facebook knew this improper data collection
was occurring and how the Personal Information would eventually
be used. However, Facebook failed to stop it, or purposely
avoided monitoring the eventual uses of the Personal Information
in order to profess ignorance at a later date. By accessing and
unlawfully using this highly sensitive, personal information, the
Defendants greatly exceed the limited authorization granted by
Facebook users.

Facebook unlawfully shared the Personal Information from tens of
millions of users with CA, which used this data in excess of any
authorization in an effort to manipulate 2016 elections across
the nation, including the 2016 Presidential Election. The
Washington Post recently reported that Facebook allowed an app
developer working for CA "to gain access to information about an
estimated tens of millions of people. The group included both the
270,000 Facebook users who downloaded a psychological testing app
and the Facebook "friends" of those people."

The lawsuit alleges Defendants' violation of the Stored
Communications Act, Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and
common law.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brad Ponder, Esq.
          Luke Montgomery, Esq.
          Brad Ponder, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY PONDER, LLC
          2226 1st Avenue South, Suite 105
          Birmingham, AL 35233
          Telephone: 205 201 0303
          Facsimile: 205 208 9443
          E-mail: luke@montgomeryponder.com
                  brad@montgomeryponder.com


FACEBOOK INC: Allowed 3rd Party to Mine User Data, Labajo Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA LABAJO, an Individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC. and
CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-02093-KAW
(N.D. Cal., April 5, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by
Defendant's failure to implement and maintain appropriate and
reasonable security procedures and practices to protect the
profile and Personal Information of Plaintiff and the Classes
from unauthorized access and disclosure.

The Plaintiff alleges that in June-August 2014 Facebook allowed a
massive data breach in which the sensitive personal information
of Plaintiff and 87 million Facebook users (including 71 million
Americans) was misappropriated by Cambridge Analytica and other
entities and used for unauthorized purposes, including attempts
to influence the 2016 United States presidential election.
Plaintiff further alleges that for years, Facebook allowed
hackers to exploit known vulnerabilities in its network to
"scrape" data from users' profiles, violating their privacy and
placing them at risk for identity theft.

The Facebook is a popular Internet social networking service
located at www.facebook.com.  Facebook has more than two billion
users worldwide. Facebook allows registered users to utilize
their Facebook accounts and timeline pages to share information
with and communicate with friends, family, and colleagues.
Facebook users create customized profiles and pages containing
highly personal information, including their name, home address,
email address, telephone numbers, birthdate, gender, interests,
relationships, photographs and videos, "likes" and other
information. Facebook users can share this Personal Information
and exchange messages with other users.

Cambridge Analytica is a political consulting firm engaged in
data mining, data analysis and consulting on behalf of political
clients, in an effort to influence the outcomes of elections.
Notably, it was hired to provide data and analytical services,
first to the Ted Cruz primary campaign and then to the 2016
presidential campaign of Donald Trump. Among other things,
Cambridge Analytica used Facebook users' personal data to build
"psychographic" profiles so that these potential voters could be
targeted with tailored advertising messages designed to influence
their voting.

Facebook falsely promised its users their Personal Information
would be protected and not shared with others except as they
authorized. In fact, Facebook knew its security was inadequate to
protect users' data, and that its default settings and available
tools coupled with security vulnerabilities made it easy for
hackers to gain access to users' information. Also, Facebook had
a policy of selling user data to third parties and even
implemented APIs to allow third-party apps to "harvest" user
information for their own purposes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon M. Fauth, Jr., Esq.
          Rosanne L. Mah, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Direct Telephone: (510) 238 9610
          Telephone: (415) 398 8700
          Facsimile: (415) 398 8704
          E-mail: gfauth@finkelsteinthompson.com
                  rmah@finkelsteinthompson.com


FACEBOOK INC: Allowed 3rd Party to Mine User Data, Picha Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Picha, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Facebook, Inc., and Cambridge
Analytica, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02090 (N.D. Cal.,
April 5, 2018), recounts that in a keynote speech in San
Francisco in 2014, Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, vowed, "In
every single thing we do, we always put people first;" promising
that Facebook would give people control over how they share their
information.

Just four years later, on March 21, 2018, Zuckerberg addressed
fresh reports of the misappropriation of personal data of 50
million Facebook users by an app made by Global Science Research
Ltd. and Cambridge Analytica, admitting: "This was clearly a
mistake. We have a basic responsibility to protect people's data,
and if we can't do that then we don't deserve to have the
opportunity to serve people."

Then, on April 4, 2018, Facebook publicly stated that up to 87
million users may have been improperly shared with Cambridge
Analytica. He added that he regrets the company waited so long to
inform its users of what happened: "I think we got that wrong."

On March 17, 2018 The Guardian and The New York Times revealed
that data analytics firm, Cambridge Analytica, harvested private
information from Facebook users "on an unprecedented scale."
Facebook's "platform policy" at the time allowed for the
accumulation of Facebook users' "friends'" data for the purpose
of improved user experience, but prohibited it from being sold or
used for advertising.

Although Facebook knew about the misuse of 87 million users' data
in 2015, it chose to hide this information from its users until
forced to confront the issue on March 17, 2018. Just one month
earlier, in February 2018, both Facebook and the CEO of Cambridge
Analytica, Alezander Nix, told a U.K. parliamentary inquiry on
fake news that the company did not have or use private Facebook
data. When asked if Cambridge Analytica had Facebook user data,
Simon Milner, Facebook's U.K. policy director, told U.K.
officials: "They may have lots of data but it will not be
Facebook user data. It may be data about people who are on
Facebook that they have gathered themselves, but it is not data
that we have provided." Cambridge Analytica's Nix told officials:
"We do not work with Facebook data and we do not have Facebook
data."[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Will Lemkul, Esq.
          Shawn D. Morris, Esq.
          MORRIS SULLIVAN & LEMKUL LLP
          9915 Mira Mesa Boulevard, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (858) 566 7600
          Facsimile: (858) 566 6602
          E-mail: lemkul@morrissullivanlaw.com

               - and -

          Jodi Westbrook Flowers, Esq.
          Ann Ritter, Esq.
          Fred Baker, Esq.
          Kimberly Barone Baden, Esq.
          Andrew Arnold, Esq.
          Annie Kouba, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          28 Bridgeside Boulevard
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 216 9000
          Facsimile: (843) 216 9450
          E-mail: kbaden@motleyrice.com


FADARO FANCY FOODS: "Zamora" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
EFREN ZAMORA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FADARO FANCY FOODS, CORP.
(D/B/A FADARO FANCY FOODS, CORP.), FADARO PRODUCE, CORP. (D/B/A
FADARO FANCY FOODS, CORP.), WISSAM SHADAYDEH (A.K.A. SAM), and
DAVID SHADAYDEH, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02541
(S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor
Law.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a grocery store, located
at NYC Produce Terminal Market, Row A, Unit 106-A, Halleck St,
Bronx, NY 10474 under the name "Fadaro Fancy Foods, Corp." The
Defendants serve or served as owners, managers, principals, or
agents of Defendant Corporations and, through these corporate
entities, operate or operated the Grocery Store as a joint or
unified enterprise.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants. The Plaintiff
worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate overtime compensation for the hours that he worked.
Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
the hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiff Zamora appropriately
for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for
any additional overtime premium. Furthermore, Defendants
repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiff Zamora wages on a timely
basis. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiff Zamora
to all other similarly situated employees. The Defendants
maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff Zamora
and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week
without providing the overtime compensation required by federal
and state law and regulations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FLORIDA: South Florida Homeowners to Split $42MM in State Money
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Fleshler ,writing for Contact Reporter ,reports that
thousands of South Florida homeowners whose fruit trees were
destroyed in the fight against citrus canker will finally receive
compensation checks, ending a 17-year legal and political fight
that pitted property rights against the protection of an iconic
Florida agricultural product.

More than 84,000 households in Broward and Palm Beach counties
will split $42 million in state money, under an appropriation by
the state Legislature to fund payments they had already won in
court. Gov. Rick Scott, who last year vetoed compensation for
homeowners, declined to do so this year, according to the veto
list released Friday. The amount per household will depend on the
number and size of the trees destroyed.

From 2000 to 2006, tree-cutting crews roamed South Florida
neighborhoods, cutting down healthy citrus trees within 1,900
feet of infected ones, in an attempt to prevent the disease from
spreading to Florida's commercial citrus groves. The campaign,
which failed to stop the disease, infuriated many homeowners who
felt their rights were being trampled on to protect a powerful
industry.

Homeowners yelled at the crews, set their dogs on them and took
the state to court, filing a series of lawsuits to stop the tree-
cutting campaign and to win more compensation for the loss of
orange, grapefruit and lemon trees.

Toby Bogorff, a plaintiff in the case, who lost a ruby red
grapefruit tree and two other citrus trees when the tree-cutters
reached her home in Davie, said the case was about much more than
a few fruit trees.

"If it didn't end where it did, the government could seize
anything," she said. "Although this started with trees, it became
a much larger issue. This was a constitutional issue."

Robert Gilbert, Esq., lead attorney for the homeowners, said the
appropriation of the money represented the victorious end of a
long battle.

"For the past 17 years, we've fought on behalf of those families
to recover the full compensation to which they are entitled under
the Constitution," he said "The Department of Agriculture and
Commissioner Adam Putnam fought us at every turn. This year, the
Florida Legislature and Governor Scott recognized that the first
duty of society is justice."

The money, which will be available some time after July 1, when
the state's budget year begins, will be distributed under court
supervision by the homeowners' lawyers. Homeowners whose trees
were destroyed don't need to do anything to receive their checks,
since these were class-action lawsuits, in which all eligible
homeowners were automatically covered. The state kept records of
names, addresses and trees destroyed.

The legislature appropriated $22 million for Broward County and
$30 million for Palm Beach County, with the amounts determined
from the sums homeowners in each county's case were awarded in
court. The total amount available to homeowners will be about $42
million, since some of the money will go to attorney's fees,
costs and interest.

Because these were class-action suits, homeowners don't need to
do anything to receive their payments.  Payment amounts will be
determined by the number and size of the trees.

The governor vetoed similar payments last year. It's unclear why
he let them through this time.

Asked why he didn't veto the money, Kerri Wyland, spokeswoman for
the governor, said, "Every year, the Governor goes through the
budget line by line and makes the decisions he believes are in
the best interests of families in Florida."[GN]


FOOT LOCKER: Faces Securities Suit by Warren Police Retirees
------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF WARREN POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FOOT LOCKER,
INC., RICHARD A. JOHNSON and LAUREN B. PETERS, Case No. 1:18-cv-
01492 (E.D.N.Y., March 9, 2018), is a securities class action on
behalf of all purchasers of Foot Locker common stock between
August 19, 2016, and August 17, 2017, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Defendants are liable for: (i) making false statements; or
(ii) failing to disclose adverse facts known to them about Foot
Locker, the Plaintiff contends.  The Plaintiff asserts that the
Defendants' fraudulent scheme and course of business that
operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of Foot Locker common
stock was a success, as it: (i) deceived the investing public
regarding Foot Locker's prospects and business; (ii) artificially
inflated the price of Foot Locker common stock; (iii) allowed
certain of Foot Locker's executives and insiders to sell more
than $13.38 million worth of their personally held shares of Foot
Locker common stock to the unsuspecting public; and (iv) caused
plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase Foot Locker
common stock at inflated prices.

Foot Locker is an American sportswear and footwear retailer with
headquarters in Midtown Manhattan.  As of October 28, 2017, Foot
Locker had 3,349 stores in 23 countries in North America, Europe,
Australia and New Zealand.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
          VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C.
          79 Alfred Street
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 578-1200
          Facsimile: (313) 578-1201
          E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com


FOOT LOCKER: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP disclosed that
purchasers of Foot Locker, Inc. (NYSE: FL) have filed a class
action complaint against the company's officers and directors for
alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between
August 19, 2016 and August 17, 2017. Foot Locker, through its
subsidiaries, operates as an athletic shoes and apparel retailer.

According to the complaint, Foot Locker touted the company's
outstanding track record of meaningful sales and profit growth in
its public filings, while continuing to assure investors of the
company's strong vendor relationships and solid financial
position. However, Foot Locker's vendors were transitioning to
selling through online retailers, in turn decreasing the utility
of Foot Locker's brick and mortar stores. In addition, Foot
Locker faced increased pricing competition and lower demand at
its stores due to competition from online retailers. On August
18, 2017, Foot Locker reported that its 2Q17 revenues had
declined 4.4% year-over-year and same store sales fell 6%. The
company further announced that it would close approximately 130
stores and that it expected weaker sales for the remainder of
FY17. Since Foot Locker began releasing poor financial results,
the company's stock fell over 51% to close at $34.38 per share on
August 18, 2017.

Foot Locker Shareholders Have Legal Options

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

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in
shareholder rights law. The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more
than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in
which they have invested.

        Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
        Robbins Arroyo LLP
        Tel: (619) 525-3990
        Email: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN]


FORD MOTOR: Website Not Accessible to Deaf, Sullivan Says
---------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP SULLIVAN, JR., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02924-RA (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2018),
alleges that 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.corporate.ford.com/ The Website
provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services,
innovation, investor and employment opportunities, and other
information 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.

Ford Motor Company is an American multinational automaker
headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit. It was
founded by Henry Ford and incorporated on June 16, 1903.[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


GLOBAL CONTROL: "Fahnestock" Disputes Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Fahnestock, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v. Global Control, Inc. and
John Does 1-25, Defendant(s), Case No. 18-cv- 00494, (N.D. Ohio,
March 5, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive
relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Global Control, Inc. is a debt collection agency located at 22 E.
Main Street, Geneva, OH 44041. It attempted to collect a personal
medical obligation incurred by Fahnestock to Northwest Ambulance
via a collection letter that threatened legal action within 5
days yet such action has not yet been filed after the said
period. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amichai Zukowsky, Esq.
      ZUKOWSKY LAW, LLC
      23811 Chagrin Blvd, Ste 160
      Beachwood, OH 44122
      Phone: (216) 800-5529
      Email: ami@zukowskylaw.com


GLOBAL FITNESS: Gascho Seeks High Court Review of 6th Cir. Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned as AMBER GASCHO, On Behalf of
Herself and Others Similarly Situated, et al., the Petitioners,
v. GLOBAL FITNESS HOLDINGS, LLC; ROYCE G. PULLIAM; TOMI ANNE
PULLIAM; LAURENCE E. PAUL; STEPHEN PAUL; and DAHL ADMINISTRATION,
LLC, Respondents, Case No. 17-1342 (U.S.), filed a petition for a
writ of certiorari.

Global Fitness Holdings, LLC, doing business as Urban Active,
operates sports and fitness clubs in the United States. It has
locations in Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The company was
founded in 1965 and is based in Lexington, Kentucky.

As reported by the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 13, 2017, Judge
Amul R. Thapar of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
reversed the district court's contempt finding and remanded for
further proceedings the case captioned AMBER GASCHO, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs-
Appellees, v. GLOBAL FITNESS HOLDINGS, LLC, doing business as
Urban Active, Defendants-Appellants (17-3579 & 17-3827), DAHL
ADMINISTRATION, LLC, Defendant-Appellee (17 3821/3822/3825/
3826/3827), LAURENCE E. PAUL (17-3577 & 17-3821); ROYCE G.
PULLIAM (17-3578 & 17-3825); TOMI ANNE PULLIAM (17-3804 & 17-
3826); STEPHEN PAUL (17-3805 & 17-3822), Interested Parties-
Appellants, Case Nos. 17-3577, 17-3578, 17-3579, 17-3804,17-3805,
17-3821, 17-3822, 17-3825, 17-3826, 17-3827 (6th Cir.).

Global Fitness owned and operated a number of gyms.  The
Plaintiffs were members of those gyms and believed that Global
Fitness misrepresented the terms of its gym memberships.  They
banded together and sued as a class.  Eventually, the parties
settled.  In the settlement agreement, Global Fitness agreed to
pay (i) $1.3 million to the class members, (ii) the class
counsel's fees as ordered by the court, and (iii) the claims
administrator's fees and costs.

Some of the class members objected to the settlement.  After a
fairness hearing, the district court approved the agreement and
ordered the parties to implement its terms.  Still, some class
members were dissatisfied and appealed.  The Appellate Court
affirmed the district court's order, Gascho v. Global Fitness
Holdings, LLC, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari, Blackman
v. Gascho; Zik v. Gascho.

With this denial, the district court's order was final, and it
was time for Global Fitness to pay up.  But by this point, Global
Fitness was nearly broke.  It had sold all of its gyms and
funneled nearly $10.4 million of the sale proceeds to the
company's managers through what it termed "tax distributions."
Fortunately for the class members, the payments Global Fitness
owed to them had been placed in escrow under the terms of the
settlement agreement.  But unfortunately for the class counsel
and the claims administrator, the agreement made no provision for
the escrow of their payments.  Two days before its payment
obligation under the settlement agreement came due, Global
Fitness notified the district court it was out of money and could
not meet its remaining obligations under the agreement.

So the Plaintiffs asked the district court to hold Global Fitness
and its four managers in civil contempt.  The district court did
so and ordered them to pay the full amount owed to the class
counsel and the claims administrator, as well as statutory
interest.  Global Fitness and the managers now appeal.

Judge Thapar held that no one disputes that Global Fitness
violated a definite and specific court order by failing to pay
the class counsel and the claims administrator.  The question is
when the district court's order to do so became definite and
specific.  He explained that when a class-action settlement calls
for payment from a company with shaky finances, self-help is
indispensable.  Concerned parties are well-advised to insist upon
an escrow provision, or even personal guarantees from the
Individual Defendants.  The settlement agreement included neither
here.  Thus, Global Fitness had no legal obligation to conserve
funds to pay class counsel and the claims administrator while the
appeals were pending.  Its obligation to pay became definite and
specific only once the appeals were exhausted -- on March 21,
2017.

The Appeals Court held that Global Fitness' obligation to pay the
class counsel and the claims administrator was not definite and
specific until March 21, 2017.  So the district court erred in
considering any of Global Fitness's conduct from before then.
And likewise the district court also erred in relying on pre-
order conduct to hold the managers in contempt.  As such, a
remand is appropriate so the district court can consider whether
the evidence after March 21, 2017, is sufficient to support a
contempt finding.

Finally, the Appeals Court held that while the district court had
authority to sanction the managers, those sanctions are
permissible against individual officers only when (i) they are
intended to compensate for actual losses, and (ii) the actual
losses compensated for were caused by the officer's contumacious
conduct.  Here, the district court erred by holding the managers
jointly and severally liable.  On remand, if the district court
determines sanctions are appropriate, it must then determine the
extent to which each manager deliberately caused Global Fitness's
inability to pay.

Accordingly, Judge Thapar reversed the district court's contempt
finding and remanded for further proceedings consistent with his
Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's Nov. 15, 2017 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/dDaQ61 from Leagle.com.[BN]

Counsel for Petitioners:

          John J. Kulewicz, Esq.
          Thomas N. Mccormick, Esq.
          VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
          52 East Gay Street
          P.O. Box 1008
          Columbus, Ohio 43216
          Telephone: (614) 464 6400
          Facsimile: (614) 464 6350
          E-mail: jjkulewicz@vorys.com
                  tnmccormick@vorys.com

               - and -

          Gregory M. Travalioc, Esq.
          Mark H. Troutman, Esq.
          ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER
          & TEETOR, LLC
          Two Miranova Place, Suite 700
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221 2121
          Facsimile: (614) 365 9516
          E-mail: gtravalio@isaacwiles.com
                  mtroutman@isaacwiles.com


GO WITH THE FLOW: "Haug" Suit Moved to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kaycee Haug, an individual on her
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Go with the Flow, Inc., doing business as: Massage
Envy a California corporation; Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company; and Does 1 to 50, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. BC687181, was removed from the Los
Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles)
on April 5, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-02810-MWF-JEM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
          BRADLEY GROMBACHER LLP
          2815 Townsgate Road Suite 130
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270 7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270 7589
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com

               - and -

          Taylor L Emerson, Esq.
          BRADLEY GROMBACHER LLP
          2815 Townsgate Road Suite 130
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270 7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270 7589
          E-mail: temerson@bradleygrombacher.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Hope Anne Case, Esq.
          Elaisha Nandrajog, Esq.
          Robert B Bader, Esq.
          SACKS RICKETTS AND CASE LLP
          1900 Embarcadero Road Suite 110
          Palo Alto, CA 94303
          Telephone: (650) 494 4950
          Facsimile: (650) 847 1520
          E-mail: hcase@srclaw.com
                  enandrajog@srclaw.com
                  rbader@srclaw.com


GOLD'S GYM: Zemel Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------
TZVI A. ZEMEL, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. GOLD'S GYM, the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-03955 (D.N.J., March 22, 2018), wants to stop Gold's from
sending unsolicited text messages.  The lawsuit also seeks an
award of statutory damages under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, together with costs and reasonable attorney's
fees.

According to the complaint, the TCPA strictly forbids nuisance
text messages exactly like those alleged in this Complaint --
intrusive text messages to private cellular phones, placed to
numbers obtained without the prior express consent of the call
recipients. Gold's violations caused Plaintiff and members of the
Class actual harm, included aggravation, nuisance, and invasion
of privacy that necessarily accompanies the receipt of
unsolicited text messages, as well as the violation of their
statutory rights.

Gold's owns and operates a gym.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class

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


GOOGLE LLC: Class Action Suit Advances Against Firm
----------------------------------------------------
Michael McGrady, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that tech giants Google and Huawei were dealt a significant blow
as a federal district judge in California has dismissed a motion
to abandon the proceedings of a class action lawsuit against the
two companies for the widespread "bootlooping" controversy with
the popular Nexus 6P cell phone.

Before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California San Jose Division, Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered
the multinational tech companies to "face the music" when it
comes to addressing a class action lawsuit that was initiated in
April 2017.

"Here, the court dives into the merits of Huawei's and Google's
Motions to dismiss, which assert the plaintiffs have failed to
state a claim on which relief can be granted and that the
plaintiffs' class allegations should be stricken," Freeman wrote
in her 88-page opinion dated March 5, and obtained by Northern
California Record.

Freeman wrote, "The court hereby grants with leave to amend in
part, grants without leave to amend in part, and denies in part
Huawei's and Google's motions to dismiss," and "the court denies
Huawei's and Google's motions to strike the plaintiffs' class
allegations."

Freeman, in a small win for Google and Huawei, dismissed further
accusations of fraud alleged in an original filing of the
lawsuit.

"Huawei and Google contend that the putative nationwide class and
the statewide sub-classes are facially overbroad because they
include individuals who never experienced problems with their
Nexus 6Ps," Freeman added.

Individually, claims were dismissed under particular cases
relating to fraud, warranty, and "unjust enrichment" claims,
according to coverage from MobileSyrup.

Freeman's opinion also paves the way for a previously filed class
action lawsuit against Google and Huawei to proceed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Cory S. Fein, Esq. -- cory@coryfeinlaw.com -- of Cory Fein Law
Firm of Houston, and Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.-- BFJ@chimicles.com
-- Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. -- AWF@chimicles.com -- Jessica L.
Titler, Esq. -- JT@chimicles.com -- and Chimicles & Tikellis LLP,
in pro hac vice, represent the proposed class in the case of
Gorbatchev et al. v. Huawei Technologies USA, Inc. et al.

Proceedings in the overall case will continue into 2018 as the
class action is set to proceed without opposition. Currently, no
plans for future motions or appeals from defendants are known.

This case originated in early 2017 when the top-level plaintiff
filed suit against the defendants for "bootlooping" issues in his
Nexus 6P cell phone. Google and Huawei coordinated on the design
and manufacturing of the phone, which was sold as a top-of-the-
line product.

However, as reviews for the Nexus 6P continued to surface, the
plaintiff class learned users were watching their phones
displaying "Google logo appears on the screen, then the phone,
then restarts again, repeatedly, until the phone runs out of
battery," according to Chimicles & Tikellis LLP (C&T).

"Some users reportedly have even wiped their phone's memory and
reflashed Android, to no avail," C&T added "Reports indicate that
this may suggest and support that the bootlooping is caused by a
hardware issue. Consumers report that Google tells consumers to
seek warranty coverage from Huawei for this issue, too, and that
Huawei is largely unhelpful and often stonewalls attempts to
obtain warranty coverage."[GN]


GT ADVANCED: June 28 Fairness Hearing on $27MM Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP regarding Levy v. Gutierrez, et al., Case
No. 1:14-cv-00443-JL (D.N.H.) (GTAT Securities Litigation)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

ADAM S. LEVY on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOMAS GUTIERREZ, RICHARD J. GAYNOR, RAJA BAL, J. MICHAL CONAWAY,
KATHLEEN A. COTE, ERNEST L. GODSHALK, MATTHEW E. MASSENGILL, MARY
PETROVICH, ROBERT E. SWITZ, NOEL G. WATSON, THOMAS WROE, JR.,
MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., CANACCORD GENUITY
INC., AND APPLE, INC.,

Defendants.

No. 1:14-cv-00443-JL

ECF CASE

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND CERTIFICATION
OF SETTLEMENT CLASSES; (II) PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS WITH INDIVIDUAL
DEFENDANTS AND UNDERWRITER DEFENDANTS; (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD
OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES; AND
(IV) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING

TO: (a) All persons and entities who or which from November 5,
2013 through 9:40 a.m. Eastern Standard Time on October 6, 2014,
inclusive (the "Class Period") purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded GT Advanced Technologies Inc. ("GTAT") common
stock ("GTAT Common Stock") and/or publicly traded GTAT 3.00%
Convertible Senior Notes Due 2020 ("GTAT Senior Notes"),
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded call options on
GTAT common stock ("GTAT Call Options"), and/or sold (wrote)
publicly traded put options on GTAT common stock ("GTAT Put
Options"), and were damaged thereby (the "Individual Defendant
Settlement Class"); and

(b) All persons and entities who or which, during the Class
Period, purchased or otherwise acquired (i) GTAT Senior Notes
pursuant or traceable to GTAT's December 2013 registration
statement and prospectus supplement for the GTAT Senior Notes'
offering and/or (ii) shares of GTAT Common Stock pursuant or
traceable to GTAT's December 2013 registration statement and
prospectus supplement for the secondary offering of GTAT common
stock (the "Underwriter Defendant Settlement Class").

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED
BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the District of New Hampshire, that the above-captioned
action (the "Action") has been certified as a class action for
the purposes of settlement only on behalf of the Individual
Defendant Settlement Class and the Underwriter Defendant
Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are
excluded from those Settlement Classes by definition as set forth
in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and
Certification of Settlement Classes; (II) Proposed Settlements
with Individual Defendants and Underwriter Defendants; (III)
Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses; and (IV) Settlement Fairness Hearing (the
"Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that (i) the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff
Douglas Kurz ("Lead Plaintiff") and additional named plaintiffs
Strategic Master Fund (Cayman) Limited ("Strategic Master Fund")
and Highmark Limited, in respect of its Segregated Account
Highmark Fixed Income 2 ("Highmark Limited"), on behalf of
themselves and the Individual Defendant Settlement Class, have
reached a proposed settlement of the Action with defendants
Thomas Gutierrez, Richard Gaynor, Kanwardev Raja Singh Bal, Hoil
Kim, Daniel W. Squiller, J. Michal Conaway, Kathleen A. Cote,
Ernest L. Godshalk, Matthew E. Massengill, Mary Petrovich, Robert
E. Switz, Noel G. Watson, and Thomas Wroe, Jr. (collectively, the
"Individual Defendants") for $27,000,000 in cash (the "Individual
Defendant Settlement"); and (ii) Lead Plaintiff and additional
named plaintiffs Strategic Master Fund and Highmark Limited, on
behalf of themselves and the Underwriter Defendant Settlement
Class, have reached a proposed settlement of the Action with
defendants Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co. LLC
(f/k/a Goldman, Sachs & Co.), and Canaccord Genuity Inc.
(collectively, the "Underwriter Defendants") for $9,700,000 in
cash (the "Underwriter Defendant Settlement" and, together with
the Individual Defendant Settlement, the "Settlements").  These
proposed Settlements will be considered independently by the
Court and they do not resolve any of the claims asserted against
the remaining defendant in the Action, Apple, Inc.

A hearing will be held on June 28, 2018 at 2:00 p.m., before the
Honorable Joseph N. Laplante at the United States District Court
for the District of New Hampshire, Courtroom 2, 55 Pleasant
Street, Concord, NH 03301-3941, to determine: (i) whether the
proposed Individual Defendant Settlement should be approved as
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the proposed
Underwriter Defendant Settlement should be approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (iii) whether the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice as against the Individual Defendants and
the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement With Individual Defendants dated January
26, 2018 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iv) whether the
Action should be dismissed with prejudice as against the
Underwriter Defendants and the Releases specified and described
in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement With Settling
Underwriter Defendants dated August 18, 2017, together with the
Supplement thereto dated January 26, 2018 (and in the Notice)
should be granted; (v) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation
for the proceeds of the Settlements is fair and reasonable and
should be approved; and (vi) whether Lead Counsel's application
for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation
Expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Individual Defendant and/or the
Underwriter Defendant Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the proposed Settlement(s) that apply to you and any
orders or judgments related to those Settlements, and you may be
entitled to share in the Individual Defendant and/or Underwriter
Defendant Settlement Funds.  If you have not yet received the
Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents
by contacting the Claims Administrator at GTAT Securities
Litigation, c/o GCG, P.O. Box 10463, Dublin, OH 43017-4063, by
toll-free phone at 1-866-562-8790, or by email at
info@GTATSecuritiesLitigation.com.  Copies of the Notice can also
be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims
Administrator, www.GTATSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of one or both Settlement Classes, in order
to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed
Settlement(s) that apply to you, you must submit a Claim Form
postmarked no later than July 12, 2018.  If you are a Settlement
Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not
be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of
the Settlement(s) but you will nevertheless be bound by any
judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action related to
the Settlement(s) that apply to you.

If you are a member of one or both Settlement Classes and wish to
exclude yourself from the Settlement Class(es) that apply to you,
you must submit a written request for exclusion such that it is
received no later than June 7, 2018, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you are a member of the
Individual Defendant Settlement Class and properly exclude
yourself from that class, you will not be bound by any judgments
or orders entered by the Court in the Action relating to the
Individual Defendant Settlement, and you will not be eligible to
share in the proceeds of the Individual Defendant Settlement.  If
you are a member of the Underwriter Defendant Settlement Class
and properly exclude yourself from that class, you will not be
bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action relating to the Underwriter Defendant Settlement, and you
will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Underwriter
Defendant Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Individual Defendant Settlement,
the proposed Underwriter Defendant Settlement, the proposed Plan
of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of Litigation Expenses must be filed with the Court
and delivered to Lead Counsel and, if the objection is to the
Individual Defendant Settlement and/or the Underwriter Defendant
Settlement, to designated counsel for those Settling Defendants
such that they are received no later than June 7, 2018, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, GTAT, Defendants, or their
counsel regarding this notice.  All questions about this notice,
the proposed Settlements, or your eligibility to participate in
the Settlements should be directed to the Claims Administrator or
Lead Counsel.

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

         GTAT Securities Litigation
         c/o GCG
         P.O. Box 10463
         Dublin, OH 43017-4063
         1-866-562-8790
         info@GTATSecuritiesLitigation.com
         www.GTATSecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

         John C. Browne, Esq.
         BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
         1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
         New York, NY 10020
         1-800-380-8496
         blbg@blbglaw.com

By Order of the Court


HARRIS & HARRIS: "Bartz" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Crystal Bartz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Harris & Harris, Ltd., dba Harris & Harris of
Illinois, Ltd., Case No. 2:18-cv-00390 (E.D. Wis., March 12,
2018), seeks redress for Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Wisconsin Consumer Act.

Plaintiff Crystal Bartz is a resident of Eastern District of
Wisconsin, Milwaukee County.  Plaintiff is a consumer that
Defendant sought to collect a debt from, allegedly incurred for
personal, family or household purposes, namely a home internet
services bill.

Defendant Harris & Harris, Ltd. is a foreign corporation with its
primary offices located at 111 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 400,
Chicago, IL 60604. Defendant operates a collection agency.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Settles Lawsuit, Will Change Labor Policy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Molly McCafferty, writing for Crimson, reports that Harvard
settled a class-action lawsuit brought against it by an employee
on March 15, mandating that the University reevaluate its
independent contractor policy, reclassify some workers as
employees, and compensate each of those employees in amounts up
to $30,000.

The suit was brought against the University in 2016. Kara
Donohoe, a massage therapist who has worked for Harvard
University Health Service's Center for Wellness for 13 years,
served as the lead plaintiff in the case, alleging the
University's independent contractor policy unjustly failed to
recognize her as a full employee under Massachusetts labor law,
thereby denying her benefits.

The Mass. law in question is three part: a worker is an
independent contractor -- not an employee -- if they perform work
not under direction of "superiors," work that is not part of the
"usual course of business" of the employer, or if the person has
an independent business separate from their work for the employer
in question.

Shannon E. Liss-Riordan '90,Esq. -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- the
attorney for the suit and a former Crimson editor, said these
criteria do not apply to Donohoe.

"She and others were misclassified as independent contractors
and, as a result, missed out on various benefits that Harvard
employees received," Liss-Riordan said.

These benefits include paid vacation, paid holidays, sick days,
and the ability to take Harvard classes at a discounted price.

Early on in the case, the University attempted to dismiss the
claims. But the court denied its motion, and -- after two years
of discovery and investigation -- the two parties eventually
reached a settlement of which Liss-Riordan said she is "very
proud."

As part of the settlement, the University agreed to revise its
independent contractor policy.

The current iteration of the policy was adopted in 2010,
according to University spokesperson Tania deLuzuriaga. During
the suit -- in the summer of 2017 -- the University created a
working group to evaluate whether the policy is up to date, to
recommend revisions, and to ensure that the classification
approval process is "integrated with the University's business
procedures," deLuzuriaga wrote in an emailed statement.

"The working group expects to issue recommendations over the next
few months," deLuzuriaga wrote.

Harvard will also reclassify approximately 20 workers at the
Center for Wellness as employees and award them back pay for the
hours they put in while misclassified as independent contractors.

Liss-Riordan wrote in an email that, of the workers who will be
reclassified, some who "consistently worked close to full time
schedules" will be compensated in the amount of $30,000 each. The
rest will receive smaller back payments.

The employees will also begin to receive benefits they were not
entitled to as independent contractors. Those employees who work
at least 17.5 hours per week will also earn representation in the
bargaining unit of the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical
Workers.

"I'm very grateful to become a member of the union and the
Harvard community," Donohoe wrote in an emailed statement.

Beyond these immediate changes, according to Liss-Riordan, the
settlement could have an impact on workers in other parts of the
University.

"Since Harvard has agreed to revise its independent contractor
policy University-wide, that aspect of the settlement could have
far-reaching effect, though we don't have an exact count of
people who would be affected," she wrote.

The University will reach out to those staff who will be affected
by the reclassification as soon as details about pay scales and
benefits are determined; until then, the Center for Wellness will
operate as normal, according to deLuzuriaga.

"The settlement represents a mutually agreeable closure to the
case in order to avoid protracted litigation, and it further
underscores the contributions of the massage therapists and
acupuncturists to the Center's mission," deLuzuriaga wrote.

Overall, Donohoe wrote, she is "very pleased" about the
settlement and the benefits that come with her new status.

"I'm really looking forward to being able to take a vacation and
give my body a rest without giving my bank account a rest as
well," she wrote. [GN]


HITACHI CHEMICAL: June 7 Hearing on $66.9MM Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED PARTIAL
SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION, FAIRNESS HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR

If you directly purchased aluminum, tantalum or film capacitors
between January 1, 2002 through July 22, 2015, you could be
affected by a Class Action Settlement.
Please read this notice carefully.

1. Why did I receive this Notice?
You have received this Notice because Defendants' records show
you may have directly purchased Capacitors from one or more
Defendant(s) or from a subsidiary, agent, affiliate or joint
venture of a Defendant from January 1, 2002 through July 22,
2015.

The Court sent you this Notice for the following reason:
Class members have the right to know about the partial settlement
of a class action lawsuit, and about their legal rights and
options, before the Court holds a Fairness Hearing to decide
whether to grant final approval to the settlement.

This Notice explains the lawsuit, the partial settlements, and
your legal rights. It also explains what benefits from the
partial
settlements are available at this time, who is eligible to
participate, and how to share in the settlements. If the Court
approves one or more of the partial settlements, and after any
objections and appeals are resolved, Class Counsel will disburse
the Settlement Fund (as described in Question 12 below) in one or
more distributions at a time to be determined by the Court.

The Court has preliminarily approved the settlements. If you are
a settlement class member, you have legal rights and options
that you may exercise before the Court considers whether it will
grant final approval to the proposed partial settlements at
the Fairness Hearing. The Court will hold the Fairness Hearing on
June 7, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. to decide whether each of the proposed
partial settlements with each of the Settling Defendants is fair,
reasonable, and adequate. The Court will also consider Class
Counsel's request for payment of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of litigation expenses.

If you wish to comment on (including object to) or exclude
yourself from one or more of the partial settlements, you must
do so by following the procedures described below. If you do
nothing, you will not receive any money from the partial
settlements, but you will nevertheless be bound by any final
judgment concerning the Settling Defendants.

2. What is this lawsuit about?
The lawsuit claims that Defendants entered into agreements to
artificially raise, fix, or stabilize the prices of aluminum,
tantalum, and film capacitors in violation of federal antitrust
law. Each of the Defendants, including the Settling Defendants,
expressly denies that it violated any laws or engaged in any
wrongdoing, except that: (a) on January 21, 2016, NEC TOKIN
Corporation pleaded guilty to participating in a conspiracy to
fix prices of certain electrolytic capacitors; (b) on June 9,
2016,
Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd. pleaded guilty to participating in a
conspiracy to fix prices of certain electrolytic capacitors; (c)
on October 11, 2017, ELNA Co., Ltd and Holystone pleaded guilty
to participating in a conspiracy to fix prices of certain
electrolytic capacitors; and (d) on October 25, 2017, Matsuo
Electric Co., Ltd. pleaded guilty to participating in a
conspiracy
to fix prices of certain electrolytic capacitors.

The Court has previously approved settlements of Plaintiffs'
claims against Defendants Fujitsu Ltd.; NEC Tokin Corporation
and NEC Tokin America, Inc.; Nitsuko Electronics Corporation; and
Okaya Electric Industries Co., Ltd. and Okaya Electric America,
Inc.

To obtain more information about the claims in this lawsuit, you
can view the complaint and other court documents in this
case at www.capacitorsantitrustsettlement.com.

3. Why is this a class action, and who is involved?
In a class action lawsuit, one or more people called "Named
Plaintiffs" or "Class Representatives" sue on behalf of other
people who have similar claims.  The people and companies with
similar claims together are a "Class" and each is called
a "Class Member." In a class action, the court resolves the
issues for all Class Members, except for those who exclude
themselves (or "opt-out") from the Class.

4. Why are there settlements?
The Court has not yet found in favor of Plaintiffs or Defendants.
While the lawsuit is still pending before the United States
District Court, Plaintiffs and the Settling Defendants have
agreed to settlements that, if approved, will bring the claims
against the Settling Defendants to an end.  This way, Plaintiffs
and Settling Defendants avoid the uncertainty of continuing the
case between them. 0ey also avoid the cost and delay of further
litigation, and Class Members will receive the benefits of the
settlements.

5. Why are the settlements "partial" settlements?
Although the settlements with the Settling Defendants fully
resolve the Class Members' claims against the Settling
Defendants (see response to Question 16), the settlements only
partially resolve the case, which will continue against the
Non-Settling Defendants (see response to Question 6). For this
reason, the settlements with the Settling Defendants are
partial settlements.

6. Why is the lawsuit continuing if there are settlements?
The Settling Defendants have agreed to settle this case.
Previously, other Defendants have settled (see response to
Question 2). The remaining Defendants have not agreed to settle,
so the lawsuit will continue as a proposed class action against
them. More money may become available in the future as a result
of additional settlements with (and/or a trial against) the
NonSettling Defendants, but there is no guarantee that will
happen.

7. What happens if Plaintiffs later reach a settlement with the
Non-Settling Defendants?
The lawsuit will continue as a proposed class action against the
Non-Settling Defendants on behalf of all Class Members. It is
unknown whether Plaintiffs will obtain settlements with, or
prevail at trial against, the Non-Settling Defendants. If there
are additional settlements in the future, there will be notice of
those settlements as well.

8. Am I a Class Member who is part of the partial settlements and
the ongoing class action lawsuit against the Non-Settling
Defendants?
In general, direct purchasers of Capacitors are Class Members,
i.e., persons or entities (a) who are eligible for a payment from
the proposed settlements when the funds are distributed, and (b)
on whose behalf the lawsuit will continue against the Non-
Settling Defendants, if they meet the following definition: All
persons in the United States that purchased Capacitors directly
from any of the Defendants (including through their controlled
subsidiaries, agents, a2liates or joint-ventures) from January 1,
2002 through July 22, 2015 (the "Class Period").

9. I am still not sure if I am included.
If you received this Notice, it is because you were listed as a
potential Class Member. If you are still not sure whether you are
included, you can get help by calling Class Counsel at (415) 500-
6800.

10. Does it make a difference whether I purchased Capacitors from
the Settling Defendants or a Non-Settling Defendant? No. As long
as you fall within the definition of the Class in Question 8
above, you can participate in the partial settlements, and the
ongoing lawsuit against the Non-Settling Defendants, regardless
of the specific Defendant form which you purchased Capacitors.

11. What are my rights as a Class Member?
You may submit a Claim Form for a payment from the Settlement
Fund (see Question 14). Or, you may exclude yourself from one or
more of the settlements (see Question 20). You may also comment
on or object to the proposed partial settlements and the request
for fees and litigation expenses (see Question 23). You may also
attend the Court's Fairness Hearing to speak in support
of, or against, the Court's final approval of the proposed
partial settlements and the request for fees and litigation
expenses. You
may also choose to do nothing -- which would result in no payment
to you for the partial settlements. (see Question 26).

The Settlement Benefits
12. What do the partial settlements provide?
The Settling Defendants will make payments into an Escrow Account
for the benefit of Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class.

Counsel will use the Escrow Account for reimbursement of such
fees and expenses related to the provision of notice to the
Class Members.

The Settling Defendants will pay into the Escrow Account for the
benefit of Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class the following
(the "Settlement Fund"):

   -- Hitachi will pay $63,000,000 by December 1, 2017.
   -- Soshin will pay $3,900,000 within fourteen (14) calendar
days after the Court grants preliminary approval of its
settlement.

As a Class Member, you will give up, or "release," your claims
against the Settling Defendants. This release includes any
claims made or that could have been made arising from the facts
alleged in this class action lawsuit. The releases are described
in more detail in the Settlement Agreements and in Question 16
below. You can view or download copies of the Settlement
Agreements at the website www.capacitorsantitrustsettlement.com

13. How much money can I get from the partial settlement?
Class Members who submit a Claim Form will be eligible to receive
a share of the Settlement Fund based on an allocation
formula (the "Allocation Formula") utilizing each Class Member's
proportionate share of Capacitors purchased during the
Class Period. Under the Allocation Formula, each Class Member
submitting a valid Claim Form would be entitled to receive
an amount calculated by multiplying (a) the net amount in the
Settlement Fund (after deducting all Court-approved expenses,
fees, and administrative costs) by (b) a quotient calculated by
dividing (i) the total amount of Capacitors purchased directly
from Defendants during the Class Period by the specific Class
Member submitting a valid Claim Form, with (ii) the total amount
of Capacitors purchased directly from Defendants during the Class
Period by all Class Members submitting valid Claim Forms.
Submitting A Claim Form for a Share of the Partial Settlement

14. How can I get money from the partial settlement?
To receive money from the partial settlements, you must complete
and submit a Claim Form, either online at
www.capacitorsantitrustsettlement.com, or by mail. A copy of the
Claim Form is included with this Notice. Please read this
Notice and the accompanying Claim Form carefully. If any of the
Defendants in this case have a record of you purchasing
Capacitors from them during the Class Period (i.e., between
January 1, 2002 through July 22, 2015, inclusive), you will
be mailed a Claim Form for your review that includes details
about these purchases. You can either approve the purchase
information on your Claim Form, or, if you disagree with this
information, you can submit records of your purchases.
You must complete and submit the form online no later than April
23, 2018, or complete the included form manually, sign it, and
mail it postmarked no later than April 23, 2018, to the Notice
and Claims Administrator at the address listed in Question 28 of
this Notice. If necessary, you may download and print out a Claim
Form from the website www.capacitorsantitrustsettlement.com. If
you have any problems with the Claim Form or questions about how
to submit your claim, please call the Notice and Claims
Administrator at the telephone number printed at the bottom of
this page.
If you fall within the settlement Class Member definition, you
may receive money from the partial settlements.


15. When will I get my payment(s)?
As noted above, the Court is scheduled to hold a final Fairness
Hearing on June 7, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. to decide whether to
approve the proposed partial settlements and the request for the
payment of attorneys' fees and the reimbursement of litigation
expenses. 0e Court may reschedule the Fairness Hearing or change
any of the deadlines described in this Notice.

Please check the website, www.capacitorsantitrustsettlement.com,
for news of any such changes.

Settlement payments to settlement Class Members will be
distributed after one or more of the settlements is approved, and
after appeals, if any, are resolved in the Settlement Class'
favor. Class Counsel will remit the funds, through the Notice and
Claims Administrator, in one or more distributions that may
include future settlements with Non-Settling Defendants.
Updates regarding the partial settlements and when payments may
be made will be posted on the settlement website,
www.capacitorsantitrustsettlement.com.

16. What am I giving up to receive payment(s) under one or more
of the partial settlements? If you are a settlement Class Member,
unless you exclude yourself from one or more of the settlements
with the Settling Defendants, you will remain in the Class, and
that means that you cannot sue, continue to sue, or be part of
any other lawsuit against the Settling Defendants about the legal
claims in this case. It also means that all of the Court's orders
will apply to you and legally bind you, and that you agree to the
"Releases of Claims" specifically set forth in the Settlement
Agreements with Hitachi and Soshin available on the settlement
website, www.capacitorsantitrustsettlement.com.

In general (and subject to the precise terms as set forth in each
of the Settlement Agreements, upon one or more of the
Settlement Agreements becoming effective, the Named Plaintiffs
and Class Members who do not otherwise properly exclude
themselves ("Releasors") agree that the Settling Defendants and
their o2cers, directors, a2liates, and employees ("Releasees")
shall be completely released, acquitted, and forever discharged
from any and all manner of claims, demands, rights, actions,
suits, and causes of action, whether class, individual, or
otherwise in nature (whether or not any Class Member has objected
to
the Settlement Agreements or makes a claim upon or participates
in the Settlement Fund, whether directly, representatively,
derivatively, or in any other capacity), damages whenever
incurred, liabilities of any nature whatsoever, including costs,
expenses, penalties, injuries, and attorneys' fees that
Releasors, or any one of them, whether directly,
representatively, derivatively, or in any other capacity, ever
had, now have, or hereafter can, shall, or may have against the
Releasees, whether known or unknown, relating in any way to any
transaction, event, conduct, circumstance, action, failure to
act, or occurrence of any sort or type arising out of or related
to the Class Action and any joint and several liability arising
from the conduct of any of the Defendants in the Class Action
prior to the Effective Date arising under or relating to any
federal or state antitrust laws, unfair competition, unfair
practices or trade practice laws, civil conspiracy, or common law
or statutory fraud claims concerning the
purchase, pricing, selling, discounting, marketing, manufacturing
and/or distributing of Capacitors ("the Released Claims").
To view the legally binding terms about the scope of the Released
Claims, please refer to the proposed Settlement Agreements,
which are available at www.capacitorsantitrustsettlement.com.
By participating in the partial settlements, you are not giving
up your rights against the Non-Settling Defendants.
1e Lawyers Representing You

17. Who represents me in this case?
The Court appointed the following law firm as Interim Lead Class
Counsel (also referred to as "Plaintiffs' Counsel" or "Class
Counsel") to represent the Class:

         Joseph R. Saveri
         JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM
         601 California Street, Suite 1000
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         (415) 500-6800
         jsaveri@saverilaw*rm.com

18. Should I get my own lawyer?
You do not need to hire your own lawyer because Plaintiffs'
Counsel are working on your behalf. If you want your own lawyer,
you may hire one, but you will be responsible for any payment for
that lawyer's services. For example, you can ask your lawyer
to appear in Court for you if you want someone other than
Plaintiffs' Counsel to speak for you. You may also appear for
yourself without a lawyer.

19. How will the lawyers be paid?
At the Fairness Hearing, Plaintiffs' Counsel will seek payment of
$16,725,000 (25% of the Settlement Fund) for legal fees for the
work they have done in this case and $6,690,000 (10% of the
Settlement Fund), for reimbursement of their reasonable
litigation
expenses, principally expert witness expenses. If the Court
awards these payments, they will be paid from the Settlement Fund
along with administrative fees and expenses related to the
provision of notice to the settlement Class Members, processing
of
Claim Forms, and distributing Settlement Funds to the Class
Members submitting valid Claim Forms.

You personally do not have to pay any of Class Counsel's fees,
costs, or expenses.

Excluding Yourself From The Settlements And/Or The Ongoing
Lawsuit

20. How do I opt out of the settlements and/or the ongoing class
action lawsuit against the Non-Settling Defendants? Excluding
yourself from one or more of the partial settlements: If you fall
within the Class Member definition (see Question 8) but wish to
keep the right to sue or continue to sue one or more of the
Settling Defendants (at your own expense) about the legal issues
in this case, then you must take steps to remove yourself from
the Settlement Class. 0is is called excluding yourself from, or
opting out of, the settlements. Opting out of the Class for
purposes of the partial settlements described in this notice will
not affect your right to remain in the proposed Class for
purposes of the continuing litigation against the Non-Settling
Defendants. You may also opt-out of the Settlement Class with
respect to one or more Settling Defendants, but choose to remain
in the Settlement Class with respect to the other Settling
Defendants.

To exclude yourself from (or opt out of ) the partial settlement
with one or more Settling Defendants, you must send an OptOut
Request letter to the Notice and Claims Administrator at the
address below indicating that you want to be excluded from the
Settlement Class in In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation;
stating your full legal name, address, and telephone number;
providing a statement that you purchased Capacitors directly from
one or more Defendants; and identifying the settlements from
which you wish to opt out.

You must include the following statement with your Opt-Out
Request Letter: "I want to be excluded from the Capacitors
Antitrust Litigation class action settlement with [SPECIFY THE
NAME OF EACH SETTLING DEFENDANT FROM WHOSE SETTLEMENT YOU WISH TO
EXCLUDE YOURSELF]. I understand that by so doing, I will not be
able to get any money or benefits from the settlement with
that/those Settling Defendant(s) in this case." This Opt-Out
Request Letter
must be signed and dated and include your telephone number.
If you request to be excluded from one or more of the partial
settlements with Settling Defendants, you will not be legally
bound by the settlement with that/those Settling Defendant(s).
You will be able to sue (or continue to sue) that/those Settling
Defendant(s) in the future about the legal claims in this case.
If you ask to be excluded from one or more of the settlements
with Settling Defendant(s), you will not get any payment from
the settlement with respect to the Settling Defendant(s), and you
cannot object to that settlement.
If you choose to remain in some or all of these settlements, you
will have the right to remain in or exclude yourself from any
future settlement classes or any class certified by the Court.

Exclusion/Opt-Out Request Mailing Information

To exclude yourself from one or more of the settlements with
Settling Defendant(s), you must submit your Opt-Out Request
Letter postmarked via First Class United States Mail (or United
States Mail for overnight delivery) no later than April 23, 2018
(or received by the Notice and Claims Administrator by that date
if sent by fax or e-mail) at the following address:

       Notice and Claims Administrator
       Capacitors Antitrust Direct Purchaser Litigation
Settlement
       P.O. Box 2563
       Faribault, MN 55021-9563

You cannot exclude yourself (opt out) by telephone

21. If I do not exclude myself, can I sue the Settling Defendants
for the same thing later? No. If you are a Class member, unless
you exclude yourself from one or more of the settlements with one
or more of the Settling Defendants, you give up the right to sue
all of the Settling Defendants for the claims that the partial
settlement resolves as more fully described in Question 16 above.
If you have a pending lawsuit against any of the Defendants,
speak to your lawyer in that lawsuit immediately, because you may
need to exclude yourself from the Class to continue your own
lawsuit. The process for excluding yourself from one or more of
the settlements is described in the preceding section.

22. If I exclude myself, can I get money from this case?
Yes and no. If you exclude yourself from one or more of the
settlements with Settling Defendants, you will not receive
money under that settlement even if you submit a Claim Form. You
will, however, remain eligible for payment relating to any
settlements from which you did not opt out. You will also remain
eligible to a share of the money recovered, if any, from
Non-Settling Defendants in the future.

Commenting On Or Objecting To The Settlement

23. How do I tell the Court that I like or do not like the
proposed settlement, and may I speak at the hearing? If you are a
Class Member, you can comment on, or object to, the proposed
partial settlements if you object to any part of it, including
the requests for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.
You can give reasons why you think the Court should or should not
approve it. The Court will consider your views.  To comment or
object, you must send a letter to the Notice and Claims
Administrator with your comment(s) or objection(s)
to the proposed settlements in the In re Capacitors Antitrust
Litigation. Be sure to include:

   -- Your name, address, telephone number, email address and
signature.
   -- A statement signed under penalty of perjury that you are a
member of the Settlement Class.
   -- A detailed statement of your comment(s) or objection(s),
including the grounds for your objection(s), if any, together
with any documents you think support it.

You do not need to attend or speak at the Fairness Hearing
(described in Question 24 below) for your comments or
objections to be considered.  If you would like to speak at the
Fairness Hearing about your comments or objections to the
settlement, you must add to your letter a statement that you
intend to appear and speak at the hearing (for example, by
stating "This is my Notice of Intention to Appear in In re
Capacitors Antitrust Litigation.").

If you wish for the Court to consider your comment(s) or
objection(s), you must mail the comment(s) or objection(s), along
with a request to speak at the Fairness Hearing (if any), by
First Class U.S. Mail, postmarked no later than May 18, 2018, to:
Questions? Call 1-866-903-1223

         Notice and Claims Administrator
         In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation Lawsuit
         P.O. Box 2563
         Faribault, MN 55021-9563

You will have no right to speak at the Fairness Hearing about
these settlements if you choose to exclude yourself from the
settlements, because a settlement no longer affects you if you
opt out of it.

The Court's Fairness Hearing

24. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the
settlements? The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on June 7,
2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 11, on the 19th Floor of the
United States District Court located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue in
San Francisco, California.

At the Fairness Hearing, the Court will consider each of the
proposed settlements and determine whether each is fair,
reasonable, and adequate. The Court will also consider the
request for attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, and for
payment
of other administrative expenses. If there are written comments
or objections, the Court will consider them. The Court will
decide whether to allow people who have raised objections or
comments to speak at the hearing. After the Fairness Hearing,
the Court will separately decide whether to approve the partial
settlements.

The Court may reschedule the Fairness Hearing or change any of
the deadlines described in this Notice. Please check the
website, www.capacitorsantitrustsettlement.com, for news of any
such changes.

25. Do I have to come to the Fairness Hearing?
No. Class Counsel will be present at the Fairness Hearing to
answer any questions the Court may have. You are welcome to
come at your own expense. If you send comments or objections to
the settlements, you do not have to come to Court to talk
about them. If you mailed your written comments or objections on
time, the Court will consider them. You may also pay your own
lawyer to attend, but such attendance is not necessary.

If You Do Nothing
26. What happens if I do nothing at all?
If you are a Class Member and you do nothing, you will receive no
money from the partial settlements with the Settling Defendants.
Any claims you might have against the Settling Defendants for the
allegations in this case will be released unless you separately
write to exclude yourself (following the instructions in Question
20). This means that if you do nothing, you will not be able to
collect any damages from the Settling Defendants for the alleged
agreements to raise, maintain, or stabilize the prices of
Capacitors as alleged in this lawsuit, or in any other lawsuit.
You will not receive money from the partial settlements unless
you submit a Claim Form (by following the instructions in
Question 14). To qualify to receive any money from the
settlements with the Settling Defendants, you must submit a Claim
Form and follow the instructions in Question 14. Your claim must
be *led online or postmarked by mail by April 23, 2018, or
received by the Notice and Claims Administrator by that time
(e.g., via e-mail or facsimile).

Getting More Information

27. Are more details about the settlements and the lawsuit
available? Yes. This Notice summarizes the proposed settlements
with the Settling Defendants and the ongoing lawsuit against
the Non-Settling Defendants. More details about the settlements
are set forth in the proposed Settlement Agreements
themselves. You can see or print copies of the Settlement
Agreements at www.capacitorsantitrustsettlement.com. More
information about the ongoing class action lawsuit, including the
Plaintiffs' class action complaint, can also be viewed or
printed at www.capacitorsantitrustsettlement.com, or at the
Website of Class Counsel, the Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., at
www.saverilaw!rm.com.

28. How do I get more information?
The Website www.capacitorsantitrustsettlement.com allows you to
complete and submit a Claim Form online. The Website
also provides answers to common questions about the lawsuit, the
partial settlements, Claim Forms, and other information
to help you determine whether you are a Class Member, whether you
are eligible for a payment, and when Settlement Funds will be
distributed. You may also submit a written Claim Form at the
address listed below, or you may call or write to the Notice and
Claims Administrator with your questions at:

         Notice and Claims Administrator
         In re Capacitors Antitrust Lawsuit
         P.O. Box 2563
         Faribault, MN 55021-9563
         Telephone: 1-866-903-1223

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT. YOU SHOULD DIRECT ANY QUESTIONS
YOU MAY HAVE ABOUT THIS NOTICE OR THE SETTLEMENT TO THE NOTICE
AND CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR AND/OR TO PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL.

You may also seek the advice and counsel of your own attorney at
your own expense, if you desire.


HITCHCOCK AUTOMOTIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Janabajal Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMIAH JANABAJAL, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HITCHCOCK AUTOMOTIVE
RESOURCES, dba NORTHRIDGE TOYOTA, dba PUENTE HILLS FORD, a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendant,
Case No. BC699000 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 21, 2018), seeks to
recover minimum wages and overtime under the California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt
Sales Consultant at Defendants' Northridge Toyota location from
approximately August 2015 to March 18, 2016. During his
employment, Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were paid
on a commission-only basis, whereby they were paid a commission
per vehicle sold, plus a volume incentive bonus for reaching
various sales goals. Service technicians and/or consultants were
paid on a similar commission-only compensation system. The
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees clocked in and out at
the beginning and end of the workday, and each meal period, but
were generally only paid based on commissions earned during the
pay period, not based on hours worked.

Hitchcock Automotive Resources owns and operates automotive
dealerships. The Company, through its dealerships, engages in the
marketing and sale of new and pre-owned vehicles. Hitchcock
Automotive also provides vehicle servicing and repair as well as
supplying auto parts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
          Daniel J. Brown, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  sblakely@haineslawgroup.com
                  dbrown@haineslawgroup.com


HOME DEPOT: "Howard" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HOWARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. d/b/a
HOME DEPOT, the Defendant, Case No. 506788/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
April 4, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the New York
State Labor Law, the New York Code of Rules and Regulations, and
the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The Defendant employed Plaintiff as an associate, in Plaintiff's
King's Plaza Location, and maintained control, oversight, and
direction over Plaintiff in regard to timekeeping, payroll, and
other employment practices, and functioned as an employer
pursuant to the NYLL. The Defendant is considered a large
employer, having at least 11 or more employees during the
duration of Plaintiff's employment. Defendant, by virtue of its
ownership, management, and control over the wages and work of
Plaintiff, is considered an employer under the NYLL.

The Plaintiff worked shifts scheduled from 1:00 p.m. to 10:00
p.m., Monday through Friday throughout the duration of his
employment with Defendant. The Plaintiff was provided a 1-hour
unpaid meal break each shift. Accordingly, Plaintiff was
scheduled to work 40 hours per week. In reality, Plaintiff worked
between 45-50 hours each week. Plaintiff would clock in every
shift using Defendant's timekeeping system. Plaintiff was
required to, and did, routinely did perform work on behalf of
Plaintiff prior to clocking in at the start of his shift.
Frequently, Plaintiff would work later than 10:00 p.m., sometimes
as late as 3:00 a.m. depending on the needs of Defendant. When
Plaintiff worked past 10:00 p.m., Defendant required Plaintiff to
clock-in an equal amount of time later on the subsequent day,
despite Plaintiff actually beginning work at 1:00 p.m. Thus,
Plaintiff's time sheets showed less work than was actually
performed.

Home Depot is an American home improvement supplies retailing
company that sells tools, construction products, and
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Gaylord, Esq.
          BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
          400 Jericho Turnpike Suite 226
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Telephone: (516) 742 4949
          Facsimile: (516) 742 1977


HUDSON MARKET: "Cuautle" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wage under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABRAHAN VELAZQUEZ CUAUTLE, ARTURO GIL GARITA, CESARIO VAZQUEZ
TALAVERA, CRISTO GARCIA SANTIAGO, JOSE HUMBERTO BECERRA BUITRAGO,
JOSE OSCAR JUAREZ RAMOS, JOSE PEREZ ESPINAL, JOSE YAT CHIC (A/K/A
EDGAR CASTRO), PEDRO RAMALES, PEDRO TECUN POL, RAFAEL PASCUAL
CHACAJ BATZ (A/K/A EDGAR PEREZ), and RAUL ANTONIO CRUZ,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. HUDSON MARKET 303 LLC (D/B/A HUDSON MARKET),
CHRISTOPHER SANTOS, CHAN K. PARK, TERRENCE PARK, SCOTT BARNER,
GREG GROSSMAN, ADAM DOE, JAZMIN DOE and ZACK DOE, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-02968 (S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2018), seeks to
recover overtime & minimum wage under Fair Labor Standards Act
and New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs have been employed as line cooks, cook helpers,
salad preparers, porters, dishwashers, food preparers and
ostensibly as delivery workers at the marketplace located at 303
10th Avenue, New York, NY 10001. The Plaintiffs have worked for
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the
hours that they have worked. Rather, Defendants have failed to
maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to
pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.
Further, Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiffs the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which they have had to work
over 10 hours a day. Furthermore, Defendants have repeatedly
failed to pay Plaintiffs wages on a timely basis.

Hudson Market is a brand new farm to table market and restaurant
in the heart of West Chelsea, NYC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HUDSON'S BAY: Fails to Secure Personally Identifiable Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HOPE TAFET, LESLIE LEVITTRASCHELLA and JANE LEFKOWITZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, THE
Plaintiffs, v. HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY, SAKS FIFTH AVENUE LLC, and
LORD & TAYLOR LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02980-KBF
(S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2018), alleges that HBC, Saks and Lord &
Taylor failed to secure and safeguard consumers' personally
identifiable information which HBC collected from various sources
in connection with the operation of its Saks and Lord & Taylor
subsidiaries.  HBC has acknowledged that a cybersecurity incident
occurred, resulting in the theft of its customers' PII, mainly
consisting of credit card numbers and other information
sufficient for wrongdoers to make fraudulent charges to HBC
customers' accounts.  The PII for Plaintiffs and the class of
consumers they seek to represent was compromised due to
Defendants' acts and omissions and its failure to properly
protect its customers' PII.

The Defendants could have prevented the Data Breach. Instead,
Defendants disregarded the rights of Plaintiffs and Class members
by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently
failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its
data systems were protected, failing to disclose to its customers
the material fact that it did not have adequate computer systems
and security practices to safeguard PII, failing to take
available steps to prevent and stop the breach from ever
happening, and failing to monitor and detect the breach on a
timely basis.  As a result of the Data Breach, the PII of the
Plaintiffs and Class members has been exposed to criminals for
misuse.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Howard T. Longman, Esq.
          Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
          Michael J. Klein, Esq.
          STULL, STULL, & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687 7230
          Facsimile: (212) 490 2022
          E-mail: hlongman@ssbny.com
                  memert@ssbny.com
                  mklein@ssbny.com


INTEL CORP: Faces "Henderson" Suit in Oregon Over Defective CPUs
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH HENDERSON and MATTHEW MANISKAS, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. INTEL CORPORATION, Case No.
3:18-cv-00413-SB (D. Ore., March 9, 2018), is brought on behalf
of both a proposed class and subclasses of individuals, who
purchased Intel CPUs, either through Intel itself, or through
purchase of a device that included the Intel CPU as an integral
part.

Around January 2, 2018, news began to circulate regarding two
serious security vulnerabilities -- "Meltdown" and "Spectre."
The Defects are inherent to all Intel Central Processing Units
that use the x86-64 architecture manufactured by Intel.

The Defects provide a backdoor for third parties and malicious
programs to access information on computers that use Intel CPUs,
regardless of other sophisticated and otherwise through security
measures employed to safeguard that data, the Plaintiffs allege.

Intel Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
and principal place of business located in Santa Clara,
California.  Intel is one of the world's largest manufacturers of
central processing units.  Intel sells its CPUs as separate
components to individual enthusiasts and businesses.
Additionally, Intel manufactures and sells servers with
integrated CPUs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Young Walgenkim, Esq.
          HANSON & WALGENKIM, LLC
          838 Commercial Street NE
          Salem, OR 97301
          Telephone: (503) 383-1496
          Facsimile: (503) 766-6477
          E-mail: young@hansonwalgenkim.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
          Eric S. Taubel, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                  jbourne@gustafsongluek.com
                  etaubel@gustafsongluek.com


INTEL CORPORATION: Processors Have Security Flaw, New Castle Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THE CITY OF NEW CASTLE, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. INTEL CORPORATION, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00489-JE (D. Ore., March 21, 2018),
seeks an order or orders requiring Intel to adequately disclose
and remediate the Defect and "Meltdown" or "Spectre" security
flaws.

Intel is one of the top-selling semiconductor companies in the
world and manufacturers semiconductor chips of central processors
that are sold as individual components or sold as components in
computers including personal computers (PCs) and mobile devices.
Some of the companies that have sold computers or mobile devices
with Intel CPUs are Apple, Asus, Acer, Google, Lenovo, Hewlett
Packard, and Dell.

The CPU(s) is the hardware component responsible for interpreting
and executing most of the commands from a computer's other
hardware and software, i.e., the brain of a computer, laptop, or
mobile device. Intel represented and touted to consumers in its
advertising, marketing and on the packaging of the products it
sells that it manufactures some of the fastest CPUs in the world.

In addition to the speed of the processing, Intel represented and
touted to consumers the security features of its CPUs. Two of the
most essential features in a CPU which consumers and users are
looking for are speed and security, and Intel's success is
largely based on the advertised speed and security of its CPUs.

Focusing on speed and producing the fastest CPUs, Intel took
short cuts which left the CPUs with security flaws,
vulnerabilities and susceptibilities to cyber-attack.
Specifically, Intel's CPUs suffer from an inherent security
defect referred to as "Meltdown" and/or "Spectre" in the computer
industry. The inherent defect in Intel's CPUs creates the
security flaw or vulnerability which allows hackers the ability
to access personal, sensitive, private and secure information in
every computer, PC or Device that uses an Intel CPU which were
designed with features and components to perform "speculative
execution".[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

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


INTEL CORPORATION: "Jones" Suit Moved to District of Oregon
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jason Jones, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Intel
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00029, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Oregon (Portland 3) on April 5, 2018. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00579-SI to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael H. Simon.

Intel Corporation is an American multinational corporation and
technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, California, in
the Silicon Valley.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
          Vess Allen Miller, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636 6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636 2593
          E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
                  ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
                  rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
                  vmiller@cohenandmalad.com


J.S. PALUCH: Fails to Reimburse Employees for Business Expenses
---------------------------------------------------------------
IRVING PICOU on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. J.S. PALUCH CO., INC.; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG18897850 (Cal.
Super. Ct., March 21, 2018), challenges the Defendants' policy
and practice of:

     (a) failing to reimburse employees for business expenses
         in violation Labor Code section 2802;

     (b) failing to pay former employees all wages due and owing
         at the time of discharge or voluntary quit in violation
         of Labor Code sections 201-203; and

     (c) violating California Labor Code section 226 by failing
         to provide wage statements that list the name and
         address of the legal entity that is the employer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric A. Grover, Esq.
          Robert W. Spencer, Esq.
          KELLER GROVER LLP
          4 11 1965 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 543 1305
          Facsimile: (415) 543 7861
          E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com
                  rspencer@kellergrover.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bailey Sues over Talcum Powder Based Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN BAILEY, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF KAREN
BAILEY, the Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a
New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV325920 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
April 5, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants'
failure to remedy known defects in talcum powder based products
and failure to warn the public, including the Plaintiff or
Plaintiff's Spouse or Plaintiff's Decedent, of the extreme risk
of injury occasioned by the defects inherent in the Products.

The Plaintiff or Plaintiff's Spouse or Plaintiff's Decedent
suffered illnesses that have latency periods and do not arise
until many years after exposure. The illnesses did not distinctly
manifest as having been caused by the Products until Plaintiff
was made aware that the ovarian cancer could be caused by use of
the Products. Consequently, the discovery rule applies to this
case and the statute of limitations has been tolled until the day
that Plaintiff knew or had reason to know that ovarian cancer was
linked to the use of the Products.

Furthermore, the running of any statute of limitations has been
equitably tolled by reason of Defendants' fraudulent concealment
and conduct. Through their affirmative misrepresentations and
omissions, Defendants actively concealed from Plaintiff the true
risks associated with the talcum powder contained within the
Products. As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff was
unaware, and could not reasonably know, or could not have
reasonably learned through reasonable diligence, that Plaintiff
or Plaintiff's Spouse or Plaintiff's Decedent had been exposed to
the risks alleged herein and that those risks were the direct and
proximate result of Defendants' acts and omissions.

Furthermore, Defendants are estopped from relying on any statute
of limitations because of their concealment of the truth, quality
and nature of the Products. Defendants were under a duty to
disclose the true character, quality and nature of Products
because this was non-public information which the Defendants had
and continue to have in their exclusive control, and because the
Defendants knew that this information was not available to
Plaintiff.

The Defendants and their individual agents, officers, and
directors intentionally proceeded with the manufacturing, sale,
distribution and marketing of the Products knowing that the
public, including Plaintiffs, would be exposed to serious danger
in order to advance Defendants' own pecuniary interest and
monetary profits. IMERYS has been in the business of mining,
extracting, processing, treating, formulating, promoting,
selling, and distributing talcum powder for use in talcum powder
based products. Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational
medical devices, pharmaceutical and consumer packaged goods
manufacturing company founded in 1886.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Lee Cirsch, Esq.
          Michael Akselrud, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC
          21550 Oxnard Street, 3rd Floor
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (310) 277 5100
          Facsimile: (310) 277 5103
          E-mail: lee.cirsch@lanierlawfirm.com
                  michael.akselrud@lanierlawfirm.com


LADY JANE'S HAIRCUTS: Siroka Seeks Minimum Wage & OT under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
HALEY SIROKA, 8308 Chalmers Ave. Warren, MI 48089 On behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LADY
JANE'S HAIRCUTS FOR MEN HOLDING COMPANY, LLC 3921 Rochester Road
Troy, MI 48083 c/o Its Resident Agent Tim McCollum 34915 Woodward
Ave. Birmingham, MI 48083; and CHAD JOHNSON 2655 Invitational
Drive Oakland Township, MI 48363, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-
cv-11075-RHC-APP (E.D. Mich., April 3, 2018), seeks to recover
minimum wage and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Michigan's minimum wage and overtime
compensation statutes.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins,
and the Michigan Class Members frequently worked more than 40
hours in a single workweek. The FLSA required Lady Jane's to pay
the stylists at least the minimum wage, and to pay them overtime
compensation at one and one-half times their "regular rate" for
all hours worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek. However,
Lady Jane's, having unlawfully misclassified Plaintiff, the
Potential Opt-Ins, and the Michigan Class Members as "independent
contractors," failed to pay them minimum wages and overtime
compensation.

Defendants own and operate retail shops under the name "Lady
Jane's Haircuts for Men" throughout the United States and its
territories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Downie, Esq.
          46 Chagrin Falls Plaza No. 104
          Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
          Telephone: 440 973 9000
          Cell: 440 829 9614
          E-mail: tom@chagrinlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
          Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
          Kevin M. McDermott, II, Esq.
          SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Caxton Building
          812 E. Huron Rd., Suite 490
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (440) 498 9100
          E-mail: jscott@ohiowagealawyers.com
                  rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com


LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: Witmer Balks at Merger Deal with Granite
-----------------------------------------------------------
COLLEEN WITMER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. LAYNE CHRISTENSEN COMPANY,
DAVID A.B. BROWN, J. SAMUEL BUTLER, ROBERT R. GILMORE, JOHN T.
NESSER III, NELSON OBUS, ALAN P. KRUSI, MICHAEL J. CALIEL,
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED, and LOWERCASE MERGER SUB
INCORPORATED, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01051 (S.D. Tex.,
April 3, 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
defendants consummate the Proposed Transaction, rescind it and
set it aside or award rescissory damages.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on
February 14, 2018, pursuant to which Layne Christensen Company
will be acquired by Granite Construction Incorporated and its
wholly owned subsidiary, Lowercase Merger Sub Incorporated.

On February 13, 2018, Layne Christensen's Board of Directors
caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger
with Granite Construction. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, if the Proposed Transaction is approved by Layne
Christensen's shareholders, they will receive 0.27 shares of
Granite common stock for each share of Layne Christensen stock
they own. On March 13, 2018, defendants filed a Form S-4
Registration Statement with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction.
The Registration Statement omits material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the
Registration Statement false and misleading. Accordingly,
plaintiff alleges herein that defendants violated Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Layne Christensen Company is a U.S.-based global water
management, construction and drilling company, providing
responsible solutions for water, mineral and energy
resources.[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 -

          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
          3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 744 3000
          Facsimile: (214) 744 3015
          E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
                  jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com


LIFETIME KIA: Warren Truck Sues over Unsolicited Fax Ads
--------------------------------------------------------
WARREN TRUCK AND TRAILER, INC., on its own and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LIFETIME KIA,
PARKWAY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., and BLUERIDGE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00447-SGC (N.D. Ala.,
March 22, 2018), alleges that the Defendants have recently sent
out thousands of unsolicited fax advertisements and thousands of
fax advertisements without the proper opt-out notices as required
by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq.
          W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
          Anna M. Carroll, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
          2224 First Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 326 3336
          E-mail: lewis@hgdlawfirm.com
                  taylor@hgdlawfirm.com
                  acarroll@hgdlawfirm.com


LONGFIN CORP: Reddy Says Financial Reports Misleading
-----------------------------------------------------
KARTHIK REDDY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. LONGFIN CORP. and VENKAT S.
MEENAVALLI, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02933 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 3, 2018), is a federal securities class action on behalf of
a class consisting of all persons and entities, other than
Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise
acquired Longfin common stock December 15, 2017 through April 2,
2018, both dates inclusive.

Longfin is a finance and technology company. The Company provides
trade and physical commodities solutions for finance businesses
and trading platforms.

Longfin recently began using blockchain technology to enable
global trade finance solutions for small and medium enterprises,
processors, manufacturers, importers, and exporters through
cryptocurrencies. The Company's entry into blockchain markets
attracted widespread attention when, on December 15, 2017,
Longfin announced the acquisition of Ziddu.com, a blockchain-
empowered global micro-lending solutions provider.

In early March 2018, the global index operator FTSE Russellalso
took note of Longfin and added the Company to two widely tracked
Russell indices effective March 16, 2018.  On March 26, 2018,
stock commentary website Citron Research posted a tweet on
Twitter.com questioning the veracity of Longfin's operations. The
same day, Russell issued a statement announcing Longfin would be
removed from its global indices after market close on March 28,
2018, only approximately 12 days after being added. On March 30,
2018, the end date by which Defendant Meenavalli stated Longfin's
annual report would be filed, no Longfin financial report on Form
10-K had been filed with the SEC. Further, as of the close of
trading on April 2, 2018, two days after Defendant Meenavalli
stated the annual report would be filed, no Longfin financial
report on Form 10-K had been filed with the SEC. The foregoing
events caused the price of the Company's stock to decline from
$71.10 per share on March 23, 2018, to close at $14.31 per share
on April 2, 2018, a decline of 79.9%, damaging investors.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Longfin
had material weaknesses in its operations and internal controls
that hindered the Company's profitability; (ii) Longfin did not
meet the requirements for inclusion in Russell indices; and (iii)
as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. As a
result of the fraudulent conduct alleged, Plaintiff and other
members of the Class purchased Longfin common stock at
artificially inflated prices and suffered significant losses and
damages once the truth emerged.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff Karthik Reddy:

          Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
          Rhiana 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 -

          David P. Abel, Esq.
          U.S. MARKET ADVISORS
          LAW GROUP PLLC
          5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Ste. 440
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: 202 274 0237
          E-mail: dabel@usmarketlaw.com


MADISON COUNTY, MS: Black Residents File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Arielle Dreher, writing for Jackson Free Press, reports that ten
black residents in Madison County are suing the county and
sheriff's department, which stopped, searched or arrested them.

They allege that the county's policing strategies
disproportionately target them and not white residents -- with
officers even pre-checking 'black,' 'male,' and 'arrested' on
paperwork before knowing who they would apprehend. They also
allege that deputies used the word "n-gger" during arrests.

Now, after a half-year of discovery in the case, the ACLU of
Mississippi is asking the federal court to certify it as a class-
action complaint, meaning their lawsuit would be on behalf of all
black residents in Madison County, not just the named plaintiffs.

Attorneys argue that Madison County's policing program violates
black residents' rights outlined in the Fourth Amendment, the
Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act. The ACLU of Mississippi released data found
during discovery at a press conference March 14.

Black residents only make up 38 percent of Madison County's
population, but 77 percent the Madison County Sheriff's
Department made between 2012 and 2017 were black individuals,
ACLU data show.

The ACLU of Mississippi brought the lawsuit in May 2017 after a
year-long investigation of policing strategies. Public records
show that the Madison County sheriff's department targets black
communities, the ACLU argues.

"Almost 81 percent of roadblock arrests in Madison County between
May and September of 2016 were of black individuals," the
complaint, filed last year, says.

The county denies most of the allegations in the complaint, and
in its answer outlined Sheriff Randall Tucker's involvement in
the community and schools with the goal of improving race
relations.

"Upon entry to office, Sheriff Tucker also created a Madison
County Community Advisory Group comprised of citizens, business
owners, homeowners and others, both Black and White, to meet
together and to discuss any and all concerns all citizens have in
regard to the activities of the Madison County Sheriff's
Department," the defendant's answer filed June 29, 2017, says.
"One of the purposes for his creating this Group was to improve
race relations in Madison County, which has been one of his main
objectives since being elected to office."

Attorneys representing black residents in the county disagree.

"MCSD's own paperwork confirms that it targets Black citizens for
arrest," said Joshua Tom, legal director for the ACLU of
Mississippi, in a press release. "In the course of our class
certification discovery, MCSD officials produced template forms
that deputies use in the course of their duties, and on those
forms from at least two officers appear pre-populated checkboxes
marking 'black,' 'male,' and 'arrested.' The evidence will show
discriminatory and unconstitutional policing, and we are looking
forward to presenting all of the facts as our case moves
forward."

Data from the ACLU of Mississippi show that 76 percent of
roadblock arrests in Madison County are black residents. The
Madison County Sheriff's Department denied that their roadblocks
target certain communities or residents, "Black or White," their
answer filed last year says.

"The roadblocks conducted by the Sheriff's Department over the
last three years show that they were evenly disbursed throughout
Madison County. Further, according to Sheriff's Department
policies, each vehicle was stopped and certain information was
uniformly obtained during these roadblocks," the defendant's
answer says.

". . . Any differences in the number of Black individuals and
White individuals arrested during these roadblocks is irrelevant
to the location of these roadblocks. Instead, these arrests were
based on each individual arrested and whether probable cause
existed for their arrest or whether a warrant was outstanding for
their arrest."

Two plaintiffs in the ACLU's case testified about their
experiences of roadblocks in the motion for class certification.

"Plaintiff Bessie Thomas testified that when she tried to speak
to an MCSD deputy during a roadblock the deputy cut her off and,
referring to the cars behind her, said, 'I've got all these n-
ggers off the side of this road,'" the motion says. "Class member
Quincy Smith stated that at a traffic stop, he witnessed a white
MCSD deputy tell a Black MCSD deputy that he wasn't 'going to
help a n-gger out' by letting a driver go without a ticket."
(Note: The JFP adds hyphens to certain offensive words out of
respect for our readers.)

The plaintiffs have also requested oral argument in the case.
[GN]


MADISON COUNTY, MS: ACLU Says Data Shows Discriminatory Policing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Royals, writing for Mississippi Today, reports that
attorneys in a federal lawsuit against the Madison County
Sheriff's Department presented new data they say supports their
case that the defendants practice discriminatory and
unconstitutional policing tactics.

The data shows that over a five-year period from 2012 to 2017 in
Madison County: blacks accounted for 77 percent of all arrests,
72 percent of all citations and nearly 76 percent of arrests at
roadblocks. In addition, more than 74 percent of arrests at
traffic stops were of blacks, according to the American Civil
Liberties Union.

African Americans make up 38 percent of the county's population.

The plaintiffs' attorneys are asking the legal challenge be
deemed a class-action lawsuit, a request they say is supported by
those statistics.

"MCSD's own paperwork confirms that it targets black citizens for
arrest," said Joshua Tom, legal director for the ACLU of
Mississippi. "In the course of our class certification discovery,
MCSD officials produced template forms that deputies use in the
course of their duties, and on those forms from at least two
officers appear pre-populated check boxes marking 'black,'
'male,' and 'arrested.' The evidence will show discriminatory and
unconstitutional policing, and we are looking forward to
presenting all of the facts as our case moves forward."

Madison County Attorney Katie Snell, Esq. said the sheriff's
department does not comment on pending litigation, but the
defendants' prior response in court denied any racist or
discriminatory practices.

The plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU and the New York-based
law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, accuse the sheriff's
department of running a "top-down program" of selectively
targeting black communities with unconstitutional policing
tactics such as "show-ID-and-search pedestrian checkpoints,
roving roadblocks, 'jump outs' by plainclothes deputies in
unmarked cars and warrantless home invasions," a release from the
ACLU stated.

At a news conference announcing the findings, plaintiff Lawrence
Blackmon spoke about his experience with sheriff's department
officials. He says deputies forced his way into his Canton home
without a warrant one night looking for his cousin.

"(They) made me lay face down on the floor and handcuffed me at
gunpoint and proceeded to search my home for my cousin who I
informed them was no longer living there at that time," Blackmon
said. "I asked them to produce a warrant and they would not."

Blackmon said this is one of many such incidents in his
community.

"(It was) another reminder of the fact that being black in
Madison County oftentimes means that your constitutional rights
can be disregarded by overzealous Madison County Sheriff's
Department deputies," he said.

Attorneys representing the sheriff's department have until May 8
to respond. [GN]


MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: "Akerman" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Morris Akerman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. magicJack Vocaltec Ltd., Richard Harris, Yuen Wah
Sing, Don C. Bell III, Izhak Gross, Tal Yaron-Eldar, and Alan B.
Howe, Case No. 9:18-cv-80310 (S.D. Fla., March 9, 2018), is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The federal securities class action seeks to enjoin the
solicitation of shareholders' votes with respect to the approval
of magicJack's acquisition by B. Riley Financial, Inc., a
Delaware company and its wholly B.R. Acquisition Ltd., an Israeli
company, which, if completed, will result in B. Riley acquiring
magicJack.

The Proposed Transaction proposes to unlawfully divest
magicJack's public stockholders of valuable Company assets
without fully disclosing all material information to them, says
the complaint. As a result, stockholders are unable to make a
fully informed decision whether to tender their shares in support
of the Proposed Transaction or seek appraisal, in violation of
the Exchange Act.

Plaintiff Morris Akerman is, and has been at all times relevant
hereto, a continuous stockholder of ordinary shares of magicJack
stock.

Defendant magicJack is a cloud communications leader that is the
inventor of the magicJack devices and other magicJack products
and services. The Company is incorporated in the State of Israel
with principal executive offices at 12 Haomanut Street, 2ndN
Floor Poleg Industrial Zone, Netanya, Israel 4250445. Its common
stock is traded on the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC under the ticker
symbol "CALL." Defendant maintains its principle place of
business in the United States at 560 Village Blvd, Suite 120,
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409.

The Individual Defendants are members of magicJack's board of
directors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
      Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
      EGGNATZ PASCUCCI
      5400 S. University Drive, Ste. 417
      Davie, FL 33328
      Tel: (954) 889-3359
      Fax: (954) 889-5913
      E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
              Mpascucci@JusticeEarned.com


MANITOBA FLOOD: Court Approves $90MM Flood Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
$90M Settlement for Flooded Manitoba First Nations: Notice of
Settlement Approval

To anyone who is a member of the Pinaymootang (Fairford), Little
Saskatchewan, Lake St. Martin, or Dauphin River First Nations,
who lived in Manitoba during the 2011 Flood:

Settlement

A Settlement Agreement has been reached and approved by the
Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench that settles the litigation
involving the severe flooding in Manitoba in 2011 that led to the
evacuation of and/or adverse conditions endured by members of the
Pinaymootang (Fairford), Little Saskatchewan, Lake St. Martin,
and Dauphin River First Nations.

While not admitting wrongdoing, the Governments of Manitoba and
Canada have agreed to pay $90,283,000.00. This amount includes
lawyer ("Class Counsel") fees and expenses as well as
Administration costs.

All members of the Pinaymootang (Fairford), Little Saskatchewan,
Lake St. Martin, and Dauphin River First Nations resident in
Manitoba at the time of the 2011 flood can make claims for
Disruption Payments and Special Circumstances compensation:

Disruption Payments:  For the disruption the Eligible Claimant
endured on account of the 2011 Flood, including his/her
evacuation, or, if not evacuated, the adverse conditions he/she
was subjected to while remaining on reserve.  These payments will
be determined on a point system that takes into account the
length of time an Eligible Claimant was evacuated and/or living
under adverse conditions and whether or not the Eligible Claimant
was resident on or off one of the Four First Nations reserves.
Special Circumstances:  Eligible Claimants may also apply for
compensation in respect of personal property loss or damage,
income loss and/or health care costs or personal injuries
relating to the 2011 flooding that have not already been
compensated.
Because payments under the Settlement are based on the number of
people that come forward to make claims, it is not possible to
estimate the amounts Eligible Class Members may receive.

Making A Claim

In order to make a claim for benefits under the Settlement, Class
Members must complete, sign and return a Claim Form to the Claims
Administrator, along with any necessary supporting documents,
postmarked or deposited by courier or delivered in person at
various Workshops no later than July 17, 2018.

Class Members must  complete and submit a Claim Form by the
deadline or he or she will not be able to participate in or share
in the benefits available under the Settlement.

Learning More

The Court Office will NOT be able to answer questions about the
matters in this Notice.  If you have any questions regarding the
Settlement Agreement or making a Claim, information is available
by contacting the Claims Administrator at:

Email:  manitobaflood@ricepoint.com
Call toll-free: 1-866-934-0509

IMPORTANT DATES:

Claim Form Workshops:

RBC Convention Centre (Winnipeg, MB):
April 24 at 11 a.m. until  8 p.m.
April 25 at 10 a.m. until  4 p.m.

Gypsumville Hall (Gypsumville, MB):
April 26 at 11 a.m. until  8 p.m.
April 27 at 10 a.m. until  4 p.m.

Claim Deadline:

Tuesday, July 17, 2018 [GN]


MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS: Kennedy Seeks OT Pay under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
JULIAN KENNEDY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff(s), v. MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS TRUST
COMPANY d/b/a M&T BANK, and M&T BANK CORP., a New York
corporation, the Defendant(s), Case No. 505693/2018 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., March 21, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act

According to the complaint, pursuant to Defendants' common
compensation policies and practices, Defendants have regularly
suffered, permitted, encouraged, and/or required RBs, including
Plaintiff, to work more than 40 hours in a workweek preparing for
Licensing Exams, but have not paid them for all of their hours
worked. Although Defendants have been aware that RBs work and
have worked in excess of 40 hours preparing for Licensing Exams,
Defendants have failed to ensure that this work time was properly
recorded and compensated.

M&T is one of the twenty largest commercial banks based in the
United States. It operates more than 800 branches in New York,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, West
Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245 1000
          Facsimile: (646) 509 2060


MARIE CALLENDER: "Carter" Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ramon Carter, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Marie Callender Pie Shops, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. BC692819,
was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Western
Division - Los Angeles) on Mar. 22 2018. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-02351-DSF-GJS to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Dale S. Fischer.

Marie Callender Pie Shops, LLC operates restaurants. The company
offers various banquet menus, as well as facilities for business
meetings, family gatherings or celebrations, parties, or special
gatherings. It supports local schools.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan Jason Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY AND SMITH LLC
          9595 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 300 8425
          Facsimile: (310) 247 0160
          E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com

Attorneys for Marie Callender Pie Shops, LLC:

          Mark L Eisenhut, Esq.
          Matthew R Orr, Esq.
          Michael S Orr, Esq.
          Ryan M McNamara, Esq.
          CALL AND JENSEN APC
          610 Newport Center Drive Suite 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 717 3000
          Facsimile: (949) 717 3100
          E-mail: meisenhut@calljensen.com
                  morr@calljensen.com
                  msorr@calljensen.com
                  rmcnamara@calljensen.com


MCKESSON CORPORATION: Reeses Sue over Opioid Drug Sales
-------------------------------------------------------
Deric Rees And Ceonda Rees, Individually And As Bext Friend And
Guardian Of Baby T.W.B. On Behalf Of Themselves And All Others
Similarly Situated, The Plaintiff, v. McKesson Corporation;
Cardinal Health, Inc.; Amerisourcebergen Corportion; Purdue
Pharma L.P.; Purdue Pharma, Inc.; The Purdue Frederick Company,
Inc.; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.; Teva Pharmaceutical
Usa, Inc.; Cephalon, Inc., Johnson & Johnson; Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Ortho-Mcneil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc. n/k/a Janssen Endo Health Solutions
Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Allergan Plc f/k/a Actavis Plc;
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Actavis, Inc., Watson
Laboratorties, Inc., Actavis Llc; Actavis Pharma, Inc., f/k/a
Watson Pharma, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00511 (S.D.
Ill., Feb. 28, 2018), seeks injunctive relief, compensatory
damages, statutory damages, and any other relief allowed by law
against opioid drug distributors, retailers, and manufacturers
that, by their actions and omissions, knowingly or negligently
have distributed and dispensed prescription opioid drugs in a
manner that foreseeably injured, Baby T.W.B. and the Class.

According to the complaint, Defendants have foreseeably caused
damages to Baby T.W.B. and Class members including the costs of
neo-natal medical care additional therapeutic, prescription drug
purchases and other treatments for NAS afflicted newborns, and
counseling and rehabilitation services after birth and into the
future.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James F. Clayborne, Esq.
          John E. Sabo, Esq.
          CLAYBORNE, SABO & WAGNER, LLP
          525 West Maine Street, Suite 105
          Belleville, IL, 62220
          Telephone: (618) 239 0187
          Facsimile: (618) 416 7556
          E-mail: jclayborne@cswlawllp.com

               - and -

          Celeste Brustowitcz, Esq.
          Barry J. cooper, Esq.
          Stephen H. Wussow, Esq.
          Victor Cobb, Esq.
          THE COOPER LAW FIRM , LLC
          1525 Religious Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 399 0009
          E-mail: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com

               - and -

          Anthony D. Gray, Esq.
          JOHNSON GRAY, LLC
          319 North 4th Street, Suite 212
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 385 9500
          Facsimile: (314) 594 2052
          E-mail: agray@johnsongraylaw.com

               - and -

          Gary I. Blakman, Esq.
          LEVENFELD PEARLSTEIN, LLC
          2 N LaSalle St. Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 476 7536
          E-mail: gblackman@lplegal.com


MDL 2741: "Pica" Suit vs. Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Joseph Pica, the Plaintiff, v.
Monsanto Company, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00318, 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). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:18-cv-01787-VC to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria.

The Pica 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


MEND HEALTH: Fails to Pay All Wages & Overtime, Ramos Says
----------------------------------------------------------
JOELLE RAMOS, individually, and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of other aggrieved
employees pursuant to the California Private Attorney General
Act, the Plaintiff, v. MEND HEALTH, INC., a California
Corporation; UNITY HEALTH GROUP, INC., a California Corporation;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC700783 (S.D. Fla.,
April 4, 2018), seeks to recover all wages earned and overtime
wages under the California Labor Code.

The Defendants have scheduled their non-exempt hourly employees
to work an alternative workweek schedule consisting of three 12-
hour shifts per week. The Defendants have never conducted an
alternative workweek election in compliance with California Labor
Code section 511. Nevertheless, Defendants do not pay their non-
exempt employees one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
for all hours worked in excess of eight hours, up to and
including 12 hours in any workday. Defendants also do not
compensate nonexempt employees at double their regular rate of
pay for all hours worked in excess of 12 hours in any workday.
These practices have been in place throughout the relevant time
period. As a result of Defendants' policies and practices, its
hourly non-exempt employees have been wrongfully denied overtime
compensation due to them under California Labor Code section 510.

The Plaintiff alleges she has been wrongfully denied overtime
compensation by Defendants during each pay period she has worked
since the inception of her employment. Defendants' unlawful
failure to pay overtime has resulted in its non-exempt employees
receiving inaccurate wage statements and nonexempt employees who
voluntarily or involuntarily end their employment with Defendants
do not receive all wages earned at the time of separation. The
Defendants have also maintained rest break policies that do not
comply with their obligations under the Wage Orders and
California Labor Code section 226.7. Despite regularly being
scheduled for 12 or more hours in a workday, Defendants' non-
exempt employees are provided with only one 10-minute rest break
during a shift. The Defendants implemented a series of willful,
systematic, and deliberate policies and practices that suppressed
operating costs at the expense of employee rights set forth under
the California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Orders.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sandeep J. Shah, Esq.
          Samir I. Sheth, Esq.
          SHAH SHETH LLP
          650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1400
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 955 4551
          Facsimile: (714) 966 0663
          E-mail: sandeep@shahshethlaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory P. Wong, Esq.
          ADEPT EMPLOYMENT LAW, APC
          10880 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1101
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (213) 505 6283
          Facsimile: (213) 947 4584
          E-mail: greg@adeptemploymentlaw.com


METRO CHRYSLER: Brutus Seeks Minimum Wage & OT under Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
JEAN INES BRUTUS, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. METRO CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH,
INC. d/b/a STAR CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE RAM and/or any other entities
affiliated with or controlled by METRO CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH, INC.,
the Defendants, Case No. 153047/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 4,
2018), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime compensation
wages which Plaintiffs were contractually and statutorily
entitled to receive pursuant to New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, Defendant paid its sales
representative based on a flat rate of pay plus commission. The
Defendant failed to ensure that sales representatives were paid
at the lawful minimum wage rate and overtime compensation when
they did not earn enough commission to reach the minimum wage and
overtime compensation required under the New York Labor Law.

The Defendant maintained a policy and practice of paying its
sales representatives commissions at a lower rate than the agreed
upon rate. The Defendant maintained a policy and practice of
deducting monies from its sales representatives' commissions. The
reduction of commissions by the imposition of these deductions
was not agreed upon in writing with the sales representatives in
violation of the NYLL.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative class:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          James Murphy, Esq.
          Alanna R. Sakovits, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          Joel Goldenberg, Esq.
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080
          E-mail: jmurphy@vandallp.com


MICRO FOCUS: Wolff Sues over Plunge in Stock Price
--------------------------------------------------
FRITZ WOLFF, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MICRO FOCUS INTERNATIONAL PLC,
CHRISTOPHER HSU, STEPHEN MURDOCH, MIKE PHILLIPS, KEVIN LOOSEMORE,
NILS BRAUCKMANN, KAREN SLATFORD, RICHARD ATKINS, AMANDA BROWN,
SILKE SCHEIBER, DARREN ROOS, GISELLE MANON, JOHN SCHULTZ and
DOES 1-25, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 18CIV01653 (Cal.
Super. Ct., April 4, 2018), seeks to recover compensatory damages
for Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

The case is a securities class action on behalf of all persons
and entities who purchased or acquired Micro Focus American
Depositary Shares (ADSs) pursuant or traceable to the Company's
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
the merger of Micro Focus with Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Company, and their subsidiaries, pursuant to which Micro Focus
combined with the software business segment of HPE. This action
asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933 against Micro
Focus and certain of the Company's executive officers, directors
and authorized representatives.

Micro Focus is a software development company. The Company helps
organizations leverage existing information technology
investments, enterprise applications and emerging technologies to
address complex and evolving business requirements, including the
protection of corporate information. The Company's legacy product
line, termed its "Existing Products" segment, includes products
in development and mainframe solutions, host connectivity,
identity and access security, development and IT operations
management tools, and collaboration and networking. The Company
also has an open-source product portfolio, termed its "SUSE
Products" segment, which provides interoperable Linux, cloud
infrastructure and storage solutions.

For the six months ended October 31, 2016, the Company's Existing
Products and SUSE Products reporting segments generated $684
million in total revenue for the Company, with 78% of this
revenue coming from Micro Focus's Existing Products portfolio. Of
the $537.3 million in Existing Products revenues for the quarter,
approximately $364.2 million came from maintenance services,
$146.9 million from licensing, and $26.2 million from
consultancy.

On September 7, 2016, Micro Focus issued a press release
announcing a proposed merger with HPE Software, the software
business segment of HPE. The transaction was valued at $8.8
billion, which was larger than Micro Focus's market
capitalization at the time and was projected to triple the
Company's revenues. According to the deal terms, the Company
would issue newly registered ADSs to shareholders of HPE as
consideration in the Merger. Immediately following the completion
of the Merger, HPE shareholders would own 50.1% of the fully
diluted share capital of the combined company. In addition, HPE
would receive $2.5 billion financed through newly incurred
indebtedness of HPE Software, and Micro Focus shareholders would
receive a $400 million return of value prior to completion.

Then, on March 19, 2018, Micro Focus filed a trading update on
Form 6-K which stated the Company's revenue declines had
significantly accelerated. Specifically, Micro Focus lowered its
constant currency revenue guidance for the twelve months ended
October 31, 2018 to minus 6% to minus 9% compared to the prior
year. This more than doubled the rate of revenue decline provided
in the January Interim Update. The trading update also stated
that the worsening revenue trends stemmed from disruption of
former HP global customer accounts as a result of the de-merger
of HP and HPE -- an event that occurred in November 2015 -- and
that the Company had suffered ongoing sales execution issues,
particularly in North America, as well as significant employee
attrition. In addition, the trading update revealed that
defendant Hsu had abruptly resigned from the Company, despite
taking the helm as CEO only six~and-a-ha1f months previously and
overseeing the Merger. On March 22, 2018, the price of Micro
Focus ADS closed at $12.99 per ADS, representing a decline of
more than 54% from the closing price of the ADS on the date of
the Merger's close.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Diamond, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY D. DIAMOND
          115 Perimeter Center Place
          South Terraces, Suite 425
          Atlanta, GA 30346
          Telephone: (770) 407 7303
          Facsimile: (770) 407 7310
          E-mail: jdiamond@diamlaw.corn

               - and -

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
          1200 AshWood Parkway, Suite 410
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone; (770) 392 0090
          Facsimile: (770) 392 0029
          E-mail: cholzer@falholzerlaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Slater Says Debts Collection Practices "Illegal"
----------------------------------------------------------------
NECHEMIA SLATER on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.,
MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, AND ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01775 (E.D.N.Y., March 22, 2018),
seeks redress for illegal practices of Midland Credit Management,
Inc., Midland Funding, LLC, and Encore Capital Group, Inc.
concerning the collection of debts, in violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

On March 22, 2017, Defendants sent the Plaintiff a collection
letter seeking to collect a balance allegedly incurred for
personal purposes. The collection letter was confusing to the
Plaintiff and is likely to be misconstrued by the "least
sophisticated consumer" since it is open to more than one
reasonable interpretation, at least one of which is inaccurate.

The complaint cites the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit in Avila v. Riexinger & Assocs., LLC, 817 F.3d 72, 74 (2d
Cir. 2016): "The question presented is whether a collection
notice that states a consumer's "current balance," but does not
disclose that the balance may increase due to interest and fees,
complies with this provision. We hold that Section 1692e requires
debt collectors, when they notify consumers of their account
balance, to disclose that the balance may increase due to
interest and fees."

According to the complaint, the holding of the Second Circuit is
that Section 1692e of the FDCPA requires every debt collector in
every collection letter "to disclose that the balance may
increase due to interest and fees". See Islam v. Am. Recovery
Serv., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180415 ("If a collection letter is
ambiguous as to interest, Avila holds, then it violates
Sec.1692e. I recognize that ambiguity can be indicative of a
misleading or deceptive communication.  But Avila compels the
conclusion that any ambiguity as to post-dated accruals in a
collection notice gives rise to a claim under the general
prohibition of section 1692e -- even if the ambiguity does no
harm or even inures to the benefit of the debtor." Language such
as the "current balance" or "as of the date of this letter" is
insufficient disclosure to a debtor that her balance is either
dynamic or static and such ambiguity violates the framework of
Avila.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. is engaged in the business of
collecting or attempting to collect debts on behalf of Midland
Funding, LLC as one of its principal areas of business. Encore
Capital Group, Inc. is the parent company of Midland Credit
Management, Inc. and Midland Funding, LLC. Defendants' principal
place of business is located in San Diego, California. The
Defendants are regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection
of debts allegedly owed by consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MIZUHO BANK: July 12 Hearing on $30MM Euroyen Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. announced a settlement for those who have
transacted in Euroyen-based derivatives between January 1, 2006
through June 30, 2011.

If you transacted in Euroyen-Based Derivatives1 from January 1,
2006 through June 30, 2011, inclusive, then your rights will be
affected and you may be entitled to a benefit.

This Notice is only a summary of the Settlement and is subject to
the terms of the Settlement Agreement2and other relevant
documents (available as set forth below).

The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of your rights in
connection with a proposed settlement with Settling Defendants
The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, UFJ, Ltd. ("BTMU") and Mitsubishi
UFJ Trust and Banking Corporation ("MUTB") in the actions titled
Laydon v. Mizuho Bank Ltd., et al., 12-cv-3419 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y.)
and Sonterra Capital Master Fund, Ltd., et al. v. UBS AG, et al.,
15-cv-5844 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y.).  The settlement with BTMU and MUTB
("Settlement") is not a settlement with any other Defendant and
thus is not dispositive of any of Plaintiffs' claims against the
remaining Defendants.

The Settlement has been proposed in two class action lawsuits
concerning the alleged manipulation of the London Interbank
Offered Rate for Japanese Yen ("Yen LIBOR") and the Euroyen Tokyo
Interbank Offered Rate ("Euroyen TIBOR") from January 1, 2006
through June 30, 2011, inclusive.  The Settlement will provide
$30 million to pay claims from persons who transacted in Euroyen-
Based Derivatives from January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2011,
inclusive. If you qualify, you may send in a Proof of Claim and
Release form to potentially get benefits, or you can exclude
yourself from the Settlement, or object to it.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007-1312) authorized this
Notice.  Before any money is paid, the Court will hold a Fairness
Hearing to decide whether to approve the Settlement.

Who Is Included?
You are a member of the "Settlement Class" if you purchased,
sold, held, traded, or otherwise had any interest in Euroyen-
Based Derivatives at any time from January 1, 2006 through June
30, 2011, inclusive.  Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i)
the Defendants and any parent, subsidiary, affiliate or agent of
any Defendant or any co-conspirator whether or not named as a
defendant; and (ii) the United States Government.  Contact your
brokerage firm to see if you purchased, sold, held, traded, or
otherwise had any interest in Euroyen-Based Derivatives.  If you
are not sure you are included, you can get more information,
including the Settlement Agreement, Mailed Notice, Plan of
Allocation, Proof of Claim and Release, and other important
documents, at www.EuroyenSettlement.com ("Settlement Website") or
by calling toll free 1-866-217-4453.

What Is This Litigation About?
Plaintiffs allege that each Defendant, from January 1, 2006
through June 30, 2011, inclusive, manipulated or aided and
abetted the manipulation of Yen LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR, and the
prices of Euroyen-Based Derivatives. Defendants allegedly did so
by using several means of manipulation.  For example, panel banks
that made the daily Yen LIBOR and/or Euroyen TIBOR submissions to
the British Bankers' Association and Japanese Bankers'
Association respectively (collectively, "Contributor Bank
Defendants"), such as BTMU and MUTB, allegedly falsely reported
their cost of borrowing in order to financially benefit their
Euroyen-Based Derivatives positions. Contributor Bank Defendants
also allegedly requested that other Contributor Bank Defendants
make false Yen LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR submissions on their
behalf to benefit their Euroyen-Based Derivatives positions.

Plaintiffs further allege that inter-dealer brokers,
intermediaries between buyers and sellers in the money markets
and derivatives markets (the "Broker Defendants"), had knowledge
of, and provided substantial assistance to, the Contributor Bank
Defendants' foregoing alleged manipulations of Euroyen-Based
Derivatives in violation of Section 22(a)(1) of the Commodity
Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. Sec. 25(a)(1).  For example, Contributor
Bank Defendants allegedly used the Broker Defendants to
manipulate Yen LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR, and the prices of
EuroyenBased
Derivatives by disseminating false "Suggested LIBORs," publishing
false market rates on broker screens, and publishing false bids
and offers into the market.

Plaintiffs have asserted legal claims under various theories,
including federal antitrust law, the Commodity Exchange Act, the
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and common
law.

BTMU and MUTB have consistently and vigorously denied Plaintiffs'
allegations.

BTMU and MUTB entered into a Settlement Agreement with
Plaintiffs, despite each believing that it is not liable for the
claims asserted against it, to avoid the further expense,
inconvenience,
and distraction of burdensome and protracted litigation, thereby
putting this controversy to rest and avoiding the risks inherent
in complex litigation.

What Does the Settlement Provide?
Under the Settlement, BTMU and MUTB agreed to pay $30 million
into a Settlement Fund.  If the Court approves the Settlement,
potential members of the Settlement Class who qualify and send in
valid Proof of Claim and Release forms may receive a share of the
Settlement Fund after they are reduced by the payment of certain
expenses.  The Settlement Agreement, available at the Settlement
Website, describes all of the details about the proposed
Settlement.  The exact amount each qualifying Settling Class
Member will receive from the Settlement Fund cannot be calculated
until (1) the Court approves the Settlement; (2) certain amounts
identified in the full Settlement Agreement are deducted from the
Settlement Fund; and (3) the number of participating Class
Members and the amount of their claims are determined.  In
addition, each Settling Class Member's share of the Settlement
Fund will vary depending on the information the Settling Class
Member provides on their Proof of Claim and Release form.

The number of claimants who send in claims varies widely from
case to case.  If less than 100% of the Settlement Class sends in
a Proof of Claim and Release form, you could get more money.

How Do You Ask For a Payment?
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you may seek to
participate in the Settlement by submitting a Proof of Claim and
Release to the Settlement Administrator at the address provided
on the Settlement Website postmarked no later than September 25,
2018.  You may obtain a Proof of Claim and Release on the
Settlement Website or by calling the toll-free number referenced
above.  If you are a member of the Settlement Class but do not
timely file a Proof of Claim and Release, you will still be bound
by the releases set forth in the Settlement Agreement if the
Court enters an order approving the Settlement Agreement.

If you timely submitted a Proof of Claim and Release pursuant to
the class notice dated June 22, 2016 ("2016 Notice") related to
the $58 million settlements with Defendants R.P. Martin Holdings
Limited, Martin Brokers (UK) Ltd., Citigroup Inc., Citibank,
N.A., Citibank Japan Ltd., Citigroup Global Markets Japan Inc.,
HSBC Holdings plc, and HSBC Bank plc or pursuant to the August 3,
2017 Notice, amended September 14, 2017 (the "2017 Notice")
related
to the $148 million settlements with Defendants Deutsche Bank AG,
DB Group Services (UK) Ltd., JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase
Bank, National Association, and J.P. Morgan Securities plc, you
do not have to submit a new Proof of Claim and Release to
participate in this Settlement with BTMU and MUTB. Any member of
the Settlement Class who previously submitted a Proof of Claim
and Release in connection with the 2016 Notice or 2017 Notice
will be subject to and bound by the releases set forth in the
Settlement Agreement with BTMU and MUTB, unless such member
submits a timely and valid request for exclusion, explained
below.

What Are Your Other Options?
All requests to be excluded from the Settlement must be made in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement
Notice and must be postmarked to the Settlement Administrator no
later than June 7, 2018.  The Settlement Notice, available at the
Settlement Website, explains how to exclude yourself or object.
All requests for exclusion must comply with the requirements set
forth in the Settlement Notice to be honored.  If you exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by the
Settlement Agreement and can independently pursue claims at your
own expense.  However, if you exclude yourself, you will not be
eligible to share in the Net Settlement Fund or otherwise
participate in the Settlement.

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing in these cases on July 12,
2018, to consider whether to approve the Settlement and a request
by the lawyers representing all members of the Settlement Class
(Lowey Dannenberg, P.C.) for an award of attorneys' fees of no
more than twenty-three percent (23%) of the Settlement Fund for
investigating the facts, litigating the case, and negotiating the
settlement, and for replenishment of the litigation fund created
to reimburse their costs and expenses in the amount of no more
than $500,000.  The lawyers for the Settlement Class may also
seek additional reimbursement of fees, costs, and expenses in
connection with services provided after the Fairness Hearing.
These payments will also be deducted from the Settlement Fund
before any distributions are made to the Settlement Class.
You may ask to appear at the Fairness Hearing, but you do not
have to.  For more information, call toll free 1-866-217-4453 or
visit the website www.EuroyenSettlement.com.


1 "Euroyen-Based Derivatives" means (i) a Euroyen TIBOR futures
contract on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange ("CME"); (ii) a
Euroyen TIBOR futures contract on the Tokyo Financial Exchange,
Inc. ("TFX"), Singapore Exchange ("SGX"), or London International
Financial Futures and Options Exchange ("LIFFE") entered into by
a
U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location within the
U.S.; (iii) a Japanese Yen currency futures contract on the CME;
(iv) a Yen LIBOR- and/or Euroyen TIBOR-based interest rate swap
entered into by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a
location within the U.S.; (v) an option on a Yen LIBOR and/or
Euroyen TIBORbased interest rate swap ("swaption") entered into
by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location
within
the U.S.; (vi) a Japanese Yen currency forward agreement entered
into by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or
through a location within the U.S.; and/or (vii) a Yen LIBOR
and/or Euroyen TIBOR-based forward rate agreement entered into by
a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location within
the U.S.

2 The "Settlement Agreement" means the Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement with The Bank of TokyoMitsubishi, UFJ, Ltd.
("BTMU") and Mitsubishi UFJ Trust and Banking Corporation
("MUTB") entered into on January 23, 2018.


MONAT GLOBAL: Company Faces Four Class Action Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------
Darcy Spears, writing for 13 Action News, reports that MONAT,
which is short for Modern Nature, claims they are number one.

"We know that we are the number one hair care brand," said co-
founder Rayner Urdaneta in a Facebook live video. "We're selling
more than any other brand that you can think of."

They've commissioned independent clinical testing and report
hundreds of thousands of happy customers.

"People who sit at their door waiting for their MONAT products
each and every month," said company President Stuart MacMillan on
Facebook.

But Co-Founders Rayner and Luis Urdanta say their success has
made them a target for critics who are jealous.

"And that's kind of why we're here today," MacMillan explained in
the video. "That's why we want to fight back."

MONAT has refused our repeated requests for on-camera interviews
with corporate executives.

We interviewed a spokesman over the phone for our stories, and
after they aired, MONAT posted a nearly hour-long Facebook live
video to their multi-level marketing sales force.

"I kinda took a peek at the latest story that came out and
honestly, it's hard for us not to get upset," MacMillan said.

Four class action lawsuits have been filed since February. The
most recent on March 13 in Oklahoma. And a fifth is brewing in
Canada.

The suits allege "False and deceptive advertising, concealment of
true risks and side effects and intimidation of critics."

In court records, in Facebook groups with thousands of members
and in on-camera interviews, consumers across the country report
balding, scalp sores and substantial hair loss after using MONAT.

The FDA is also assessing nearly 200 adverse event reports.

Said MacMillan, "We're okay if our product doesn't work for you.
Because frankly not all products work for everybody. And you know
what? There may be times when there is something in our product
that you might have an allergic reaction to. And we're fine with
that too. But what we won't stand for is people bullying our
field, maligning our products."

They've sued several stylists and accused us of being biased
because of Las Vegas stylist Toni Miller.

"The only hair transformation that I am seeing with my clients is
hair loss," Miller said.

Miller's daughter works at 13 Action News. MONAT sued Miller for
defamation three and a half weeks after we first spoke with her
and began our investigation.

"You never wanted to say you were having a bad reaction to MONAT
because of what would happen. People jump on you," said former
Market Partner Erin Ostby.

She stopped selling MONAT after her hair began falling out. She's
seen first-hand the online backlash and victim blaming and
shaming.

After our story, MONAT prompted its market partners to flood
social media.

"#MONAThaircare, because the positive posts, you just keep
flooding the zone," MacMillan said.

As the video ends, MacMillan says, "We're throwing out a public
invitation in the spirit of transparency that if any reporter
wants to hear the MONAT story, we invite them here to Miami.
We'll pay their airfare and their hotel. So if you know any
reporters that want to do a story, we'll do it. Come on down!

13 Action News would like to note that it's a serious ethics
violation for a journalist to accept a company-sponsored trip.

When we said we'd pay our own way to Florida, they said the
invitation did not extend to us. [GN]


MONAT GLOBAL: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood filed a proposed class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma against Monat Global Corp.  The lawsuit
alleges that MONAT has misled consumers about the safety and
characteristics of MONAT hair care products.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information
and participate in this litigation, or should you have any
questions or concerns regarding this notice, please contact Robin
Hester at rkh@federmanlaw.com or visit our firm's website
www.federmanlaw.com.

         Robin Hester, Esq.
         FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
         Tel: (405) 235-1560
         Email: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN]


MULTI-STATE LOTTERY: Class Suit Seeks Money Due to Rigged System
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Dasilva, writing for Who TV News, reports that "How do
you go about rigging a lottery?" asked Gus Fritschie at DEF CON
25. "Obviously, you become a lottery developer, write code, and
have your friends buy the winning numbers," he continued,
answering his own question.

That's what Eddie Tipton did, but he got caught, in large part
because he bought one of the tickets himself in a store that had
video and audio surveillance. But before he was caught and
convicted, the then-head of IT at the Multi-State Lottery
Association scammed millions of dollars in jackpots in numerous
states, creating one of the largest lottery scams ever.

It's because Tipton rigged the system that Antoinett McGregor
isn't confident everything is on the up and up with the lottery
anymore.

"I don't play the lottery anymore because of the man stealing the
money," said McGregor. "I used to play a lot, but why play if you
know you're not gonna win?"

But John Lee Miller Sr. isn't going to let the Tipton situation
deter him from playing the lotto.

"Well, you know, everybody's still playing," he said. "There's
one bad apple in every bunch. So, you know, thank God he got
caught."

Gary Dickey, Esq. -- gary@dickeycampbell.com -- Managing Member
of Dickey & Campbell Law Firm in Des Moines, is suing the Multi-
State Lottery Association.

"Anybody who purchased a lottery ticket is guaranteed, according
to the rules of the game, to have a random drawing," said Dickey.
"And what we know from Eddie Tipton's circumstances is that in
certain games, that is not what they were given."

Dickey is representing a Burlington, Iowa, resident seeking a
class action lawsuit on behalf of all players who were cheated
out of potential lottery winnings.

"As part of our litigation, we've asserted that because of Eddie
Tipton's actions, that the lottery games were rigged and
therefore people should be entitled to get their money back,"
said Dickey.

Dickey says the public should be concerned about the integrity of
lotto drawings, but the Iowa Lottery says its games are fair and
offer everyone the same shot at winning.

"I know here at the Iowa Lottery, that this case proved to be our
best day in the end," said Mary Neubauer. "In terms of the
information that we learned from it and the improvements that we
were able to make."

Neubauer says there are greater checks and balances that have
been put in place, such as greater separation of duties and more
detailed processes within drawings themselves. She could not
reveal much beyond that, though, as she said it would be like
giving away the keys to the kingdom.[GN]


NEW YORK JETS: Class-Action Lawsuit Over Personal Seat Licenses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Nobile, writing for North Jersey, reports that a class-action
lawsuit has been filed against the New York Jets after they
announced that licenses would no longer be required to buy season
tickets in MetLife Stadium's mezzanine section -- a decision that
renders the costly licenses "entirely or substantially
worthless," according to the suit.

Saddle Brook attorney Jeffrey Herrmann, Esq. filed the suit March
16 in Superior Court on behalf of a longtime Jets fan from
Connecticut who paid $8,000 in personal seat license fees for two
seats in 2010.

The suit aims to recoup the license fees paid by his client and
other fans who bought licenses for some 5,000 second-level seats
in MetLife Stadium.

The Jets organization had previously represented to fans that
buying the seat licenses was the only way to obtain season
tickets in the stadium's 200-level seating, according to the
suit. However, the Jets said this year that non-license holders
would also be allowed to buy season tickets.

"In essence, the actions of the Jets have offset the value of
PSLs," said Herrmann.

The lawsuit names as defendants the New York Jets LLC, along with
Jets Stadium Development, the company that co-owns and operates
MetLife Stadium with the New York Giants NFL franchise.

It accuses the Jets of breach of implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, and of violating the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act and Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty And Notice Act.

A Jets spokesperson declined to comment March 16.

The Jets organization had required the purchase of personal seat
licenses as a pre-condition to buying season tickets for seats in
the lower and middle decks, initially done to help finance a new
stadium in 2010, the suit states.

The licenses, however, have declined steadily in value since the
2009-10 football season, some dropping from $25,000 to $4,500 in
the lower seating areas.

In January, the organization announced that license holders will
continue to receive access and discounts to exclusive events,
such as Jets House and Taste of the Jets. Current mezzanine
license holders will also have the opportunity to upgrade to
lower-level seats for no additional fee. [GN]


NEW ZEALAND: Law Professor Advises Checkpoint Targets to Sue
------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Stewart And Tom Hunta, writing for Stuff, reports that a law
professor is advising the Wellington women stopped at an illegal
breath-testing checkpoint to take a class action against police
for breaching their rights.

Otago University professor Andrew Geddis' comments came after the
Independent Police Conduct Authority found on March 15 that
police were not justified in using the illegal checkpoint to
target people who had attended a euthanasia meeting in Lower
Hutt.

The targets, mostly elderly women, had been attending the Exit
International meeting on the afternoon of October 2, 2016, which
police had bugged.

They were then stopped at the roadblock and, before being asked
to blow into the breathalyser, were made to give their names and
addresses to police, and show their driver's licences.

The police operation, codenamed Painter, was triggered in August
2016 as part of an inquiry into the death of 77-year-old
Annemarie Treadwell, who had taken pentobarbitone, a controlled
drug used to euthanise animals.

It led to the prosecution of Lower Hutt woman Susan Austen on a
charge of aiding Treadwell's suicide. She was acquitted by a jury
in Wellington in February.

After the release of the IPCA report on March 15, Geddis tweeted:
"Well, if I were one of those stopped, I'd be getting my lawyer
to ask the police how much they're going to give me for breaching
my [NZ Bill of Rights Act] rights ... and readying a class action
if they aren't forthcoming."

Linda Young, who was one of those stopped at the checkpoint, said
the "appalling" episode had left her sleepless and eroded her
confidence in police.

"When we've got domestic violence rampaging, and youth suicide
needing attention, we've got this complete waste of time going
on."

She said she had not considered a class action against police,
"but perhaps I should" -- though she added she was not in the
financial position to do so.

"I'd rather assumed it was the end of the matter when we received
this tepid apology from the police."

Austen said she was keeping out of the matter, but was pleased
with the IPCA finding.

"People should be allowed to go to a meeting in someone's home
without the fear of being stopped unlawfully."

Austen's lawyer, Donald Stevens, QC, said he was concerned police
had set up the checkpoint without seeking legal advice, or
considering whether it was appropriate or lawful.

Exit International director Philip Nitschke said from Amsterdam
that he welcomed the report's findings.

"Wellington is not Moscow, and the police are not the KGB. Such
underhand and downright dishonest tactics have no place in New
Zealand civil society.

"It is unthinkable in this day and age that the police can
operate in such a subversive and dishonest manner and get away
with it."

In its report, IPCA chairman Judge Colin Doherty found that
police powers to stop vehicles were allowed only for the purposes
of enforcing land transport legislations. The checkpoint was not
for that purpose, and was therefore unlawful.

"Police should have recognised that they had no power to stop
vehicles in these circumstances. It was an illegitimate use of
police power that unlawfully restricted the right of citizens to
freedom of movement."

Assistant Commissioner Bill Searle said police accepted the
findings.

"We accept that establishing a vehicle checkpoint to identify
meeting attendees was unlawful. However, our staff acted in order
to protect life and did not intentionally break the law."

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner also launched an
investigation after receiving complaints from those attending the
meeting.

Privacy Commissioner John Edwards said the checkpoint had
unlawfully and unfairly collected personal information, harming
some of the people affected. [GN]


NEXEN CORP: Hegedus Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY HEGEDUS, JUSTIN WELCH, JONATHAN OGNIAN, and BRYANT LOWE,
on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated,
known and unknown v. NEXEN CORPORATION, a Michigan for-profit
corporation, STEVEN KIRKA, a natural person, AMAZON.COM DEDC LLC,
a Michigan for-profit corporation, and AMAZON.COM, INC., a
Delaware for-profit corporation, Case No. 2:18-cv-10798-MOB-MKM
(E.D. Mich., March 9, 2018), seeks to recover the benefits due to
the Plaintiffs and the class under the Fair Labor Standards Act
arising from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay minimum wages
and the overtime wage premium.

Nexen is a for-profit Michigan company.  Steven Kirka is an owner
and officer of Nexen.  Nexen is a subcontracting company that
contracted with Amazon to provide local truck driving and
delivery services to Amazon's retail customers and to local post
offices.

Amazon.com Inc. is a Delaware Limited Liability Company and is
one of the largest Internet retailers in the world.  Amazon.com
DEDC LLC is a Washington company and is a sister company of
Amazon.  Amazon offers a range of products and services through
its Web sites.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bryan Yaldou, Esq.
          Leah Seliger, Esq.
          Omar Badr, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRYAN YALDOU, PLLC
          23000 Telegraph, Suite 5
          Brownstown, MI 48134
          Telephone: (734) 692-9200
          Facsimile: (734) 692-9201
          E-mail: bryan@yaldoulaw.com
                  leah@yaldoulaw.com
                  Ted@Yaldoulaw.com


NHL: Judge to Decide if Concussion Lawsuit is Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Bill Hudson, writing for CBS Minnesota, reports that there is no
question that professional hockey leaves players battered and
bruised.

What is uncertain is whether the concussions resulting from
fights and heavy body checks result in disabling and life
altering brain injuries?

Some 150 former players have filed suit against the National
Hockey League, claiming that the league thrived on the violence -
- but did little to warn players of the long-term effects.

"We just want to help the guys who need medical monitoring or
medical help," said Reed Larson, a retired NHL star and Minnesota
native.

Larson played 14 NHL seasons and says he suffered at least four
concussions over his career.

He is among the retired players demanding medical monitoring of
brain injury symptoms, and eventually compensation for losses and
future medical costs.

"God forbid nobody wants it, and no amount of money will help if
you get over it," Larson said. "Families have been ruined,
players ruined and players were promoted, the violence was
promoted."

The league is fighting plaintiffs demand to consider all claims
in a single class action lawsuit. Plaintiff's attorneys contend
that hearing cases individually would make it impossible to force
the league to monitor players for brain disease.

NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman has gone so far as to call the
player's lawsuit, "Without merit." League attorneys did not want
to appear on camera to answer questions about the case.

Plaintiff's lawyers say the evidence linking concussions with
long-term brain disease is clear. They told Federal Judge Susan
Richard Nelson that certifying the lawsuit a class action is the
"best and most efficient way to adjudicate the case." [GN]


NORTHEAST CREDIT: Faces Class Suit Over Overdraft Fees
------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Dinan, writing for Fosters News, reports that a federal
judge has paved the way for a class action lawsuit to proceed
against Northeast Credit Union, based on allegations that it
imposes overdraft fees using customers' "available balance," as
opposed to "actual" or "ledger balance."

The difference, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph DiClerico wrote
in a March 7 order, is that available balances "can be less, and
even considerably less," than customers' actual balances. The
judge's order reports the discrepancy is due to how Northeast
Credit Union (NECU) credits customers' deposits and reduces their
balances for pending but not-yet paid debts.

The credit union is headquartered at 100 Borthwick Ave. in
Portsmouth and has 16 New Hampshire branches, according to the
lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed against NECU in the U.S. District
Court of New Hampshire by Joseph Walbridge of Milton, who is
represented by attorney Sean O'Connell, Esq., from the Dover
branch of the Shaheen and Gordon law firm. O'Connell did not
return Seacoast Media Group's request for comment.

The lawsuit claims overdraft fees are the "primary fee
generators" for banks and credit unions and in 2009, $37 billion
was generated through overdraft fees based on debit purchases and
ATM transactions.

"For credit unions such as NECU, overdraft fees are a major
source of revenue and a profit center," the suit alleges, while
citing a Georgetown Law study reporting 6 to 7 percent of credit
union profits are derived from overdraft fees.

Representing the credit union as lead attorney is Russell
Hilliard, Esq., from the Portsmouth firm of Upton and Hatfield.

Hillard, in a written statement said, "Northeast, like all credit
unions, is a member-owned, volunteer-governed, not-for-profit
financial cooperative that exists to serve its members. Northeast
has and will respond to the allegations in the federal lawsuit
through appropriate pleadings, including an answer to be filed
next week. Northeast Credit Union follows all rules and
regulations relative to overdrafts as established by the National
Credit Union Administration and the Federal Reserve."

Walbridge filed a 6-count federal suit against NECU and 100 of
its agents or subsidiaries (identified as Does 1-100), claiming
he was improperly assessed overdraft fees. His suit seeks to
included anyone who incurred overdraft fees by NECU for a time
period to be determined.

Walbridge alleges he had an actual checking account balance of
$111.09, when he made a $32.43 debit card payment, but was found
by NECU to have insufficient funds and was assessed three $32
overdraft fees.

The federal judge's order agreed with NECU that three of the
counts in the lawsuit should be dismissed. The judge's order also
allows three other counts with allegations against NECU to
proceed.

One of the counts the judge allowed alleges NECU breached its
"opt-in agreement," an overdraft protection service that states
NECU pays debts if there are insufficient funds, for a fee. The
judge noted the agreement does not explain what is meant by the
words, "When you do not have enough money in your account to
cover a transaction."

NECU did not use the words "available balance" in the contract,
but instead used the phrases "enough money," "insufficient funds"
and "non-sufficient funds," according to the court order. The
judge wrote that NCU "has not shown that the only reasonable
meaning" of the terms in the agreement is available balance,
therefore that claim is allowed to proceed through the legal
process.

The lawsuit's two counts that allege NECU breached its account
contract, as well as "implied duty of good faith and fair
dealing," may also proceed through the litigation process, the
judge ruled. The first count alleges NECU stated it would provide
overdraft protection when transactions were for "more money than
you have in your account," with no mention made of it including
pending transactions in the calculation. The second count alleges
NECU created an "artificial balance when determining whether to
assess an overdraft fee."

The federal court scheduled a 2-week trial to commence Sept. 4,
2019.[GN]


NORWEGIAN AIR: Mazzini et al. Sue over Cancelled, Delayed Flights
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIDGET MAZZINI, PATRICIA J. PAWLAK, and JOESEPH ANDRIS on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. NORWEGIAN AIR SHUTTLE ASA, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-
01574-KAW (N.D. Cal., March 13, 2018), seeks to recover damages
caused by Defendant's breach of contract claims on behalf of
California residents who had confirmed reservations on airplane
flights with the Defendant.

Norwegian Air incorporated into its contracts with its passengers
Regulation No. 261/2004 of the European Parliament and European
Council; and contractually bound itself to provide care and
compensation in accordance with EC 261 to passengers whose
flights are delayed or cancelled. As incorporated into Norwegian
Air's contracts, EC 261 requires Norwegian Air to pay not less
than EUR600 to each passenger whose flight is cancelled, or is
delayed by more than four hours; and to pay not less than EUR300
to each passenger whose flight is delayed by more than three, but
less than four, hours. In addition, as incorporated into
Norwegian Air's contracts, EC 261 requires Norwegian Air to
provide passengers with written notice of their rights to care
and compensation at the time that a flight is cancelled or
delayed.

The lawsuit contends that Norwegian Air has breached its
contractual obligations to a class of California residents with
reservations on flights that were cancelled or delayed by failing
to provide them with the required written notice of their rights;
and by failing to pay them the EC 261 compensation that it agreed
to pay. Norwegian Air also has breached its contractual
obligations to a class of California residents who had
reservations to fly in the "premium" section of Norwegian Air
flights that were cancelled; and who Norwegian Air ultimately
placed on alternate flights not providing premium service. Under
the terms of Norwegian Air's contacts, it was required to refund
to such passengers all charges imposed for premium service.
Norwegian Air has failed to do so.

Norwegian Air, trading as Norwegian, is a Norwegian low-cost
airline. It is the third largest low-cost carrier in Europe and
the sixth largest low-cost airline in the world.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated:

          Gordon W. Renneisen, Esq.
          Harry G. Lewis, Esq.
          CORNERSTONE LAW GROUP
          351 California Street, Suite 600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 625 5025
          Facsimile: (415) 655 8236
          E-mail: grenneisen@cornerlaw.com
                  hlewis@cornerlaw.com


OHM GROUP: "Alom" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Jahan Alom, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
OHM Group LLC, RLH Corp., AMR Development LLC, and Rajendra
Patel, Case No. 1:18-cv-01503 (E.D. N.Y., March 12, 2018), is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Jahan Alom was employed as a housekeeper for the
Defendants and performed his job duties both at the physical
premises of Americas Best Value Inn and Hotel Omega, according to
the instructions and schedules provided by Defendant Patel.

Defendant RLH grants franchises to operate Americas Best Value
Inn motels nationwide including in the State of New York.
Defendant OHM is a franchisee of RLH and operates Americas Best
Value Inn located at 1705 Linden Blvd., Brooklyn, NY 11212. AMR
is a corporation doing business as Hotel Omega located at 27
Pennsylvania Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11207. Defendants OHM and AMR
are, in turn, owned and managed by Individual Defendant Rajendra
Patel. RLH, OHM, AMR and Patel were joint employers of Plaintiff
and/or operated as a single integrated enterprise.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ariadne Panagopoulou, Esq.
      PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP
      3510 Broadway, Suite 201
      Astoria, NY 11106
      Tel: (718) 777-0400
      Fax: (718) 777-0599


PACIFIC VIAL: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Barragan Says
------------------------------------------------------------
BLANCA PAOLA BARRAGAN, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC VIAL MFG., INC., a
California corporation; ESG PERSONNEL LEASING INC., a Nevada
corporation; TS EMPLOYMENT, INC., a Florida corporation, BUZY
BODIES, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC700908 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
April 4, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wages and minimum wages
under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have had a consistent
policy of failing to pay wages, including minimum and overtime
wages, to Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees in the State
of California in violation of California state wage and hour laws
as a result of, including but not limited to, unevenly rounding
time worked.

Pacific Vial Manufacturing, Inc. manufactures glass container
products. The Company offers screw thread glass, test tubes,
medical supplies, and ampoules products. Pacific Vial
Manufacturing serves its clients in the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
          Dayana R. Pelayo, Esq.
          BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 975 1493
          Facsimile: (310) 300 1705
          E-mail: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com
                  dayana@bokhourlaw.com


PACTIV LLC: Refuses to Pay All Wages to Class, "Ceniceros" Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARCELINO CENICEROS, and JESUS CABRAL, individually, and on
behalf of similarly situated individuals v. PACTIV, LLC, Case No.
1:18-cv-01759 (N.D. Ill., March 9, 2018), alleges that the
Defendant has willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment
Collection Act by intentionally failing and refusing to pay the
Plaintiffs and putative class members all compensation due them
over the course of the last several years.

The Plaintiffs and putative class members all are hourly factory
workers dedicated to manufacturing the Defendant's primary
product: Reynold's Plastic Wrap.

Pactiv LLC manufactures and distributes food packaging and
foodservice products.  The Company offers containers; cutlery,
plates, platters, and bowls; hot and cold beverage cups, lids,
straws, and beverage carriers; plastic wraps and aluminum foils;
and school, carry, processor, and meat and poultry trays.  The
Company offers products for various applications, such as
beverage, take-out, deli, HMR, bakery, food preparation, and
processor packaging, as well as sustainable, tableware, and
catering products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sean C. Starr, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SEAN C. STARR
          540 W. Frontage Road, Suite 3020
          Northfield, IL 60093
          Telephone: (773) 368-9930


PCL CIVIL: N.Carolina Islands Power Outage Could Yield $10MM Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
13newsnow reports that a preliminary settlement would allow those
who lost power for days last summer on two North Carolina islands
to divvy up more than $10 million.

News outlets report that documents filed in federal court show
that PCL Civil Constructors would pay $8.1 million to businesses
and $2.25 million to the permanent residents and renters on
Hatteras and Ocracoke islands. Late last July, underwater
electric transmission cables were inadvertently cut, prompting
the mandatory evacuation of 50,000 visitors from the two Outer
Banks islands.

The outage lasted from July 27 until Aug. 3. A class-action
lawsuit filed within days said those on the islands suffered
damages including financial loss, stress and anxiety.

PCL denied wrongdoing in the settlement documents. The settlement
awaits final approval from a federal judge.[GN]


PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Payout Triggers Deep 4Q Loss
-------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Brazilian oil company Petroleo Brasileiro SA
(PETR4.SA) posted a deep fourth-quarter loss, missing estimates
due to a massive payout to shareholders in a class action
settlement.

Petrobras, as the state-controlled company is known, posted a net
loss of 5.48 billion reais ($1.68 billion), according to a
securities filing, down from a 2.51 billion real profit during
the same period last year. The average estimate in a Thomson
Reuters survey of analysts was for a 294 million reais profit.

Petrobras shares fell 2 percent in Sao Paulo, as the stock
retreated from a more than three-year high last week.

Adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and
amortization (EBITDA) slid 32 percent from a year earlier to
12.986 billion reais in the final three months of the year.

Free cash flow in the quarter was 6.608 billion reais, well below
the 14.734 billion reais achieved in the July to September
period. Net debt at the world's most indebted oil company was
stable from the third to the fourth quarter.

Low cash flow generation "illustrates Petrobras' limited ability
to deliver a steeper deleveraging process in a $50-55 per barrel
Brent price environment, assuming no further asset divestments,"
Goldman Sachs said in a client note, describing its view of the
results as neutral.

Petrobras narrowed its 12-month net loss to 446 million reais in
2017 from the 14.824 billion hole in 2016, but still posted its
fourth straight annual net loss. The world's most indebted oil
company said that without the extraordinary expenses, it would
have reached a net profit of 7.089 billion reais in the year.

"The class action impacted results, but it was important to
eliminate the uncertainty that this could have had on our results
. . . we have worked very hard to solve contingent liabilities,"
Petrobras Chief Executive Officer Pedro Parente said.

The settlement, announced in January, was a milestone for the oil
company as it seeks to emerge from a scandal over a massive
corruption scheme, in which Petrobras executives and contractors
conspired to inflate prices and bilk the company of billions.

Petrobras has denied wrongdoing. The bribery scheme has entangled
two former Brazilian presidents and dozens of the country's
corporate executives.

Executives reported on the company's efforts to recover fuel
market share. Petrobras's share of the gasoline market slid to 77
percent in February, from 83 percent last year and 90 percent in
2016. However, its share of the diesel market rose slightly to 79
percent from 74 percent last year but remained down from 83
percent in 2016.

In January, Petrobras said it was developing a new gasoline and
diesel contract model to improve its relationship with customers
and boost sales, but it did not provide details. [GN]


PICON PENZINI: "Callejas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Callejas, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Picon Penzini Catering, LLC dba The Sandwich Shop,
Clarisa Penzini and Ricardo Picon, Case No. 1:18-cv-01496 (E.D.
N.Y., March 10, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Ricardo Callejas was employed by Defendants in Kings
County, New York, to work as a sandwich-maker, for Defendants'
restaurant known as "The Sandwich Shop" from on or about October
27, 2017, continuously through February 26, 2018.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant known as "The
Sandwich Shop" located at 658A Grand Street, Brooklyn, New York
11211. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue - 61h Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 209-3933
      Fax: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com


QUALCOMM INC: "Evans" Suit Alleges Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Evans, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders v. Qualcomm Incorporated et al., Case No.
2018-0164 (Del. Ch., March 8, 2018), is brought against the board
of directors of Qualcomm for breaches of fiduciary duty.

This class action on behalf of Qualcomm stockholders challenges
an unprecedented attempt by incumbent directors to have the
United States federal government preclude stockholders of a
Delaware corporation from electing independent directors,
including U.S. citizens, to replace incumbent Board members.

Plaintiff James Evans is and at all relevant times has been a
stockholder of Qualcomm.

Defendant Qualcomm is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal executive
offices located at 5775 Morehouse Drive, San Diego, California
92121. Qualcomm develops and commercializes technologies and
products used in mobile devices and other wireless products,
including network equipment, broadband gateway equipment and
consumer electronic devices. Shares of Qualcomm's common stock
trade on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol "QCOM."
As of January 8, 2018, Qualcomm had 1,480,385,450 shares of
common stock outstanding.

The Individual Defendants are the board of directors of Qualcomm.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Hanrahan, Esq.
      Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Esq.
      Corinne Elise Amato, Esq.
      Eric J. Juray, Esq.
      PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A.
      1310 N. King Street
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 888-6500


QUDIAN INC: "Song" Suit Alleges Misleading IPO Documents
--------------------------------------------------------
INGEUN SONG, Individually and on Behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. QUDIAN INC., MIN LUO, CARL YEUNG,
LIANZHU LV, YI CAO, SHILEI LI, LI DU, CHAO ZHU, TIANYU ZHU, DIANA
ARIAS, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INTERNATIONAL PLC, CREDIT SUIS SE
SECURITIES (USA) LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CHINA
INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL CORPORATION HONG KONG SECURITIES LIMITED,
UBS SECURITIES LLC, STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COIVIPANY, INC., NEEDHAM &
COMPANY, LLC, and NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, IN C., the
Defendants, Case No 18CIV01425 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 21, 2018),
is a securities class action on behalf of all persons other than
Defendants who purchased Qudian American Depositary Shares in or
traceable to the Company's October 18, 2017 initial public
offering.

Qudian is a lending company which provides online credit products
including funds in digital form and merchandise credit products.
The Company serves customers in China. In 2015, Qudian
established a strategic partnership with Ant Financial, one of
its principal shareholders. Alipay, operated by Ant Financial, is
a leading online and mobile third -- party payment service
provider in China. The Company engages the majority of its active
borrowers through the Alipay consumer interface, which has
significantly contributed to the Company's rapid growth. The
Company also collaborates with Zhima Credit, a credit assessment
service provider operated by Ant Financial. Following Qudian's
partnership with Ant Financial, its number of active borrowers
grew from only 250,000 in September 2015 to more than 5.5 million
by June 2017.

The Company took a number of steps leading up to its IPO to
reassure investors that it had minimized regulatory risk and that
its rapid growth rate was the product of legitimate and
sustainable business practices. For example, while historically
the Company also provided peer-to-peer and campus credit lending
services, these services were phased out in the months preceding
the IPO, partly in a response to increased governmental
regulations and a ban on online lending to college students
initiated by the Chinese government. In addition, the Company
capped its APR at 36%, obtained licenses for online small-credit
business and claimed that it employed user -- friendly collection
methods, such as non-threatening text and telephone reminders.

On September 18, 2017, Qudian filed a registration statement on
Form F-l with the SEC for the IPO. After several amendments the
registration statement was declared effective on October 17,
2017.  The following day, Qudian filed a prospectus for the IPO
on Form 424B4 which incorporated and formed part of the
Registration Statement. Together, the Registration Statement and
Prospectus were used to sell to the investing public
approximately 37.5 million Qudian ADSs, representing 37.5 million
Qudian Class A ordinary shares, at $24 per share thereby raising
net proceeds of approximately $900 million.

The Registration Statement was negligently prepared and, as a
result, contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted
material facts necessary to make the statements contained therein
not misleading, and failed to make adequate disclosures required
under the rules and regulations governing the preparation of such
documents.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785 2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226 4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


QUEBEC: Negotiations Stall in Highway 13 Blizzard Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Fidelman, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that the
provincial government is willing, but the city of Montreal said
no, lawyer Marc-Antoine Cloutier, Esq. -- macloutier@deveau.qc.ca
-- said March 14.

In November, a Quebec Superior Court judge gave the green light
to a class-action lawsuit against the city and province. Quebec's
Transport Ministry, the Surete du Quebec and the Societe de
l'assurance automobile du Quebec (SAAQ) are also named as
defendants.

Two thousand claimants are seeking $2,500 apiece in damages for a
total of $5 million. Many were trapped in the cold without food
or water for up to 14 hours, and some needed access to regular
medication. Those who ran out of gas also ran out of heat. They
needed washroom facilities. Some families with children attempted
to walk along the highway in search of help.

The government apologized, Cloutier said, but victims so far have
received no financial compensation.

"One year later, it's time to put words to action and compensate
victims who suffered harm," Cloutier said of people deprived of
their freedom, dignity and safety.

Jacques Laramee, 65, said he is still traumatized by the events
of the night of March 14. There was no indication that anything
was wrong when he left his daughter's home in St-Jerìme at 4 p.m.
for St-Constant to have supper with his wife.

Traffic slowed and finally ground to a halt along the storm-swept
road, about four kilometres from the exit to Highway 20.

As diabetic who needs to take his medication, Laramee said he was
concerned about his health, but there was no news about what
caused the bottleneck on Highway 13 -- nor how long he and
hundreds of others would be stuck there.

He had no food and no water. He needed his medication. And he had
to turn the car off to conserve gas.

The worst part was feeling powerless, he said. His stress mounted
with each minute that passed, he said, choking with emotion.

A retired banker, Laramee said he has faced 14 holdups during his
career, but getting trapped on the highway was worse.

"A hold-up lasts 30 seconds, but this lasted 10 hours," he said.
"That's 10 hours of not knowing what to do."

He now packs his car with a survival kit, including food and
water, blankets and other essential items.

Troubles on Highway 13 began as traffic grew in the snowstorm and
cars began to break down, some running out of gas. Then two
trucks reportedly got stuck and blocked the highway completely.
Hundreds of 911 calls were reported. Hours passed and the
provincial transport department didn't send in plows. Some tow
trucks couldn't get through, and most were already busy elsewhere
on the roads. Finally, the fire department was called in.

A report by government investigator Florent Gagne largely blamed
Quebec Transport and the Surete du Quebec for a series of gaps in
communication about what was going on, followed by poor
management of the situation that night; it also said that a
Roxboro company had failed to clear snow and spread abrasives.
[GN]


ROADSTAR TOWING: "Rogers" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
KERRY ROGERS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ROADSTAR TOWING & RECOVERY SERVICES,
LLC and CORRI EDWARD, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00900
(S.D. Tex., March 22, 2018), seeks to recover available relief,
including compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Texas common
law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Putative Class
Members are those similarly situated persons who worked for
RoadStar at any time during the relevant statutes of limitations
through the final disposition of this matter, and were not paid
for all hours worked or any overtime compensation in violation of
state and federal law. Specifically, Plaintiff and the Putative
Class Members were supposed to be paid either by the hour or a
percentage commission on the number of vehicles they towed,
regardless of the number of hours worked each week.

The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members routinely work (and
worked) in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Plaintiff and the
Putative Class Members were not only not paid for all hours
worked (and in some cases not paid at all), but they were also
not paid overtime at the proper rate for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours each week. The decision by RoadStar not to pay
for all hours worked or any overtime compensation to Plaintiff
and the Putative Class Members was neither reasonable nor in good
faith. RoadStar knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate
Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members for all hours worked and
overtime at the proper rate for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours per workweek.

Roadstar Towing provides automotive towing service, roadside
assistance and heavy truck towing in Houston and also offer a
complete line of towing services.[BN]

Attorneys in Charge for Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members:

          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
          Telephone: (361) 452 1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452 1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com
                  cgordon@a2xlaw.com
                  carter@a2xlaw.com
                  geordie@a2xlaw.com


RON HERMAN: Violates Wage and Hour Laws, Pham Says
--------------------------------------------------
HANG PHAM, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. RON HERMAN, INC., a
California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC700516 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 3, 2018),
seeks to recover all wages due under California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff represents "Aggrieved Employees". Aggrieved
Employees consist of all non-exempt, hourly-paid employees,
including but not limited to sales persons, warehouse employees,
currently and/or formerly employed by Defendant. The Plaintiff is
alleging that Defendants engaged in a systematic pattern of wage
and hour violations under the California Labor Code, among other
things: failed to provide uninterrupted meal periods; failed to
authorize and permit two ten-minute rest breaks; failed to
provide accurate itemized wage statements; and failed failing to
pay all wages due within the required time semimonthly and upon
separation of employment.

Ron Herman operates as a retailer of apparel and accessories. It
offers accessories, active wear, denim, gift cards, hats,
loungewear, outerwear, Pants, scarves, shoes/socks, shorts,
sweaters, swimwear, and T-shirts/tanks for men and women;
grooming products and shirts for men; and skirts, beauty,
dresses, and handbags.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sima Fard, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SIMA FARD
          895 Dove Street, Suite 300
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 851 4606
          E-mail: Simafard@earthlink.net


SANIMAX: South St. Paul Residents File Class-Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trevor Squire, writing for the Star Tribune, reports that two
South St. Paul residents have filed what they hope will be a
class-action lawsuit in federal court against animal renderer
Sanimax, seeking damages for years of "noxious odors" they say
continue to emanate from the company's processing plant.

The plaintiffs also want Sanimax to "significantly reduce, if not
eliminate" odors from the plant wafting into nearby
neighborhoods. The odors, they say, are a nuisance and have had a
negative impact on their property values.

Jeff Storms, Esq. a Minneapolis-based attorney handling the suit,
said that the response from residents has been overwhelming and
enthusiastic about "the need to have something done as to the
strong, disgusting smell that's been emanating from that
facility."

The suit comes a year after Sanimax, based in Green Bay, Wis.,
challenged South St. Paul's odor ordinance as unconstitutionally
vague. Sanimax dropped its suit a few months later after city
officials agreed to stop calling it a "significant odor
generator," which made it liable for penalties.

Storms said residents repeatedly describe the smell from the
Sanimax plant as akin to that of rotting flesh.

"They can't stay outside because the smell makes them sick," he
said. "They can't open their windows."

According to its website, Sanimax collects animal hides, skins,
meat byproducts and discarded oils and grease and turns them into
animal feed and biofuels. Company officials did not respond to a
request for comment last week.

While some mitigation efforts have been made, the suit alleges
that Sanimax "has failed to install and maintain adequate
technology to properly control its emissions of noxious odors."

The suit, filed on March 12 in Minneapolis federal court, was
brought by South St. Paul residents Patricia Keech and David
Newfield on behalf of residents living within two miles of the
plant since 2015. The plaintiffs seek to have the suit certified
as a class-action case.

The complaint states that members of 80 households have told
lawyers about odors they attribute to the plant, and that the
class-action suit would represent more than 100 complainants.

Sanimax has faced similar lawsuits at facilities in Wisconsin and
Montreal. Liddle and Dubin, a Detroit law firm that handled a
Wisconsin case which Sanimax settled for $915,000, is assisting
with the South St. Paul suit.

Odor long has been an issue in South St. Paul, a meatpacking
center before its stockyards were closed in 2008.

The Sanimax plant, at 505 Hardman Av., is located near two
slaughterhouses and a tanning business in the city's former
stockyards area, now the industrial district. The companies
together conducted an independent study in 2013 to identify and
monitor odors in the area and shared their findings with the
city.

In 2014, the City Council tagged Sanimax a "significant odor
generator" and required the company to create and implement an
odor-mitigation plan or face potential fines and restrictions.

Sanimax fought back in its suit last year against the city,
arguing that the ordinance was too vague and that an olfactory
device called the "Nasal Ranger" -- used by the city to measure
air quality -- couldn't determine the source of the smells.
Sanimax dropped the lawsuit when South St. Paul withdrew its
designation of Sanimax as a significant odor generator.

South St. Paul City Administrator Steve King said there was an
outpouring of comments on social media during the survey phase of
the suit. "It is good to see the residents of the community are
stepping forward on the issue and how it affects them," he said.
[GN]


SCHULTE HOSPITALITY: Georges, Rankins Sue over Biometric Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
JANE GEORGE, VERONICA GEORGE, and ANGELA RANKINS individually,
and on behalf) of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. SCHULTE HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC., and MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL,
INC d/b/a SPRINGHILL SUITES BY MARRIOTT CHICAGO SOUTH\VEST AT
BURR RIDGE/HINSDALE, the Defendant, Case No. 20l8-CH-04413 (S.D.
Fla., April 4, 2018), seeks to redress and curtail Defendants'
unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs'
sensitive biometric data.

The Defendant is a hotel management company located in
Louisville, KY and operates throughout the United States,
including Illinois and in this Circuit. Schulte manages affiliate
properties of Marriott International, Inc. including Spring Hill
Suites by Marriott Chicago Southwest at Burr Ridge/Hinsdale.

When the Defendants hire an employee, he or she is enrolled in
its employee database. The Defendants use the employee database
to monitor the time worked by its hourly employees. While most
employers use conventional methods for tracking time worked (such
as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), Defendants' employees are
required to have their fingerprints scanned by a biometric
timekeeping device. Biometrics are not relegated to esoteric
comers of commerce. Many businesses -- such as the Defendants --
and financial institutions have incorporated biometric
applications into their workplace in the form of biometric
timeclocks, and into consumer products, including such ubiquitous
consumer products as checking accounts and cell phones.  Unlike
ID badges or time cards -- which can be changed or replaced if
stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are unique, permanent
biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes
Defendants' employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks.
For example, if a database containing fingerprints or other
sensitive, proprietary biometric data is hacked, breached, or
otherwise exposed -- like in the recent Equifax and Uber data
breaches -- employees have no means by which to prevent identity
theft, unauthorized tracking or other unlawful or improper use of
this highly personal and private information.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan A venue Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 6060
          Telephone: (312) 233 1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233 1560
          E-mail: aficzko@stephanzouras.com


SIMM ASSOCIATES: Matsui Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
RIHITO MATSUI, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. SIMM ASSOCIATES, INC. & ACCESSLEX
INSTITUTE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 152513/2018 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., March 21, 2018), seeks to recover damages under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices.

In an attempt to collect the purported debt, SIMM sent Plaintiff
a collection letter dated June 15, 2017 concerning account number
149081927-01. The letter was written on "SIMM" letterhead. The
letter lists the "Charge-Off Amount" as $0.00, "Total Interest
Since C/O" as $0.00, "Total Non-interest/Fees Since C/O" as
$0.00, and "Total Payment Post C/O" as $0.00. Upon information
and belief, these numbers taken together would calculate the
total current balance as $0.00. However, the letter lists the
"Balance" as $40,717.34. Either the "Balance" is incorrect, or
the "Charge-Off Amount," "Total Interest Since C/O," "Total Non-
Interest/Fees Since C/O" and "Total Payment Post C/O" are
incorrect, or all are incorrect. Nonetheless, this inaccuracy,
upon information and belief, 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
bottom of the letter provides the recipient with the same
potentially incorrect balance, in further violation of the FDCPA
and NYGBL.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOLID BIOSCIENCES: IPO Prospectus Misleading, "Walsh" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL WALSH, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SOLID BIOSCIENCES, INC., ILAN
GANOT, and JENNIFER ZIOLKOWSKI, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
10639 (D. Mass., April 3, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused
by defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and 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 Solid's securities: (1) pursuant
and/or traceable to Solid's false and misleading Registration
Statement and Prospectus, issued in connection with the Company's
initial public offering on or about January 25, 2018; and/or (2)
on the open market between January 25, 2018 and March 14, 2018,
both dates inclusive.

Solid Biosciences Inc. is a biotechnology company that
purportedly develops therapies and devices for patients with
duchenne muscular dystrophy (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. Founded in 2013, the
Company is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts and its
stocks trade on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the ticker
symbol "SLDB."

According to the complaint, the 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) Solid Biosciences' lead drug candidate SGT-001 had a
high likelihood of causing adverse events in patients; (ii) Solid
Biosciences misled investors regarding the toxicity of SGT-001;
and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Solid's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On
January 30, 2018, a report entitled "Severe Toxicity in Nonhuman
Primates and Piglets Following High-Dose Intravenous
Administration of an Adeno-Associated Virus Vector Expressing
Human SMN," was published by prominent scientists, including
researcher James Wilson. The report revealed safety concerns
linked to high doses of gene therapies using adeno-associated
virus (AAV). Wilson resigned from the scientific advisory board
at Solid Biosciences shortly before the Company's IPO, citing
"emerging concerns about the possible risks of high systemic
dosing of AVV."

On this news, Solid's share price fell $1.20, or 5.06%, to close
at $22.50 per share on January 30, 2018. On March 14, 2018, post-
market, Solid issued a press release entitled "Solid Biosciences
Announces Clinical Hold On SGT-001 Phase I/II Clinical Trial for
Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy," announcing that the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration has placed a clinical hold on Solid's study
of SGT-001, a treatment for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, after a
patient experienced an unexpected adverse reaction. On this news,
Solid's share price fell $16.99, or 64.57%, to close at $9.32 on
March 15, 2018. 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:

          Daryl Andrews, Esq.
          Glen DeValerio, 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 -

          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


SONY CORP: PS3 Buyers Could Get $65 Following Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Blum, writing for Thrillist entertainment News, reports that
it might seem like a pipe dream to be reimbursed after buying a
gaming console. But, in a stroke of unforeseen luck for Call of
Duty addicts, buyers of the original PS3 console have been
awarded a sliver of financial reward from Sony, after a class-
action lawsuit ruled the company pay a $3.75 million proposed
settlement.

The suit stems from a software hiccup that made original PS3s
susceptible to hacking. Originally, Sony enabled users to install
different operating systems on PS3s, with Linux becoming
particularly popular. The Linux-enabled systems posed a security
threat, the company claimed, after a hacker exploited the
system's "OtherOS" feature, and, in March of 2010, Sony used a
software update to remove the option to install third-party
software "due to security reasons."

It might seem like a pipe dream to be reimbursed after buying a
gaming console. But, in a stroke of unforeseen luck for Call of
Duty addicts, buyers of the original PS3 console have been
awarded a sliver of financial reward from Sony, after a class-
action lawsuit ruled the company pay a $3.75 million proposed
settlement.

The suit stems from a software hiccup that made original PS3s
susceptible to hacking. Originally, Sony enabled users to install
different operating systems on PS3s, with Linux becoming
particularly popular. The Linux-enabled systems posed a security
threat, the company claimed, after a hacker exploited the
system's "OtherOS" feature, and, in March of 2010, Sony used a
software update to remove the option to install third-party
software "due to security reasons."

Seven years later, the legal slog finally reached a settlement in
which Sony is paying $3.75 million after being accused of false
advertising and breaching warranty, among other offenses. While
the pot is being split among lawyers, plaintiffs, and settlement
organizers, there's still enough left over for aggrieved PS3
users to claim some form of compensation, which could be as high
as $65.

In 2016, the same settlement promised as much as $55 for entitled
parties, but the payouts have apparently fattened.

In order to claim eligibility, you need to have bought a "Fat"
PS3 between November 1, 2006, and April 1, 2010 at an "authorized
retailer," like Best Buy or Walmart -- definitely not through
your neighbor on Facebook Marketplace. Through the claim form,
you can submit multiple claims if you bought more than one
console. You have about a month left to file a claim, as the
deadline is April 15.

Also, don't lie in any of the legal documents (duh!). You have to
swear that you tried installing Linux, and provide your PS3's
serial number and that you purchased it legally, among other
requirements.

This isn't likely to affect the majority of PS3 owners, although
the savviest proponents of PlayStation are likely to finally
receive payment for their fierce dedication to the art of gaming.
And then probably spend it on more games.[GN]


STRAD ENERGY: "Ruberto" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID RUBERTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. STRAD ENERGY SERVICES USA LTD, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00377-MRH (W.D. Pa., March 22, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendant as
a Solids Control Technician. The Plaintiff and the other workers
like them regularly worked for Defendant in excess of 40 hours
each week. But these workers never received overtime for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of
paying overtime as required by the FLSA and PMWA, Defendant
improperly classified Plaintiff and those similarly situated
workers as independent contractors and paid them a daily rate
with no overtime compensation.

Strad Energy provides industrial equipment and marchineries on
lease and rental basis. The Company offers surface equipment,
manufacturing, environmental and access matting, drill pipe
machines, and solid control and waste management solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson
          Andrew W. Dunlap
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713 352 1100
          Facsimile: 713 352 3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


STARKIST CO: Warner Sues over Product Labels' Heart-Check Mark
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABRAHAM JACOB WARNER, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. STARKIST CO., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00406-GLS-ATB (N.D.N.Y., April 4,
2018), contends that StarKist's products contain a brazen
misrepresentation that causes consumers to falsely believe that
StarKist products are healthier than products made by other food
manufacturers. Specifically, StarKist prominently displays the
American Heart Association "Heart-Check Mark" on products.
Reasonable consumers see the Heart-Check Mark and mistakenly
believe that a product with a Heart-Check Mark is healthier than
a product without a Heart-Check Mark. In fact, a food
manufacturer must pay the American Heart Association in order to
place the Heart-Check Mark on its products. The Heart-Check Mark
is a paid endorsement. However, in violation of state and federal
law, StarKist fails to disclose on product labels that the Heart-
Check Mark is a paid endorsement.

The Defendant is one of the largest producers of seafood products
in the United States. Indeed, StarKist claims to make "America's
favorite tuna."

According to the lawsuit, StarKist was enriched at the expense of
Plaintiff and the Class members. StarKist was unjustly enriched.
It is against equity and good conscience to permit StarKist to
retain the amount by which it has been unjustly enriched. As a
direct and proximate result of StarKist's unjust enrichment
Plaintiff and Class members have suffered injury-in-fact and/or
actual damages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd S. Garber, Esq.
          D. Gregg Blankinship, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP
          FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          455 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298 3283
          Facsimile: (914) 908 6709
          E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com
                  gblankinship@fbfglaw.com


SWAN LAKE: Class Action Suit Explained
--------------------------------------
Terri Russell, writing for Kolo TV, reports that in 2017, from
January and for several months after, a dry lake bed called Swan
Lake began to fill with water after one of the wettest winters on
record.

"A dust bowl, we used to drive across the lake to the other side.
A lot of people did, take walks out here all the time," says
Linda Walls, a class representative.

Walls' home, close to the now-shore of Swan Lake, was heavily
damaged by the water, and she and her husband can't live there
anymore. But so was Donna Robinson's, and she lives about two
blocks from shore, with a roadway separating her property from
the lake.

"To sit here and see all this water. Where is it coming from? It
has got to be coming from somewhere. It's not just coming from
rain. It's got to be coming from somewhere else," says Robinson,
another class representative.

Both Walls and Robinson looked into their options for filing a
suit. Another neighbor filed first, however, intending it to be a
class action suit.

"So commonality means we have a big group of people who have the
same claims. And numerosity means the number of those people. So
we have a sufficient number of people to make sense of the judge
to hear them all at once," says Kerry Doyle, Esq. an attorney who
represents the group.

The lawsuit claims an engineering study in 2007 alerted the city
of Reno about the hazards of developing the North Valleys without
water mitigation to go with it. The study said water imported
into the area, along with runoff of existing build-out
development, would end up in both Swan Lake and Silver Lake.

The suit goes on to claim the city disregarded the warnings,
continued with development, and even as Swan Lake was flooding
last winter and early spring, and residents were being displaced
because their homes were so heavily damaged, the city was pumping
water out of Silver Lake and putting that water into Swan Lake as
well. All in an effort to protect businesses located near Silver
Lake, in the city of Reno.

The lawsuit will have two components.

First, liability will be looked at by the court by taking
testimony and evidence from the class representatives. The court
will determine if the city is responsible. If that portion of the
case is proven, the damages part of the case will get underway.
That is where a jury will decide how much money the city will
pay, if any, to those who suffered damages by the flooding.

This case will not be settled overnight and no matter what
happens, residents involved say nothing will shake their feeling
of uncertainty as they return to their homes every night in
Lemmon Valley.

"Well, this shouldn't happen And I don't feel safe here, when one
of those five people that live with me is my 2-year-old
granddaughter and I don't want her out here," says Jeff Johnson,
another class representative.

Flyers and mailers have been sent out to all Lemmon Valley
residents about an informational meeting organized by attorneys
representing residents. That meeting will take place April 3,
2018 at the Fellowship Church at 120 Hydraulic Street in Lemmon
Valley. The meeting begins at 6:00PM. [GN]


TEZOS: Judge Picks LTL Attorneys to Lead Groundbreaking Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal
judge on March 16 selected the firms LTL Attorneys and Hung G.
Ta, Esq. -- hta@hgtlaw.com -- to lead a group of groundbreaking
securities class actions over digital tokens against the
blockchain startup Tezos.
U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of
California ruled that the attorneys met the requirements to lead
the suits under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
(PSLRA) -- including that their client has the largest financial
stake in the case. Their client is Arman Anvari, a former Perkins
Coie associate in Chicago who says he poured $264,007.50 worth of
ether into Tezos.
Three other groups of law firms had vied to lead the class
actions, including the firms Block & Leviton, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd and Levi & Korsinsky. Attorneys from those firms on
March 15 had argued that Anvari's lawyers should not lead the
case because they initially filed their motion to do so in the
wrong docket, a day late.
But Seeborg said those missteps were not sufficient to take them
out of the running. "Under the circumstances, Anvari's filing
[. . . ] appears best understood as a mistake made in good faith
rather than as an act of legal gamesmanship of the sort the PSLRA
was designed to prevent," he wrote.
The entities behind the Tezos project raised some $232 million in
cryptocurrency last year in an initial coin offering but have
still yet to launch the promised blockchain network. The class
actions that were filed last fall argue that the "Tezzies" issued
were unregistered securities, and seek to allow investors to have
their cryptocurrency refunded.[GN]


THINK FINANCE: "Banks" Suit Moved to Northern District of Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled India Banks, Alicia Patterson,
JoAnn Griffiths, Anna C. Haac, and Jeri Brennan, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Kenneth Rees; Think Finance Inc.; Think Finance SPV LLC; TC
Decision Sciences LLC; TC Loan Service LLC; Tail Wind Marketing
LLC; TC Administrative Services, LLC; and GPL Servicing, Ltd.,
the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-02201, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas)
on April 4, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-00816-M to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Chief Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn.

Think Finance is a company that provides technology, analytics,
and marketing services to financial businesses in the consumer
lending industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
          Casey S. Nash, Esq.
          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          KELLY & CRANDALL, PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Rd Ste 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424 7572
          Facsimile: (703) 591 0167
          E-mail: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com
                  casey@kellyandcrandall.com
                  kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com

               - and -

          Andrew Silver, Esq.
          Anna C. Haac, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973 0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973 0950
          E-mail: asilver@tzlegal.com
                  ahaac@tzlegal.com
                  jkaliel@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO PA
          401 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 400 4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

Attorneys for Kenneth Rees:

          David F. Herman, Esq.
          Jonathan Boughrum, Esq.
          Richard L Scheff, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS, LLP
          Avenue of the Arts
          123 S Broad St 24th Fl
          Philadelphia, PA 19109
          Telephone: (215) 772 2201
          Facsimile: (215) 731 3641
          E-mail: dherman@mmwr.com
                  jboughrum@mmwr.com

               - and -

          Kelli Ayers Edson, Esq.
          QUARLES & BRADY, LLP
          Suite 3400
          101 E Kennedy Blvd
          Tampa, FL 33602-5195
          Telephone: (813) 387 0300
          Facsimile: (813) 387 1800
          E-mail: kelli.edson@quarles.com

Attorneys for Think Finance Inc.; Think Finance SPV LLC; TC
Decision Sciences LLC; TC Loan Service LLC; Tail Wind Marketing
LLC; and TC Administrative Services, LLC.

          Gustavo Javier Membiela, Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP
          1111 Brickell Ave., Suite 2500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 810 2500
          Facsimile: (305) 810 2460
          E-mail: gmembiela@hunton.com


Attorneys for GPL Servicing, Ltd.:

          Bryan D. Hull, Esq.
          BUSH ROSS, PA
          1801 N Highland Ave
          Tampa, FL 33601
          Telephone: (813) 224 9255
          E-mail: bhull@bushross.com

               - and -

          Ross Lee Weiner, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP (NY-NA)
          601 Lexington Ave
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446 4976
          Facsimile: (212) 446 6460
          E-mail: ross.weiner@kirkland.com


U.S. SECURITY: "Burrola" Suit Moved to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Waldo Burrola, individually, and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc., and
Does 1 to 100, the inclusive, Case No. 37-02018-00005995-CU-OE-
CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of
San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California (San Diego) on Mar. 21, 2018. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00594-BEN-JLB to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Roger T. Benitez.

U.S. Security Associates provides uniformed security services,
consulting and investigations, and specialized security solutions
in the United States and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eduardo Martorell, Esq.
          MARTORELL LAW APC
          6100 Center Drive, Suite 1130
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (323) 840 1200
          Facsimile: (323) 840 1300
          E-mail: EMartorell@Martorell-Law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ross A. Boughton, Esq.
          FORD & HARRISON LLP
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 1001
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 852 6900
          Facsimile: (415) 852 6901
          E-mail: rboughton@fordharrison.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Says Firm Silences Sexually Abused Women
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Siegal, writing for The Guardian, reports that Uber has
been hit with a class-action lawsuit which argues that the ride-
sharing company has attempted to silence passengers who have been
assaulted by drivers by forcing them to settle cases through
arbitration. As the publication notes, this process typically
involves confidentiality agreements, which means that the victims
are not allowed to speak out about what happened to them.

The nine women who have joined the case say that they want to
"force Uber to acknowledge that this is happening and to do
something about it," according to attorney Jeanne M. Christensen,
Esq. -- jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com -- But Uber argues that by
signing up for the service in the first place, all riders agree
to private arbitration. Thus, Uber says they have no case.
By forcing everyone who uses its service to handles disputes
privately, Uber can effectively silence victims and sweep any
issues under the rug. Using arbitration, the public never has to
hear about how some women have been sexually harassed or
assaulted by Uber drivers, and Uber never has to confront the
issue head on.

"The allegations brought forth in this case are important to us
and we take them very seriously," said Uber in an email response
to The Guardian. "Arbitration is the appropriate venue for this
case because it allows the plaintiffs to publicly speak out as
much as they want and have control over their individual privacy
at the same time."

That's all well and good, but The Guardian points out that Uber
didn't respond to questions about whether or not the company's
settlement agreements include confidentiality clauses that bar
victims from speaking up. [GN]


ULTA BEAUTY: Claimsfiler Reminds of May 1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors that they have until May 1, 2018 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Ulta
Beauty, Inc. (Nasdaq:ULTA), if they purchased the Company's
securities between March 30, 2016 and February 23, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  This action is pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

Get Help

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

                        About the Lawsuit

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

On February 9, 2018, media reports revealed a consumer class
action lawsuit filed against Ulta based on a wide ranging scheme
of reselling returned, used products as new ones and that "dozens
of other current and former Ulta employees from retail locations
all over the country confirmed that substantially similar
practices also occurred at the Ulta stores where they worked."
Then, on February 23, 2018, further media reports recounted
statements from a former Ulta employee of being pressured by
store managers to resell used products.

On this news, the price of Ulta's shares plummeted. [GN]


ULTA BEAUTY: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of investors who
purchased Ulta Beauty, Inc. ("Ulta Beauty") (NASDAQ:ULTA)
securities between March 30, 2016 and February 23, 2018.

Click here to learn about the case: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-
c/ulta-beauty-inc?wire=3. There is no cost or obligation to you.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
Company issued materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) the Company was engaged in the
widespread practice of repackaging returned cosmetics and re-
shelving them alongside unblemished products to sell at full
retail price; and (ii) that as a result of the foregoing, Ulta
Beauty's public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times. On February 23, 2018, CBS News published a
story on the alleged restocking practice, citing a former
employee who alleged that managers pressured store employees to
clean and repackage returned cosmetics "to keep the dollar amount
for damaged or returned goods down."

If you suffered a loss in Ulta Beauty you have until May 1, 2018
to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve
as a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact
Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone
at 212.425.1140, or visit http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-c/ulta-
beauty-inc?wire=3.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has
represented investors in securities litigations involving
financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights.

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Tel. 212.425.1140
         Fax. 866.699.3880
         E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


UNDER ARMOUR: Murray Sues over Consumer Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------
REBECCA ELIZABETH MURRAY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNDER ARMOUR, INC.,
a Maryland corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC700750 (S.D. Fla., April 4, 2018), seeks to
recover equitable relief compelling under Armour to utilize
appropriate methods and policies with respect to consumer data
collection, storage, and safety and to disclose with specificity
to Class Members the type of Private Identifiable Information.

According to the complaint, Under Armour, Inc. was founded on or
around 1996 and operates globally including in all 50 states OF
the United States of America. UA had around $5.0 Billion in
revenue in 2017. UA manufactures sports related apparel and,
relevant to this case, owns and operates the MyFitnessPal and
MapmyFitness applications and websites as well as related apps
and websites.

On or around 2013, UA began to offer subscriptions through the
MyFitnessPal app and website. UA also collects credit/debit
numbers from its users in order for those users to access premium
features of these website(s) and app(s). For example, users would
pay a premium for priority customer support and a no ad
experience, among other features. On or around March 25, 2018, UA
learned that an estimated 150 million consumers' private personal
and financial information was obtained by an unauthorized third
party in one of the largest data breaches to date.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Thomas V. Girardi, Esq.
          Keith D. Griffin, Esq.
          GIRARDI | KEESE
          1126 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles CA 0017
          Telephone: (213) 977 0211
          Facsimile: (213) 481 1554

               - and -

          Ebby S. Bakhtiar, Esq.
          LIVINGSTON & BAKHTIAR
          3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1669
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 632 1550
          Facsimile: (213) 632 3100


VENMO LLC: "Babar" Suit Alleges False Advertising
-------------------------------------------------
Pravin Babar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Venmo, LLC, and Does 1-10 inclusive, Case No. 3:18-
cv-01555 (N.D. Calif., March 12, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the California False Advertising Act
and Unfair Competition Law.

Plaintiff brings this class action to stop Defendant's practice
of falsely advertising the functions and capabilities of its
mobile application and to obtain redress for a California class
of consumers who changed position, within the applicable statute
of limitations period, as a result of Defendant's false and
misleading advertisements.

Plaintiff Pravin Babar is a citizen and resident of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles.

Defendant Venmo, LLC, is a corporation with principal place of
business in Delaware and state of incorporation in Delaware and
is engaged in the development and distribution of mobile
applications.   [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WAGEWORKS INC: Has Issued False Financial Statements, GERS Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
WAGEWORKS, INC., JOSEPH L. JACKSON, and COLM M. CALLAN, Case No.
4:18-cv-01523-JSW (N.D. Cal., March 9, 2018), alleges that
throughout the Class Period, the Defendants issued, or caused to
be issued, a series of false and misleading financial statements,
failing to disclose that:

     (i) there were material weaknesses in WageWorks' systems of
         internal controls and that its practices and controls
         were ineffective;

    (ii) WageWorks failed to adequately manage and assess risk
         relating to certain complex transactions, including
         certain government contracts;

   (iii) WageWorks improperly recognized revenue thereby
         inflating its earnings and related financial metrics,
         and that,

    (iv) as a result of the foregoing, WageWorks' financial
         statements were materially false and misleading at all
         relevant times.

As a result of the issuance of these false and misleading
financial statements, throughout the Class Period, the common
stock of WageWorks traded at artificially inflated prices, the
Plaintiff alleges.

WageWorks, Inc., is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its
principal executive offices in San Mateo, California.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

WageWorks provides tax-advantaged programs for consumer-directed
health, commuter, and other employee spending account benefits in
the United States.  The Company operates spending account
management programs such as health and dependent care Flexible
Spending Accounts (FSAs), Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), Health
Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs), and transit programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
          Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0800
          Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
          E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com
                  sward@barrack.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          3300 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-0600
          Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
          E-mail: lbarrack@barrack.com


WELLS FARGO: Customers Could Have More Time to File Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
James Rufus Koren, writing for LA Times, reports that Wells Fargo
& Co. failed to notify some customers about its $142-million
class-action settlement over its unauthorized accounts scandal --
an error that could give customers more time to participate in
the deal but contribute to months of delay in receiving payments.

The bank told attorneys representing customers that it did not
send required letters or emails to all current and former
customers who should have been notified, according to a court
filing last week.

As a result, the two sides asked a federal judge overseeing the
settlement to give the bank until mid-April to send the notices
and give customers until July 7 to sign up for the settlement.
The original deadline to file claims was Feb. 3.

The parties also said that attorneys general in several states
had requested that their constituents have more time to file.

If U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria signs off on the extension,
customers would be able to file settlement claims more than 15
months after the deal was announced.

Wells Fargo spokesman Jim Seitz said an internal audit found that
not all customers had received required notifications.

"The audit gives us confidence we're now identifying all
customers we believe may have been affected," he said, adding
there is no indication there are more affected customers or more
sham accounts than previously thought.

Matthew Preusch, Esq. -- mpreusch@kellerorhrback.com -- an
attorney representing bank customers, said the longer deadline
would ensure more customers can be compensated.

"We agreed that Wells Fargo should fix that mistake so that all
of its potentially affected customers are properly notified," he
said in an email.

Wells Fargo agreed in March 2017 to settle a class-action lawsuit
filed in 2015 by plaintiffs who said bank workers trying to meet
onerous sales goals had opened unauthorized accounts in their
name. The deal came about six months after federal regulators
fined the bank $185 million for that practice, which was first
uncovered by a Los Angeles Times investigation.

Though it stems from a single lawsuit, the deal covers all
current and former Wells Fargo customers who do not seek to
exclude themselves from the settlement. If it is granted final
approval, the settlement likely would put an end to several
similar consumer lawsuits filed against the bank.

Wells Fargo initially agreed to pay $110 million but later upped
that amount to $142 million after an internal report found that
unauthorized accounts might have been created as long ago as
2002, earlier than previously thought.

The settlement will compensate customers for any fees they paid
on sham accounts and also for damage to their credit caused by
late fees, credit inquiries or other issues related to
unauthorized accounts.

After a demand from Chhabria, Wells Fargo pledged that the
settlement would fully compensate customers, plus provide an
additional payout of at least $25 million, even if that pushes
the total payout beyond $142 million.

Two law firms working on the case have requested fees of $25.6
million, a sum that is subject to approval by Chhabria. If that
amount holds, and if Wells Fargo does not have to make additional
payments, that would leave $116.4 million for the bank's victims.

As of Jan. 17, 165,774 customers had filed settlement claims,
according to court filings, suggesting an average payout of about
$700. But payments could vary widely depending on several
factors, such as the extent of damage to a customer's credit, and
the number of claimants is likely to grow if the deadline is
extended.

The bank has estimated as many as 3.5 million unauthorized
accounts could have been created, with some customers signed up
for multiple accounts. [GN]


WESTLAKE SERVICES: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Yeganeh Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAHROKH YEGANEH, an individual, WALTER FADAKARAN, an individual,
DANIEL BENSIMON, an individual, GARY GOMEZ, an individual, for
themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC, a corporation, and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. (S.D. Fla., April
4, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and unpaid
overtime wages under California Labor Code.

According to its website, "[WSI] is the largest privately held
finance company in the United States with demonstrated growth
year over year. We continue to expand our teams, our diversified
business model, and more importantly, we begin to cement our role
as a future leader in the automotive industry, [WSI] is a member
of the Hankey Group of Companies and has sister companies and
subsidiaries such as: Westlake ALPS, Westlake Flooring, Wilshire
Consumer Credit and Western Funding Asa result of Defendants'
conduct in not paying Plaintiffs and the Class the legal minimum
wage for all hours worked, Plaintiffs and the Class have been
deprived of the legal minimum wage for all hours they worked,
including but not limited to required work off the clock during
their shifts.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct as
alleged above, Plaintiffs and the Class have sustained and will
sustain damages in the amount the legal minimum wage for all
hours they worked and for working split shifts.[BN]

The Plaintiffs represented by:

          James H. Cordes, Esq.
          831 State Street, Suite 205
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 965 6800
          Facsimile: (805) 965 5556

               - and -

          Michael Baltaxe, Esq.
          Timothy Sottile, Esq.
          Jeremy D. Scherwin, Esq.
          Payam Aframian, Esq.
          SOTTILE/BALTAXE
          4360 Park Terrace Drive, Suite 140
          Westlake Village, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 889 0050
          Facsimile: (818) 889 6050


WHITE GLOVE: "Cedeno" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROSALIE MORAN CEDENO, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated who were employed by WHITE GLOVE
COMMUNITY CARE, INC., along with other entities affiliated or
controlled by WHITE GLOVE COMMUNITY CARE, INC., the Plaintiffs,
v. WHITE GLOVE COMMUNITY CARE, INC. and/or any other related
entities, the Defendant, Case No. 153049/2018 (N.Y. Sup., April
4, 2018), seeks to recover to recover wages and benefits which
Plaintiffs were statutorily and contractually entitled to receive
pursuant to New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, beginning in April 2012, continuing
through the present, Defendant has maintained a policy and
practice of requiring Plaintiffs to regularly work in excess of
ten hours per day, without providing the proper hourly
compensation for all hours worked, including failing to pay the
lawful minimum wage rate for travel time between worksites, and
overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in any given week, and "spread of hours" compensation. The
Plaintiff has initiated this action seeking for herself, and on
behalf of all similarly situated employees who are citizens of
New York and who performed work within the State of New York,
minimum wages, overtime compensation, "spread of hours"
compensation, reimbursement for business expenses borne for the
benefit and convenience of the Defendant, including purchasing
and laundering of uniforms, as well as damages arising from
Defendant's breach of contract, which they were deprived of, plus
interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

               - and

          Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
          NAYDENSKIY LAW FIRM LLC
          281 Summerhill Road, Suite 210
          East Brunswick, NJ 08816
          Telephone: (212) 808 2224
          Facsimile: (866) 261 5478
          E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


WOOLERY PAINTING: "Almendares" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bayron Almendares and Jose Luis Garcia, on behalf of themselves
and other persons similarly situated v.  Woolery Painting, LLC,
Adam Woolery Painting, LLC, and Adam Woolery, Case No. 2:18-cv-
02559 (E.D. La., March 12, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Bayron Almendares was hired to work as a painter for
the Defendants from April 2013 to February 2018. He was employed
by the Defendants at various jobsites in and around the Greater
New Orleans Area.

Plaintiff Jose Luis Garcia was hired to work as a painter for the
Defendants from June 2014 to February 2018. He was employed by
the Defendants at various jobsites in and around the Greater New
Orleans Area.

Defendants Woolery Painting, LLC and Adam Woolery Painting, LLC
are limited liability companies organized under the laws of
Louisiana with their principal places of business in Harahan,
Louisiana. They are both owned and operated by Defendant Adam
Woolery, are based out of the same address, and both specialize
in providing painting and drywall services for residential and
commercial projects. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


WOLVERINE WORLD: Cedar Springs Residents Part of New Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Shandra Martinez, writing for MLive, reports that a new class
action lawsuit filed against Wolverine World Wide includes
residents of Russell Ridge, a neighborhood near Cedar Springs.

The plaintiffs are represented by the same group of law firms
that filed suit on behalf of six families in the Wellington Ridge
subdivision. Those Algoma Township residents have some of the
highest levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, called
PFAS or PFCs, found in north Kent county.

But that isn't the case with the Russell Ridge neighborhood,
where the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has not
been able to link what it describes as "low levels" of PFAS to
water contamination tied to Wolverine's dumping of tannery waste
decades ago.

Nonetheless, "our clients have lost the ability to enjoy their
homes and live with daily reminders that they and their families
have been consuming water laced with toxic chemicals," said
Esther Berezofsky, Esq. -- eberezofsky@eblawllc.com -- of the
Berezofsky Law Group in a statement.

Her firm also represents Flint residents harmed by lead-
contaminated drinking water and residents of Hoosick Falls and
Petersburgh in New York, which are also experiencing PFAS
drinking water problems.

The New Jersey-based Berezofsky Law is partnering on the case
with Detroit area firm Sommers Schwartz and the South Carolina
firm Motley Rice.

The firms didn't return messages for comment on March 16.

The suit filed March 6 in Kent County Circuit Court is seeking
damages for economic loss and future health conditions. Exposure
to PFOS and PFOA has been linked to various forms of cancer,
thyroid problems and other diseases.

Four of the plaintiffs live in Belmont, which sits squarely in
the testing zones that encompass about 20 contiguous square miles
of northern Kent County.

Two plaintiffs own homes in the Russell Ridge neighborhood. The
Algoma Township development is located in Cedar Rock -- the
nickname for an area between Cedar Springs and Rockford.

The 3-year-old development includes about 60 homes off Russell
Road north of M-57. The White Pine Trail runs nearby. More houses
are going up in the area.

The neighborhood is about three miles northwest of the
established zones where the DEQ has been finding high levels of
PFAS in groundwater. The chemicals were in 3M Scotchgard, which
Wolverine used to waterproof shoes at former Rockford tannery.

The suit contends the contamination exists in the aquifer where
the residents are drawing their well water, but it doesn't
specify where the contamination originated, or the levels they
are finding.

"Once in the aquifers, the PFAS became subject to
hydrogeographical forces and migration throughout the area
inevitably resulted. The migration involved an ever-expanding
contamination of area water suppliers, including class members'
private wells," suit said.

DEQ spokesperson Scott Dean said there's no evidence that's
accurate.

Kim Conner moved into the neighborhood in 2016. Her water tested
positive for PFAS. She said she's joined the class action case.

Conner, her husband and 8-year-old daughter are drinking bottled
water after their well water tested at 7.9 parts per trillion
(ppt) for PFOS and PFOA. It's below the Environmental Protection
Agency's health advisory level of 70-ppt.

Some of Conner's neighbors have told her their water tested
higher. She said about 30 Russell Ridge homeowners have PFAS in
their water.

"Everyone is doing (the testing) out of their own pockets," said
Conner, who had the family's well tested in the fall. "We decided
to test because the homes are built on an old gravel pit and
farmland."

Tannery waste was primarily disposed at local dumps, but the
sludge was also spread on Algoma Township farmland in as
fertilizer.

Neighborhood residents met in January with Algoma Township, EPA
and DEQ officials.

"They said 'we are an anomaly'," Conner said of comments made by
DEQ staff. "They don't understand why we are having any
readings."

While the DEQ hasn't found a link between the low levels of PFAS
in the Russell Ridge homes' wells, the agency's investigation
remains opens, Dean said.

As part of the investigation, the DEQ has studied aerial photos
and historic data. Residents are encouraged to stay in touch with
the agency, he added.

The Wolverine PFAS investigation began last year with discovery
of contaminated wells near the company's old sludge waste dump at
1855 House St. NE in Plainfield. It has since spread to Algoma
Township and the city of Rockford.

The Rogue River and Plainfield Township municipal drinking water
have also tested positive for PFAS.

In January, the EPA ordered Wolverine to conduct more
investigations at the House Street dump and the company's former
tannery grounds in Rockford, which are both highly contaminated
with PFAS.

Not counting Plainfield's municipal system, an area search for
Wolverine dump sites has turned up more than 550 wells with
detectable PFAS levels so far. More than 100 are above the EPA's
health advisory level. The chemicals have been linked to a host
of health care issues, including cancer and thyroid problems.

Wolverine has been providing bottled water and whole-house PFAS
filtration units to most homes in DEQ-established testing areas.

Plainfield Township spent months trying to negotiate a deal with
Wolverine to cover the project costs in hopes of starting main
extensions this year, but the company walked away from the table
last month. The decision delays work township hoped to complete
this year.

Plainfield and Algoma townships officially joined the state's
lawsuit in order to formalize their seats at the table when it
comes time for a judge to decide what the company needs to do to
address the pollution.

In addition to the latest legal action, the Rockford company is
now facing one federal class action suit and more than 100
individual cases in Kent County Circuit Court.

In a statement to MLive, Wolverine reiterated its commitment to
working with local, state and federal regulators to develop a
long-term solution to the contamination issue.

"While we intend to remain a good partner and corporate citizen
and address issues facing our community, we will simultaneously
protect and vigorously defend our company against ongoing
litigation," part of the statement read.

Wolverine expects to spend $40 million this year addressing the
contamination, which includes what's believed to be record PFAS
levels in drinking water. [GN]


WHOLE FOODS: Sued Over Kombucha Products False Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------
WholeFoods Magazine reports that some zombucha products are under
fire for false advertising.

As reported in Legal News Line by Food Navigator, a consumer has
filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against Health-Ade Zombucha and Whole
Foods Market California Inc. The plaintiff alleges that she and
numerous consumers purchased the beverages based on
advertisements that they were non-alcoholic. The plaintiff
alleges the beverages contain more than twice the alcohol allowed
for nonalcoholic beverages, and that its sugar content is
understated.  Health-Ade told Food Navigator it was unable to
comment on pending litigation.

And according to a statement from Top Class Actions, other
zombucha beverages are falsely advertising that they contain less
probiotics and also have more sugar than is represented on their
labels -- in one case, product testing reportedly demonstrated
that one brand of kombucha included between four and six times
the amount of sugar than was stated on the product label.

Top Class Action is urging consumers who have purchased zombucha
in the last four years based on faulty claims to sign up for a
free class action investigation on their web site.

This isn't the first time the popular beverage has been the
subject of a lawsuit.

Last year, the manufacturer of GT's Kombucha and Whole Foods
Market reached an $8.2 million class action settlement over
allegedly false claims that GT's Kombucha was non-alcoholic and
that it contained antioxidants. The defendants did not admit
wrongdoing in agreeing to the settlement.  In addition to the
financial restitution, the settlement required Millennium
Products Inc., the Beverly Hills, Calif.-based parent company of
GT's, to make changes to its product labels, specifically, to
cease using the term "antioxidant" on packaging, as well as
include warning that the product does contain alcohol, as
reported in BevNet.  Millennium agreed to ensure that the
product's accurate sugar content was reflected on labels as well.

And in October 2017, a false advertising class action lawsuit was
filed against KeVita Inc. and Pepsico Inc. over allegations they
deceived consumers into believing KeVita kombucha is a raw and
unpasteurized product even though they are actually pasteurized
after fermentation.

Misleading nutrition labels have taken center stage since the FDA
announced redesigned food nutrition labels earlier this month.
It was the first time in decades the labels had undergone
changes.  As reported by WholeFoods Magazine, the new food labels
now have an additional space for added sugars. While the old
labels list total grams of sugars, they don't distinguish between
sugars that are naturally occurring in foods like fruits and
vegetables, and sugars that meet the definition of added sugars.
The new labels now include added sugars in grams and as percent
Daily Value. "Added sugars" are regarded as worse than sugars
occurring naturally in products like fruit.

Kombucha has been around for centuries but has become popular
among health-conscious consumers in recent years. The beverage is
derived from sweetened black or green tea that is mixed with a
symbiotic colony of bacteria and yeast known as a SCOBY and given
time to ferment. Kombucha is effervescent, tart and slightly
sweet, with a flavor profile similar to sparkling apple cider.

During the fermentation process, a large number of healthy
bacteria known as probiotics develop in the product. Probiotics
are touted for their purported health benefits, such as fighting
illness and infection.

The fermentation process often causes the alcohol content of
kombucha to rise above 0.5 percent, causing most products on the
market to be regulated by the Alcohol Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau. [GN]


YANGTZE LLC: "Wang" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Minghui Wang, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Yangtze LLC d/b/a Yangtze
Riverside Restaurant, Steven Zheng, and Siwen Zheng, the
Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-00571 (D. Conn., April 4, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid wages for overtime
work, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, costs, interest and
attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants usually required Plaintiff to arrive at work about
20 minutes before the posted restaurant opening hour. The
Plaintiff was required to work for Defendants well in excess of
40 hours per week, at about 70 hours per week, yet Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiff all overtime compensation for hours he
worked in excess of forty hours per week. The Plaintiff did not
have any uninterrupted breaks nor meal time during work days.
Occasionally the Plaintiff was required to work approximately 30
minutes past the posted closing hours of the restaurant when he
was out making some end of the day deliveries. To perform the
delivery duties, Plaintiff Wang spent at his own expense about
$72 per week on gas and at least $800 on repair and maintenance
of the vehicle. The Plaintiff was not reimbursed for any of the
aforementioned expenses. For the purpose of making deliveries for
the Defendants' business, the Plaintiff drove approximately 70
miles per day or about 27,300 miles for the relevant period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jian Hang, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
          136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353 8588
          E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


* Legislation Bans Fed Workers From Staying at Trump Properties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Smith, writing for fedsmith.com ,reports that Congressman
Jamie Raskin (D-MD) has introduced legislation that would
prohibit the government from paying for federal employees's
travel expenses if they are staying at a hotel owned by President
Trump or his family when on official travel.

In a press release, Raskin accused President Trump of being in
violation of the Constitution's domestic emoluments clause
because of his business holdings and said the legislation was
needed as a result.

           The Emoluments Clause and Previous Lawsuits

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution reads, "No Title of
Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person
holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without
the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument,
Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or
foreign State."

Regarding domestic emoluments, Article II, Section 1 of the
Constitution says, "The President shall, at stated Times, receive
for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be
increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall
have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period
any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them."

An emolument is a "salary, fee, or profit from employment or
office." According to Bloomberg, the original intent of the
foreign emoluments provision of the Constitution was to
discourage early American leaders from being influenced by gifts
from European governments.

Two lawsuits brought against Trump for violating the emoluments
clause were dismissed late last year by a federal judge who said
the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. U.S. District Court Judge
George Daniels also said that the matter was one that should be
decided by Congress, not the courts.

One of the lawsuits was filed by Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington, or CREW, along with a group of employees
and owners of hospitality businesses, and the other was a class
action lawsuit on behalf of members of the public filed by New
York attorney William Weinstein, Esq. --
https://lawyers.justia.com/lawyer/william-weinstein-
794959/contact--

According to Politico, the basis of the lawsuits ultimately
dismissed by the judge were as follows:

CREW claimed it had standing because Trump's failure to divest
his businesses had cause the organization to expend resources it
would have used elsewhere, but the judge said that claim was too
weak to sustain the suit.

The class-action case claimed that Trump was violating promises
he made to distance himself from his businesses, but Daniels said
that kind of promise wasn't enforceable in court.

President Trump has pledged not to take a salary while in office,
something not addressed by the lawsuits. He has donated his
salary to several federal agencies for different purposes: the
National Park Service for battlefield infrastructure, the
Department of Education to fund a summer camp, the Department of
Health and Human Services to battle opioid addiction, and most
recently to the Department of Transportation for domestic
infrastructure rebuilding.

                      The HOTEL Act

Raskin's bill represents an effort in Congress along the lines of
what Judge Daniels was referencing, namely that any violation of
the emoluments clause would have to be dealt with by Congress.
Raskin, who has been a professor of constitutional law at
American University's Washington College of Law for over 25
years, said in a statement, "If the President does not have
enough respect for the Constitution to refuse extra government
payments beyond his official salary, then we must cut the
unlawful payments off at the source."

The "source" in this case is the federal workforce. The
legislation would accomplish its objectives by barring agencies
from spending money at any Trump properties.

Raskin says in his press release on the bill:

The Constitution prohibits the President from receiving any
emolument (any profit, benefit, gift, or payment) other than his
salary while in office, but President Trump has continued to
receive profits from his properties. These profits include
taxpayer money paid to Trump properties by various federal
government agencies patronizing Trump businesses.

According to Raskin, "We must stop all executive branch
officials, all of whom report ultimately to President Trump, from
spending public dollars at Trump hotels, restaurants, golf
courses and other businesses. This is a ludicrous situation."

The Heightened Oversight of Travel, Eating, and Lodging (HOTEL)
Act (H.R. 5304) would prohibit federal agencies from paying for
federal employees' per diem allowances or travel reimbursements
for lodging or dining services at any properties owned by the
President or his family.[GN]





                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.
Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche
Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G.
Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter A.
Chapman at 215-945-7000.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *