CAR_Public/180416.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Monday, April 16, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 76



                            Headlines


012 SMILE: Customers' NIS 64 Million Claim Still Ongoing
012 SMILE: Suit Against Internet Service Providers in Early Stage
012 SMILE: Claim over Data Speeds in Early Stage
012 SMILE: Suit vs. International Long Distance Operators Pending
4716 INC: Refuses to Pay OT Wages to Exotic Dancers, Faltoni Says

3M CO: Court Narrows Claims in Suit Over Lava Ultimate
AETERNA ZENTARIS: Securities Suit over Macrilen Underway
ALL SAINTS HOME: Roseborough Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
AMBROSIA BAKERY: Sued by Ortega for Not Paying Minimum & OT Wages
AMEDISYS HOLDING: Court Denies Renewed Class Certification Bid

ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Silicosis/Tuberculosis Suit Still Ongoing
ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: La Colosa Projects-Related Suits Underway
APPLE INC: Sued by Fung Over iOS Updates That Slowed iPhones
ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL: Rabbi Fellig Dropped From "McCoy" Suit
ATLANTIC RECOVERY: Scavo Seeks Damages for Invasion of Privacy

AVATEL TECHNOLOGIES: "Jones" Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
BANK OF AMERICA: Dismissal Bid Briefing Schedule Set in "Mendez"
BANK OF AMERICA: Illegally Charged Overdraft Fees, Kazerouni Says
BFY BRANDS INC: Reaves Files "Slack Fill" Suit in N.Y.
BIG HEART: Dog Food Contains Harmful Sedative, "Roupe" Suit Says

BIG HEART: Court Dismisses Nationwide Classes in "Van Mourik"
BOB EVANS: Merger Class Suit Terminated
BRF SA: Faces "Nakamura" Suit Over Bribery Issues in Brazil
BUMBLE BEE: Court Grants Prelim OK of "Rodriguez" Settlement
BURLINGTON COAT: Morales Seeks to Recoup Minimum & Overtime Wages

CAN-FITE BIOPHARMA: Hearing on Piclidenoson Drug Set for Dec. 5
CANADIAN MALARTIC: Suit over Mine Operations Ongoing
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Bid for Final Settlement Approval Due April 27
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: California General Manager Litigation Resolved
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Notice of Settlement Filed in "French" Suit

CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Still Defends Apollo Merger-Related Suit
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Asks Court to Dismiss "Jacobson" Suit
CENTRAL CREDIT: "Jones" Filed Suit Over FCDPA Violation
CHASE ISSUANCE: Bid to Amend Merchants' Class Suit in NY Ongoing
COINMACH LAUNDRY: Apartments Sue Over Additional Admin. Fee

CREDIT ANALYST: Powers Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement
CROWN AUTOMOTIVE: Denied Overtime Pay, "Clausen" Suit Says
DAVISON DESIGN: Court Awards $325K Attorney's Fees in "Dungee"
DOLLAR TREE: "Natskakula" FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
DOLPHIN ENTERTAINMENT: "Reel" Claims vs. 42West Dismissed

DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Sent Illegal Collection Letters, Patti Says
EDWARD D JONES: Accused by "Bland" Suit of Not Paying FA Trainees
ELMER'S PRODUCTS: Spacone Seeks to Certify Class of KG Purchasers
FELDCO WINDOWS: Accused by "Cooper" Class Suit of Violating TCPA
FLAGSHIP S B: Court Denies Conditional Certification in "Joshi"

FLORIDA HEALTH: Court Dismisses "Doyle" TCPA Suit
GERDAU AMERISTEEL: Court Grants Prelim OK of "Wodaszewski" Deal
GLA COLLECTION: Faces "Saines" Suit Alleging FDCPA Breach
GULF COAST SECURITY: "Kent" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
HENRY SCHEIN: Salkowitz Files Anti-trust Suit in N.Y. Court

IDEAL COLLECTION: Bond Sues Over Illegal Collection Letter
IDENTIV INC: 9th Circuit Declines to Revive "Rok" Suit
JAGUAR HEALTH: Continues to Defend "Plant" Suit
KRIEGER-BEARD SERVICES: Certification of Technicians Class Sought
LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: "Raul" & "Witmer" Suits Challenge Merger Deal

MARVELL TECH: April 17 Final Approval Hearing on "Luna" Accord
MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces "Faircloth" Suit Over Drive-Thru Access
MCS LEASING INC: "Sanita" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums
MERCK & CO: Rigged Cholesterol Meds Price Claims Engineers' Fund
MESSERLI & KRAMER: Kleczewski Moves for Cert. of Two Classes

MIKES ITALIAN: "Flores" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Withheld Tips
MISSOURI, USA: MB Moves to Certify Class of Minors Under Custody
NAVIENT CORP: Adkins Moves for Certification of Class Under TCPA
NOVATION COMPANIES: NJ Carpenters' Health Fund Suit Still Ongoing
ORLEANS PARISH, LA: Caliste's Bid for Class Certification Granted

OSBORNE ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA, D'Emilio Alleges
OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: MOU Entered in "Nallagonda" Class Suit
PARTNER COMMS: Customers' Suit over Unlawful Charges Underway
PARTNER COMMS: July 2014 Claim for NIS 300 Million Pending
PARTNER COMMS: Suit over Router/Adaptor Purchase Still Ongoing

PARTNER COMMS: Suit over Telecommunication Packages Suit Underway
PARTNER COMMS: Still Defends Overcharge Services-Related Suit
PARTNER COMMS: October 2017 Claim for NIS 1 Billion Still Pending
PARTNER COMMS: Settlement of NIS 343-Mil. Claim Pending
PARTNER COMMS: Settlement Approved in Tariffs-Related Class Suit

PARTNER COMMS: Settlement of NIS 100-Mil. Claim Awaits Court OK
PARTNER COMMS: Suit over Overseas Call Tariffs Dropped
PARTNER COMMS: Suit over Data Packages Dismissed
PARTNER COMMS: Appeal in Suit over V.A.T. Charges Underway
PARTNER COMMS: Customer Discrimination Suit Still in Early Stage

PARTNER COMMS: Claim over Junk Ad Messages Still Pending
PARTNER COMMS: November 2016 Claim over Data Packages Underway
PARTNER COMMS: September 2016 Claim Still in Early Stage
PARTNER COMMS: September 19, 2017 Claim Still in Early Stage
PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: "Franchi" Suit Seeks to Halt Sale to Penn

PIRON LLC: Court Certifies Class of Employees in "Ali" Suit
PJ IOWA: Frazier Seeks to Certify 3 Classes of Delivery Drivers
QUALITY MENTAL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, "Dukes" Suit Claims
QUDIAN INC: Securities Litigation Underway in New York
QUDIAN INC: Faces "Song" Class Action Suit in California

QUINCY PROPERTY: Joint Bid for Class Cert. Filed in "Brasher"
REPUBLIC WASTE: Fails to Pay Drivers' Overtime, "Auxer" Suit Says
ROSS STORES: Still Faces Wage-and-Hour Class Suits in Calif.
SAINT LUKE'S HEALTH: Houston Moves for Certification of 2 Classes
SAVASENIORCARE ADMINISTRATIVE: Dolison Moves to Certify Class

SSC CARMICHAEL: Nurses Seek Redress for Missed Breaks, Unpaid OT
STAGE STORES: Accused by Qazi of Not Paying Overtime Under FLSA
SUPER TACOS: Allende Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
TOP SHIPS: Faces Two Class Action Suits in New York
TRG CUSTOMER: Class Certification Bid in "Andrews" Due This Month

TURNING POINT: "Eutsy" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Kho Files Suit Over False Financial Reports
ULTIMATE FITNESS: Illegally Sends Telemarketing Texts, Cline Says
VERINT SYSTEMS: Parties Agree to Another Round of Mediation
VIMO INC: Fails to Pay Sales Agents OT Wages, Quintana Suit Says

WALGREENS BOOTS: Briefing Schedule Set in Merger-Related Suit





                            *********


012 SMILE: Customers' NIS 64 Million Claim Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Partners Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that 012 Smile continues to
defend itself in a class action suit filed against it.

On November 12, 2015, a claim and a motion to certify the claim
as a class action were filed against 012 Smile. The claim alleges
that 012 Smile required their customers to purchase a router
and/or a call adaptor and/or terminal equipment as a condition
for using its fixed-line telephony services, an action which
would not be in accordance with the provisions of its licenses.
The total amount claimed against 012 Smile is estimated by the
plaintiff to be approximately NIS 64 million. The claim is still
in its preliminary stage of the motion to be certified as a class
action.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various
telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two
segments, Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company offers cellular
telephony services, including basic cellular telephony, text
messaging, Internet browsing and data transfer, content, and
roaming services, as well as services provided to other operators
that are permitted to use its cellular network.


012 SMILE: Suit Against Internet Service Providers in Early Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Partners Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the claim against 012
Smile and another Internet Service Provider is still in its
preliminary stage.

On August 8, 2012, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against 012 Smile and another Internet
Service Provider. The claim alleges that the defendants breached
certain provisions of their licenses by not offering their
services at a unified tariff to all customers.

The total amount claimed against 012 Smile, if the lawsuit is
certified as a class action, was not stated by the plaintiff. The
claim is still in its preliminary stage of the motion to be
certified as a class action.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various
telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two
segments, Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company offers cellular
telephony services, including basic cellular telephony, text
messaging, Internet browsing and data transfer, content, and
roaming services, as well as services provided to other operators
that are permitted to use its cellular network.


012 SMILE: Claim over Data Speeds in Early Stage
------------------------------------------------
Partners Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that a claim against 012
Smile is still in its preliminary stage.

On April 21, 2016, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against 012 Smile. The claim alleges that
012 Smile's infrastructure does not support data speeds that the
Company publishes to its customers.

The total amount claimed against the Company if the lawsuit is
certified as a class action was not stated by the plaintiff. The
claim is still in its preliminary stage of the motion to be
certified as a class action.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various
telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two
segments, Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company offers cellular
telephony services, including basic cellular telephony, text
messaging, Internet browsing and data transfer, content, and
roaming services, as well as services provided to other operators
that are permitted to use its cellular network.


012 SMILE: Suit vs. International Long Distance Operators Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Partners Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that a claim against 012
Smile is still in its preliminary stage

On September 11, 2016, a claim and a motion to certify the claim
as a class action were filed against 012 Smile and two other
international long distance operators. The claim alleges that the
defendants charged excessive tariffs from occasional customers
for each long distance call minute, contrary to the
Telecommunications Law (Telecommunications and Broadcasting),
that allows a licensee to charge reasonable payment for a
telecommunication service that it provides.

The total amount claimed against 012 Smile if the lawsuit is
certified as a class action was not stated by the plaintiff. The
claim is still in its preliminary stage of the motion to be
certified as a class action.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various
telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two
segments, Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company offers cellular
telephony services, including basic cellular telephony, text
messaging, Internet browsing and data transfer, content, and
roaming services, as well as services provided to other operators
that are permitted to use its cellular network.


4716 INC: Refuses to Pay OT Wages to Exotic Dancers, Faltoni Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valentina Faltoni, on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. 4716, Inc., d/b/a Hi Liter
Gentleman's Club and Frank Zanzucchi, Individually, Case No.
2:18-cv-00825-SPL (D. Ariz., March 13, 2018), alleges that the
Defendants required and/or permitted the Plaintiff to work as an
exotic dancer in excess of 40 hours per week, but refused to
compensate her at the applicable minimum wage and overtime rates.

4716, Inc., doing business as Hi Liter Gentleman's Club, is a
domestic for-profit company doing business in Phoenix, Arizona.
Frank Zanzucchi is the owner and president of 4716, Inc.

The Defendants operate an adult entertainment club in Phoenix,
Arizona, under the name of Hi Liter Gentleman's Club.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
          John Neuman, Esq.
          SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
          5612 Chaucer Dr.
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (281) 885-8844
          Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
          E-mail: Bsosamorris@smnlawfirm.com
                  JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com


3M CO: Court Narrows Claims in Suit Over Lava Ultimate
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Partial Motion to
Dismiss and Strike Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint in
the case captioned Vikram Bhatia, D.D.S., et al. on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 3M
Company, Defendant. Civil No. 16-1304 (DWF/BRT). (D. Minn.)

This case involves a 3M product, the Lava Ultimate CAD/CAM Dental
Restorative (Lava Ultimate), a product designed for dentists to
use in making customized dental restorations, such as veneers,
inlays, onlays, and crowns.  A dental crown is a tooth-shaped cap
that completely covers a tooth or a dental implant.  The
Plaintiffs, who are all dentists or dental practices, allege that
crowns made using Lava Ultimate material suffer from an inherent
defect, namely that they have a propensity to debond from teeth
at higher rates than other crown material.

The Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that 3M breached an
express warranty. 3M acknowledges that Lava Ultimate products
came with an express warranty.

As an initial matter, the Plaintiffs submit that this case arises
under circumstances that make the application of Minnesota law to
a nationwide class appropriate and, therefore, that the Court
need only address the Minnesota claims at this time. 3M disagrees
that Minnesota law would govern a nationwide class and argues the
present motion under each of the relevant state's law.

The Court concludes that it is premature to apply Minnesota law
to all of the named Plaintiffs' claims in this case. This case is
before the Court on a motion to dismiss. Only three of the
individual Plaintiffs are asserting claims under Minnesota law.

3M moves to dismiss numerous fraud and consumer protection claims
for a failure to plead with particularity under Rule 9(b).

3M argues that Plaintiffs have failed to allege even some
representative examples of the fraudulent conduct with requisite
particularity.

Plaintiffs disagree and argue that their allegations are
sufficient to allow 3M to prepare a defense.

First, Plaintiffs do not provide sufficient details about the
allegedly fraudulent materials they claim to have received or
viewed. Plaintiffs vaguely refer to various marketing materials
but do not allege facts that demonstrate (or even suggest) what
specific marketing materials each Plaintiff viewed and relied
upon.

Second, Plaintiffs do not allege how the purported defect in Lava
Ultimate the propensity to debond rendered the listed
representations false or misleading.

Third, Plaintiffs' allegations with respect to knowledge and
intent are insufficiently specific. Plaintiffs allege that 3M
knew that its representations were false or misleading based on
the allegations that Plaintiffs reported the debonding issue to
3M.

However, on this point, Plaintiffs' allegations are vague and,
again, nearly identical for each Plaintiff. Plaintiffs do not
provide sufficient details that would shed light on which
Plaintiff or Plaintiffs specifically talked to 3M about
debonding, the position of those at 3M they spoke to, what
exactly Plaintiffs reported to 3M, when they reported the issue
to 3M, or what specifically was discussed during the
conversations.

For these reasons, all of Plaintiffs' fraud and statutory claims
that involve elements of fraud are properly dismissed. The latter
include: Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act, Minnesota Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, Minnesota Unlawful Trade Practices Act, California
Unfair Competition Law, California False Advertising Law, Florida
Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Georgia Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Kansas Consumer Protection Act,
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, New Mexico Unfair Trade Practices
Act, and Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act-Consumer Protection
Act.

Breach of Implied Warranty Claims

Plaintiffs allege a claim for breach of implied warranty under
the laws of Minnesota, California, Florida, Georgia, Missouri,
New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas,
and Washington.

Warranty Disclaimer

3M argues that this claim fails as a matter of law because 3M
disclaimed any implied warranties for Lava Ultimate products. The
law and analysis regarding the disclaimer of implied warranties
is similar under the relevant states' laws.

Plaintiffs argue that the Court should refuse to consider any
such warranty at this stage because it constitutes extrinsic
evidence that has been raised by 3M solely to discredit or
contradict the allegations in the Amended Complaint.

The Court disagrees.

Instead, the Court concludes that it may properly consider the
warranty because it is necessarily embraced by and referenced in
the Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint cites to numerous
documents that expressly reference a 10-Year Limited Warranty.
Plaintiffs also argue that consideration of any disclaimer is
premature because Plaintiffs do not concede its authenticity and
there is a lack of foundation regarding the asserted disclaimer.
The Court agrees and declines to dismiss Plaintiffs' breach of
implied warranty claims at this early stage of litigation.

The Court requires a more complete record of the foundational
facts surrounding the content and distribution of any warranty
disclaimer, such as background facts on the creation of the
language in the disclaimer (when the language was created), any
changes made to the language over time, the documents on which
the disclaimer was printed, whether there were different versions
of the disclaimer being used, as well as the circumstances
surrounding the disclaimer's communication to Plaintiffs.

For now, Plaintiffs' claims for breach of implied warranty are
sufficiently pled.

Unjust Enrichment Claims

Plaintiffs allege that 3M benefitted unjustly from selling
inherently defective Lava Ultimate products, whose value was
inflated by 3M's concealment of the debonding defect when used in
crowns, and that 3M's enrichment was at the expense of
Plaintiffs.
The Court denies 3M's motion on this claim. Plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment claim is pled in the alternative. This is permitted,
even if the claims are inconsistent. In addition, the allegations
in the Amended Complaint are sufficient to state a claim for
unjust enrichment.

Remaining State-Law Claims

Georgia Fair Business Practices Act

Plaintiffs assert a claim under the Georgia Fair Business
Practices Act (GFBPA), which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts
or practices in the conduct of consumer transactions and consumer
acts or practices in trade or commerce.

3M argues that this statutory provision is only available to
plaintiffs who are natural persons, and that the claim fails as
to all Plaintiffs (both the individual dentists and the dental
practices) because the allegedly deceptive activity did not take
place in the context of a consumer market.

First, the definition of a consumer under the GFBPA is limited to
natural persons. Therefore, dental practice Plaintiffs cannot
state a claim under this statute.

New York General Business Law Sections 349-50

The New York General Business Law prohibits deceptive practices
in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce. Claims under
Sections 349 and 350 require a plaintiff to allege that the
defendant engaged in a consumer-oriented act or practice.

While the cases cited by Plaintiffs demonstrate a broad
application of the General Business Law, they also reveal that
"consumer-oriented" conduct can be demonstrated when an alleged
misrepresentation made to a business is repeated to consumers.
Here, however, Plaintiffs have not alleged that they repeated any
of 3M's alleged misrepresentations to any of their patients. For
this reason, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to
sufficiently allege "consumer-oriented" conduct necessary to
state a claim under the New York General Business Law. Therefore,
New York Counts I & II are properly dismissed.

Washington Consumer Protection Act

To prevail on a Washington Consumer Protection Act claim under
Washington law, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) unfair or
deceptive act or practices; (2) occurring in trade or commerce;
(3) public interest impact; (4) injury to plaintiff in her or her
business or property; and (5) causation.

The Court finds that the Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges
facts to establish that the conduct at issue had an effect on the
public interest.

Here, Plaintiffs allege a widespread marketing campaign that
affected numerous transactions. While there are no allegations
that the conduct is likely to be repeated in the future, it is
plausible that additional plaintiffs have been injured. Thus, the
Court concludes that Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled this
claim.  The Court therefore denies 3M's motion to dismiss the
Washington Consumer Protection Act claim.

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Claim

It is clear from the allegations in the Amended Complaint that
Lava Ultimate blocks were not sold directly to patients and were
not used by the purchasing dentists and dental practices for
personal purposes. Instead, the Amended Complaint makes clear
that Lava Ultimate blocks were purchased by dental professionals
who used a CAD/CAM machine to shape the block and then surgically
place the blocks in patients' mouths during certain restorative
dental procedures. Plaintiffs do not allege facts that would
demonstrate that Lava Ultimate is a consumer product.

Therefore, Plaintiffs' MMWA claim is properly dismissed.

Punitive Damages

Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to punitive damages. 3M
moves to strike all allegations requesting punitive damages
because they are not supported by specific facts about the
conduct that would warrant such an award. 3M points out that
Plaintiffs' only allegation regarding the entitlement to punitive
damages is conclusory.

Here, Plaintiffs have not made such a showing. Indeed, Plaintiffs
acknowledge this and, instead, assert that they will seek leave
of Court to amend their Amended Complaint at an appropriate stage
of the case. Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(f), the Court strikes all references to punitive
damages in the Amended Complaint.

Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted in part
and denied in part as follows:

   -- California Plaintiffs' claim under the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act (California Count I) is dismissed with
prejudice.

   -- California Plaintiffs' claim under the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act (California Count IV) is dismissed with
prejudice.

   -- Missouri Plaintiffs' claim under the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act (Missouri Count I) is dismissed with prejudice.

   -- Plaintiffs' claims for fraud -- Minnesota Count VIII,
California Count VIII, Florida Count V, Georgia Count VI, Kansas
Count V, Missouri Count V, New Jersey Count V, New Mexico Count
IV, New York Count VI, Pennsylvania Count IV, Tennessee Count IV,
Texas Count IV, and Washington Count V are dismissed without
prejudice.

   -- Plaintiffs' claims under the: Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act
(Minnesota Count I); California Unfair Competition Law
(California Count II); California False Advertising Law
(California Count III); Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act (Florida Count I); Kansas Consumer Protection Act
(Kansas Count I); New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (New Jersey Count
III); New Mexico Unfair Trade Practices Act (New Mexico Count I);
Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act-Consumer Protection Act
(Texas Count I) are dismissed without prejudice.

   -- Plaintiffs' claim under the: Minnesota Deceptive Trade
Practices Act (Minnesota Count II); Minnesota Unlawful Trade
Practices Act (Minnesota Count III); Georgia Uniform Deceptive
Trade Practices Act (Georgia Count II); Georgia Fair Business
Practices Act (Georgia Count I); General Business Law (New York
Counts I and II); and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Claim (Minnesota
Count VI) are dismissed with prejudice.

3M's Motion to Strike Punitive Damages is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 1, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yatnwpa2
from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda M.
Williams, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel E. Gustafson --
dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel C.
Hedlund -- dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC,
David A. Goodwin, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Eric S. Taubel, Gustafson
Gluek PLLC, Korey A. Nelson -- knelson@burnscharest.com -- Burns
Charest LLP, pro hac vice, Warren T. Burns --
wburns@burnscharest.com -- Burns Charest LLP, pro hac vice &
William B. Thompson -- wthompson@burnscharest.com -- Burns
Charest LLP, pro hac vice.

3M Company, Defendant, represented by Laura Reilly --
laura.reilly@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels, Tyler A. Young
-- tyler.young@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Wendy
J. Wildung -- wendy.wildung@faegrebd.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels
LLP.


AETERNA ZENTARIS: Securities Suit over Macrilen Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Aeterna Zentaris Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit
related to the safety and efficacy of Macrilen(TM), Aeterna
Zentaris said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

The Company and certain of its former officers are defendants in
a putative class action lawsuit brought on behalf of shareholders
of the Company. The pending lawsuit is the result of the
consolidation of several lawsuits, the first of which was filed
on November 11, 2014. The plaintiffs filed their amended
consolidated complaint on April 10, 2015.

The amended complaint alleged violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements made by the defendants between August 30,
2011 and November 6, 2014 (the "Class Period"), regarding the
safety and efficacy of Macrilen(TM) and the prospects for the
approval of the Company's new drug application for the product by
the FDA. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class comprised of
purchasers of the Company's common shares during the Class Period
and seek unspecified damages, costs and expenses and such other
relief as determined by the Court.

On March 2, 2015, the lawsuits were consolidated into one class
action, and a Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel were appointed. On
April 10, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. On May
26, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the class action.
On September 14, 2015, the Court dismissed the lawsuit, but
granted the plaintiffs leave to amend. In dismissing the lawsuit,
the Court affirmed that the plaintiffs had failed to state a
claim. On October 14, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. The Company subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint.

On March 2, 2016, the Court issued an order granting the
Company's motion to dismiss the complaint in part and denying it
in part. The Court dismissed certain of the Company's former
officers from the lawsuit. The Court allowed the claim that the
Company misrepresented and omitted material facts from its public
statements during the Class Period to proceed against the Company
and its former CEO, who departed in 2013, while dismissing such
claims against other former officers. The Court also allowed a
claim for "controlling person" liability to proceed against
certain former officers.

The Company filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's
March 2, 2016 order on March 16, 2016 and filed an answer to the
second amended complaint on April 6, 2016. On June 30, 2016, the
Court issued an order denying the Company's motion for
reconsideration.

Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on May 8,
2017, on which a hearing was held on July 20, 2017. The court
granted the motion for class certification on February 28, 2018,
which the company appealed. The company filed an interlocutory
petition for review on March 14, 2018. Lead Plaintiff's
opposition to the petition was due on Monday, March 26, 2018.

Aeterna Zentaris Inc. is a specialty biopharmaceutical company
engaged in developing novel treatments in oncology and
endocrinology. The Company's pipeline encompasses compounds from
drug discovery to regulatory approval.


ALL SAINTS HOME: Roseborough Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MONICA ROSEBOROUGH, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. ALL SAINTS HOME CARE, INC., ALL SAINTS
HEALTH CARE, LLC, and ALL SAINTS HEALTH HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No.
6:18-cv-01085 (D. Kan., March 12, 2018), alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees an overtime premium for hours worked over 40
in a workweek and, instead, paid them at their regular straight-
time rate for hours over 40.

All Saints Home Care, Inc., is a Kansas corporation doing
business within the state of Kansas and maintains its
headquarters in Wichita, Kansas.  All Saints Health Care, LLC,
and All Saints Health Holdings, LLC, are Kansas limited liability
companies doing business within the state of Kansas and maintains
its headquarters in Wichita.

All Saints Home Care provides senior and home care services
including meal preparation, medication reminders, general
housecleaning, errands, grocery shopping, and personal care.  All
Saints Home Care employs approximately 1,000 home care workers,
who provide these services to its clients in the clients'
homes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George A. Hanson, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Laura E. Reasons, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          Facsimile: (312) 253-1443
          E-mail: lreasons@dlcfirm.com

               - and -

          Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq.
          Mark M. Abramowitz, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY
          7556 Mentor Ave.
          Mentor, OH 44060
          Telephone: (440) 953-8888
          Facsimile: (440) 953-9138
          E-mail: kabbarno@dlcfirm.com
                  mabramowitz@dlcfirm.com


AMBROSIA BAKERY: Sued by Ortega for Not Paying Minimum & OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NOEMI RUIZ ORTEGA, ADRIAN D. VELASQUEZ, and JUAN DOMINGO
VELASQUEZ ROSALES, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. AMBROSIA BAKERY CAFE INC. (D/B/A BREAD FACTORY), 935
8TH AVENUE BAKERY CORP. (D/B/A BREAD FACTORY), 935 EIGHTH AVENUE
LLC (D/B/A BREAD FACTORY), FRANK HALKIADAKIS, NIKOLAOS GLENOIS,
MIKO SOMARAKIS (A.K.A NICHOLAS SOMALAKIS), NICK TETENES, and
DIMITRIOS (A.K.A. JIMMY) RAPTIS, Case No. 1:18-cv-02207
(S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiffs worked
for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours
compensation for the hours that they worked.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a bakery and cafe,
located at 935 8th Avenue, in New York City under the name "The
Bread Factory Cafe."  The Individual Defendants serve or served
as owners, managers, principals, or agents of Defendant
Corporations and, through these corporate entities, operate or
operated the Bakery/cafe as a joint or unified enterprise.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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@employmentcompliance.com


AMEDISYS HOLDING: Court Denies Renewed Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee, Eastern Division, denied without prejudice Plaintiffs'
First Amended Placeholder Motion for Class Certification in the
case captioned ADVANCED REHAB AND MEDICAL, P.C., Individually and
as the Representative of a Class of Similarly-Situated Persons,
Plaintiff, v. AMEDISYS HOLDING, L.L.C., Defendant, No. 1:17-cv-
01149-JDB-egb (W.D. Tenn.).

As was the case with the original complaint, the amended pleading
was accompanied by an amended "placeholder" motion for class
certification.

The initial complaint in this matter was filed by Advanced Rehab
and Medical, P.C., individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons, against Comprehensive Home
Healthcare Services, Inc.; Amedisys, Inc.; Amedisys Sp-Tn,
L.L.C.; Amedisys Tennessee, L.L.C.; HHC, L.L.C. d/b/a Amedisys
Health Care; and John Does One Through Five, alleging violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by
the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, 47 U.S.C. Section 227.

The stated purpose of the motion was to avert a buy-off attempt
by the Defendant, a tactic sometimes utilized by class-action
defendants to prevent a case from proceeding to a determination
on class certification by mooting the named plaintiff's claims
through an offer of only individual, rather than class-wide,
relief.

In Wilson v. Gordon, 822 F.3d 934 (6th Cir.), reh'g en banc
denied (Aug. 1, 2016), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
recognized that, ordinarily, when the named plaintiff's claim
becomes moot prior to class certification, dismissal of the
action is required.
Thus, because Wilson forecloses the ability of Amedisys to moot
Advanced Rehab's class action by picking off its individual
claim, no placeholder motion is necessary.

The Plaintiff's "placeholder" motion for class certification is
denied without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 1, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ydaflbtx from Leagle.com.

Advanced Rehab and Medical, PC, A Tennessee corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by Brian John Wanca --
bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- ANDERSON & WANCA, pro hac vice, Ryan
Michael Kelly -- rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- ANDERSON & WANCA,
pro hac vice & Benjamin Cole Aaron, NEAL & HARWELL PLC, 1201
Demonbreun St Ste 1000. Nashville, TN, 37203-5078

Amedisys Holding, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kevin C. Baltz -
- kevin.baltz@butlersnow.com -- BUTLER SNOW LLP.


ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Silicosis/Tuberculosis Suit Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
AngloGold Ashanti Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that the Registrar of the Supreme Court
of Appeal has postponed the hearing date in a class action suit
related to Silicosis/Tuberculosis suit, until further notice.

On 03 March 2011, in Mankayi vs. AngloGold Ashanti, the
Constitutional Court of South Africa held that section 35(1) of
the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, 1993
does not cover an "employee" who qualifies for compensation in
respect of "compensable diseases" under the Occupational Diseases
in Mines and Works Act, 1973 (ODMWA). This judgment allows such
qualifying employee to pursue a civil claim for damages against
the employer. Following the Constitutional Court decision,
AngloGold Ashanti has become subject to numerous claims relating
to silicosis and other Occupational Lung Diseases (OLD),
including class actions and individual claims.

In November 2014, Anglo American South Africa, AngloGold Ashanti,
Gold Fields Limited, Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited and
Sibanye Gold Limited formed an industry working group on OLD (OLD
Working Group) to address issues relating to compensation and
medical care for occupational lung disease in the gold mining
industry in South Africa. The working group now also includes
African Rainbow Minerals (ARM). The OLD Working Group remains of
the view that achieving a comprehensive solution which is both
fair to past, present and future employees, and sustainable for
the sector, is preferable to protracted litigation.

AngloGold Ashanti, along with other mining companies including
Anglo American South Africa, ARM, Gold Fields Limited, Harmony
Gold Mining Company Limited, DRDGold Limited, Randgold and
Exploration Company Limited, and Sibanye Gold Limited, were
served with a consolidated class action application on 21 August
2013. On 13 May 2016, the South Gauteng High Court of South
Africa ruled in favour of the applicants and found that there
were sufficient common issues to certify two industry-wide
classes: a Silicosis Class and a Tuberculosis Class.

On 03 June 2016, AngloGold Ashanti, together with certain of the
other mining companies, filed an application with the High Court
for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA). On 13
September 2016, the SCA granted the mining companies leave to
appeal the entire High Court ruling to the SCA.

Settlement negotiations between the OLD Working Group and legal
representatives of the Silicosis Class and the Tuberculosis Class
have reached an advanced stage. On 10 January 2018, in response
to a postponement request from all parties involved in the appeal
due to the advanced stage of settlement negotiations, the
Registrar of the SCA postponed the hearing date until further
notice.

It is possible that additional class actions and/or individual
claims relating to silicosis and/or other OLD will be filed
against AngloGold Ashanti in the future. AngloGold Ashanti will
defend all current and subsequently filed claims on their merits.
Should AngloGold Ashanti be unsuccessful in defending any such
claims, or in otherwise favourably resolving perceived
deficiencies in the national occupational disease compensation
framework that were identified in the earlier decision by the
Constitutional Court, such matters would have an adverse effect
on its financial position, which could be material.

AngloGold Ashanti, a gold mining company with a globally diverse,
world-class portfolio of operations and projects, is
headquartered in Johannesburg, South Africa. AngloGold Ashanti is
the third largest gold mining company in the world, measured by
production.


ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: La Colosa Projects-Related Suits Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
AngloGold Ashanti Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that the company continues to defend
four class action suits related to the Santa Maria-Montecristo
and La Colosa projects.

Four (4) class action lawsuits are pending in relation to
AngloGold Ashanti Colombia S.A.'s (AGAC) Santa Maria-Montecristo
and La Colosa projects. Each lawsuit aims to stop exploration and
mining in certain restricted areas affected by the projects due
to environmental concerns or alleged breaches of environmental
laws. In one of these lawsuits, the court granted the plaintiff a
preliminary injunction in September 2011, suspending the mining
concession contracts of the Santa Maria-Montecristo project. The
injunction remains in place and has been challenged by AGAC;
however, it is not a critical path item for the project.

In another lawsuit, on October 10, 2016, Tolima's Administrative
Court ordered that a technical study be prepared by April 2017 by
a panel of seven experts (selected by the plaintiff, AGAC,
universities, the government and an NGO) to determine whether the
La Colosa Project presents a "threat" to the environment during
its exploration phase. AGAC successfully appealed the order to
prepare the technical study and the order has been temporarily
suspended, pending resolution by the State Council (appellate
court).

In another of the lawsuits, on December 4, 2017, Ibague's Third
Administrative Court ordered that a technical study similar to
the one described on the October 2016 order be prepared for the
La Colosa Project. AGAC also intends to appeal this order. If the
studies were to conclude that a "threat" exists, certain
activities at La Colosa may be suspended.

While plaintiffs in all four cases have petitioned the courts to
cancel concession contracts for the mining projects, the company
believes that courts and judges in Colombia do not have the
authority to order such cancellations. Such power, by law, vests
solely in the mining authority, which has the discretion to
declare concessions void if a contractor breaches applicable
environmental laws or regulations. To date, the company is not
aware of the Colombian government having ever declared a
concession void for these reasons.

AGAC continues to oppose, through a variety of integrated legal
and political strategies, the class action lawsuits that have
been filed against it. If plaintiffs prevail and AGAC's core
concession contracts are cancelled, the company would be required
to abandon the La Colosa Project and all of AGAC's other existing
mining concession contracts and pending proposals for new mining
concession contracts, would also be cancelled. Given the inherent
legal and factual uncertainties with respect to the pending
claims, no reliable estimate can be made for the obligation.

AngloGold Ashanti, a gold mining company with a globally diverse,
world-class portfolio of operations and projects, is
headquartered in Johannesburg, South Africa. AngloGold Ashanti is
the third largest gold mining company in the world, measured by
production.


APPLE INC: Sued by Fung Over iOS Updates That Slowed iPhones
------------------------------------------------------------
RICKY FUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. APPLE INC., a California corporation, Case No. 3:18-
cv-01585 (N.D. Cal., March 13, 2018), is brought against Apple
for its alleged fraudulent and deceptive interference into the
operation and performance of its iPhone devices, which were
updated with certain operating system software, and its failure
to disclose that it has purposely slowed down the processing and
operations of the Devices through such updates.

The Devices are comprised of the series 6 and 7 iPhones,
including iPhone 6, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, iPhone 7, and
iPhone 7 Plus.

Instead of enhancing the performance of the Devices through iOS
updates, which are compatible and support the devices' operating
systems, as Apple had represented, Apple distributed iOS updates
which interfered with the Devices' performance, Mr. Fung alleges.
He notes that on December 20, 2017, Apple confirmed in a
statement that the Company's iOS updates have, in fact, slowed
the performance of Devices, interfered with their normal usage,
and limited their performance under certain conditions to prevent
the Devices from reaching their full processing power.

Apple is a California corporation with its principal offices
located in Cupertino, California.  Apple designs, manufactures,
and markets mobile communication and media devices, and personal
computers to consumers, and small and mid-sized businesses; and
education, enterprise, and government customers worldwide.  The
Company also sells related software, services, accessories,
networking solutions, and third-party digital content and
applications.  The Company offers iPhone, a line of smartphones;
iPad, a line of multi-purpose tablets; and Mac, a line of desktop
and portable personal computers, as well as operating systems
comprising iOS, macOS, watchOS, and tvOS.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean Tamura-Sato, Esq.
          Lisa P. Mak, Esq.
          MINAMI TAMAKI LLP
          360 Post Street, 8th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 788-9000
          Facsimile: (415) 398-3887
          E-mail: seant@minamitamaki.com
                  lmpk@minamitamaki.com


ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL: Rabbi Fellig Dropped From "McCoy" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Carlos Murguia entered a memorandum & order in the
lawsuit entitled DERON MCCOY, JR. v. ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL
SERVICES, et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-03027-CM-KGG (D. Kan.):

   -- granting as to Rabbi M. Fellig the Motion to Dismiss filed
      by Defendants Aramark Correctional Services, Paul Church,
      Julie Dockendorff, and Rabbi M. Fellig.  The Motion to
      Dismiss is granted on any individual capacity RLUIPA
      claims, and denied in all other respects;

   -- granting Defendant Patricia Berry's Motion to Dismiss
      regarding the Section 1983 claim against her in her
      official capacity and for any retroactive relief.  Berry's
      Motion to Dismiss is denied regarding any individual
      capacity claim against her for money damages or prospective
      relief under Section 1983, and granted regarding the
      Plaintiff's claims under the Religious Land Use and
      Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000;

   -- denying Defendant Cheryl Allen's Motion to Dismiss
      regarding any individual capacity RLUIPA claim and denied
      in all other respects;

   -- granting Defendant Allen's Motion for Extension of Time.
      Defendant Allen shall respond to plaintiff's Motion for
      Summary Judgment within three weeks of this order's entry;

   -- denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's Motion Requesting
      Class Certification; and

   -- denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint
      Counsel.

Mr. McCoy, proceeding pro se, is currently incarcerated at El
Dorado Correctional Facility in El Dorado, Kansas.  He filed this
case on January 27, 2016, and was granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis.  On August 31, 2016, the court entered an order
requiring the Kansas Department of Corrections to review
plaintiff's complaint, and to file a "Martinez Report."  KDOC
filed its report on February 28, 2017.

The Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, filed June 14, 2017,
claims he was denied his First Amendment right to practice his
religion pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, when he was not
provided modified Kosher diet meals in accordance with his
religious beliefs.  He asserts that the Defendants violated his
rights by failing to implement a policy or practice to purchase
and serve Kosher meals to him as required by his religion, also
citing the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
of 2000.

A copy of the Memorandum & Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=E1X2LSAL


ATLANTIC RECOVERY: Scavo Seeks Damages for Invasion of Privacy
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SCAVO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ATLANTIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC; DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:18-cv-01094-GJP (E.D. Pa., March 14, 2018),
seeks damages and other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the Defendants' alleged illegal actions in
negligently, knowingly and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on
his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby, invading his privacy.

Atlantic Recovery Solutions, LLC, is a company involved in
consumer debt buying and recovery/collection.  The identities of
the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cynthia Z. Levin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          1150 First Avenue, Suite 501
          King of Prussia, PA 19406
          Telephone: (888) 595-9111
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: clevin@attomeysforconsumers.com


AVATEL TECHNOLOGIES: "Jones" Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida transferred venue of the case captioned JONES REAL
ESTATE, INC., Plaintiff, v. AVATEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., THE CIT
GROUP INC. and CIT BANK, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 17-23933-CIV-
O'SULLIVAN (S.D. Fla.).

None of the parties are located in the Southern District of
Florida.  The plaintiff is a Missouri corporation with its
principal place of business in Missouri.  The defendant, CIT
Group Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Livingston, New York. CIT Bank, N.A., is the
principal bank subsidiary of CIT Group, Inc.'s. with an address
in Jacksonville, Florida, but purportedly has headquarters in
California.  Avatel Technologies, Inc., is a Florida corporation
with a principal place of business in Brandon, Florida.  The
plaintiff's attorneys are also in Brandon, Florida.

CIT Group seeks to transfer the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1404(a). Section 1404(a) provides that for the
convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice,
a district court may transfer any civil action to any other
district or division where it might have been brought or to any
district or division to which all parties have consented.

To determine whether transfer is appropriate, the Eleventh
Circuit requires the Court to weigh the following Section 1404(a)
factors:

   (1) the convenience of the witnesses;

   (2) the location of relevant documents and the relative ease
of access to sources of proof;

   (3) the convenience of the parties;

   (4) the locus of operative facts;

   (5) the availability of process to compel the attendance of
unwilling witnesses;

   (6) the relative means of the parties;

   (7) a forum's familiarity with the governing law;

   (8) the weight accorded a plaintiff's choice of forum; and

   (9) trial efficiency and the interests of justice, based on
the totality of the circumstances.

Convenience of Witnesses

The plaintiff is a foreign corporation located in Missouri. The
plaintiff has not identified any witnesses in the Southern
District of Florida but instead speculates that discovery may
reveal facts that substantiate a connection to the Southern
District of Florida. The only connection to the Southern District
that the plaintiff has asserted is receipt of a letter that was
mailed from a non-party in Miami to the plaintiff in Missouri.
The telephone equipment that is the subject of the Lease
Agreement is located in Missouri.

Because none of the parties are located in the Southern District
and the plaintiff has not identified any witnesses that reside in
the Southern District of Florida, the undersigned finds that this
factor favors transfer.

Location of Relevant Documents and the Relative Ease of Access to
Sources of Proof

CIT Group's documents are located in New York. Based in Missouri,
one would expect the plaintiff's relevant documents to be located
in Missouri. No party is located in the Southern District of
Florida. The plaintiff has not identified any documents that
would be located in the Southern District of Florida. A letter
was sent from a Miami address to the plaintiff in Missouri. The
plaintiff is seeking to assert actions on behalf of a nationwide
class as well as a Missouri class of similarly situated persons.
This factor favors transfer.

Convenience of Parties

None of the parties resides in the Southern District of Florida.
The plaintiff signed a Lease Agreement with CIT Bank, N.A. that
provided for New York to be the governing law and consented to
jurisdiction in New York. The plaintiff also waived any objection
relating to improper venue or forum non conveniens when it signed
the Lease Agreement. The plaintiff relies on the fact that its
counsel is located in Brandon, Florida. Convenience to counsel
'is generally not an appropriate consideration' in a 1404(a)
transfer motion.

Because neither the plaintiff nor the defendants reside in the
Southern District of Florida, this factor favors transfer.

Locus of Operative Facts

The Lease Agreement was not made in the Southern District of
Florida and was not to be performed here. None of the parties in
the Amended Complaint are located in the Southern District of
Florida. The leased equipment was not located in the Southern
District of Florida. The insurance charges were neither billed
from nor paid to or from the Southern District of Florida.
The locus of operative facts are not in the Southern District of
Florida and this factor favors transfer.

Availability of Process to Compel Attendance of Unwilling
Witnesses

Neither party discusses the availability of process to compel
attendance of unwilling witnesses. This factor is neutral.

Relative Means of Parties

The plaintiff argues that courts have routinely not accepted that
a defendant corporation like CIT Group will be inconvenienced by
the cost of production of witnesses in another forum if that
corporation has 'ample financial resources. Neither party
submitted evidence as to their respective means. Presently, the
plaintiff is maintaining this action in a foreign forum. Both the
Southern District of Florida and the Southern District of New
York are foreign to the plaintiff and require the plaintiff to
incur travel expenses.

This factor is neutral.

Relative Means of Parties

The plaintiff argues that courts have routinely not accepted that
a defendant corporation like CIT [Group] will be inconvenienced
by the cost of production of witnesses in another forum if that
corporation has 'ample financial resources. Neither party
submitted evidence as to their respective means. Presently, the
plaintiff is maintaining this action in a foreign forum. Both the
Southern District of Florida and the Southern District of New
York are foreign to the plaintiff and require the plaintiff to
incur travel expenses.

This factor is neutral.

Forum's Familiarity with the Governing Law

The plaintiff does not cite any case law regarding the forum's
familiarity with governing law. The Lease Agreement between the
plaintiff and CIT Bank, N.A. provides that federal laws and New
York law applies.

This factor favors transfer.

Weight Accorded a Plaintiff's Choice of Forum

CIT Group reiterates that the plaintiff's choice of forum should
be given little to no weight because the plaintiff agreed to a
forum selection clause and waived any objections related to
improper venue in New York. CIT Group relies on Atlantic Marine
Construction Co. v. United States District Court, 134 S.Ct. 568,
581 (2013).

In Atlantic Marine, the Supreme Court held that the presence of a
valid forum-selection clause requires district courts to adjust
their usual Section 1404(a) analysis in three ways.

First, the plaintiff's choice of forum merits no weight.

Second, a court evaluating a defendant's Sec 1404(a) motion to
transfer based on a forum-selection clause should not consider
arguments about the parties' private interests.

Third, when a party bound by a forum-selection clause flouts its
contractual obligation and files suit in a different forum, a
Section 1404(a) transfer of venue will not carry with it the
original venue's choice-of-law rules-a factor that in some
circumstances may affect public-interest considerations.

In its Response, the plaintiff argues that: (1) CIT Group is not
a signatory to the Lease Agreement and does not meet the close
relationship test to enforce it as a non-signatory; and (2) the
provision is a choice of law provision rather than a choice of
forum provisions.

In the present action, the forum selection provision is broad and
applies to any claims, controversies, disputes or causes of
action whether in contract, tort or otherwise.

The claims asserted against the defendants are intertwined. The
Lessor, CIT Bank, N.A., is CIT Group's principal bank subsidiary.
Because the Southern District of Florida is a foreign forum for
the plaintiff; the plaintiff seeks to represent a putative
nationwide class as well as a Missouri class; and the plaintiff
consented to the jurisdiction of courts located in New York and
waived any objection relating to improper venue or forum non
conveniens" when it signed the Lease Agreement, the Court awards
the plaintiff's choice of forum little to no weight.

This factor weighs in favor of transfer.

Trial Efficiency and the Interest of Justice

CIT Group argues that the existence of the forum selection clause
in the Lease Agreement weighs in favor of transfer because the
allegations in the Amended Complaint are intertwined against all
of the defendants.

In its opposition, the plaintiff acknowledges that in making the
transfer analysis, courts should consider both private and public
interests in order to determine the appropriate forum; while
private factors focus on the burden each party will face if
transfer is or is not granted, public interest factors included,
inter alia, 'the connection with the chosen forum (in order to
avoid juries having to hear cases which are wholly unrelated to
local interests), and a host of other factors relating to
judicial efficiency.

The plaintiff opposes transfer on three grounds regarding trial
efficiency and the interest of justice. First, the plaintiff
argues that CIT Group did not quickly move to transfer because of
the approximate six (6) week period of time between when the
complaint was filed and the motion to transfer venue was filed.
None of the cases cited by the plaintiff indicate that filing a
motion to transfer within six (6) weeks of the filing of the
complaint is unreasonable.

Second, the plaintiff argues that CIT Group as well as the other
parties to the case consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction
and did not consent to the reassignment to any other or successor
magistrate judge. The plaintiff fails to cite any case law to
support its position that a consent to magistrate judge
jurisdiction precludes a party from filing a motion to transfer
venue.

Third, the plaintiff argues that the relative congestion of the
dockets between the Southern District of Florida and the Southern
District of New York militate against transfer.

The Court finds that the plaintiff's untimeliness and waiver
arguments lack merit. Given the totality of circumstances,
including: (1) that the Southern District of Florida is neither
the plaintiff's home forum nor the locus of the operative facts;
(2) that the Lease Agreement provides that New York law applies
and that the plaintiff waives any objections to venue in New
York; and (3) that courts should avoid having a jury sit on a
case with little to no connection to the Southern District of
Florida, the Court finds that trial efficiency and the interest
of justice favors transfer.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 1, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yd2kjrf3 from Leagle.com.

Jones Real Estate, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Kyle
Whittemore -- jason@wagnerlaw.com -- Wagner McLaughlin, P.A.
The CIT Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Cory William
Eichhorn -- Cory.Eichhorn@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight LLP,
Cynthia G. Burnside -- cynthia.burnside@hklaw.com -- Holland &
Knight LLP, pro hac vice & Gregory J. Digel --
greg.digel@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight LLP.

Avatel Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Randall Jay
Love, Randall J. Love, P.A., 7236 State Rd 52 Ste 13, New Port
Richey, FL 34652


BANK OF AMERICA: Dismissal Bid Briefing Schedule Set in "Mendez"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California set a Briefing Scheduling for Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss the case captioned LORI A. MENDEZ, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF
AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01509-LJO-SAB (E.D.
Calif.).

The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the
complaint was not filed within the statute of limitations period.
The Defendant's motion was set for oral argument on March 21,
2018. On February 19, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an opposition to
the motion to dismiss.

The Defendant moved to dismiss the first amended complaint on the
ground that the Plaintiff was not entitled to benefit from the
discovery rule to extend the statute of limitations. In her
opposition, the Plaintiff includes a single paragraph stating
that she is entitled to tolling due to the pendency of a class
action asserting claims substantially similar to those here.

While the Plaintiff cites to American Pipe and Construction Co.
et al., v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 94 S.Ct. 756 (1974), the rule in
American Pipe applies within the federal court system in federal
question class actions and protects a plaintiff who has relied on
the filing of a prior class action to vindicate the right in
question.

The Court will require the Defendant to address whether the
Plaintiff is entitled to American Pipe tolling under California
law in their reply.  The Plaintiff will be given the opportunity
to file a surreply solely on this issue if she so desires.  The
Defendant must file a reply which includes legal analysis on
whether American Pipe tolling would be applied under California
law to the claims in this action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 1, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ydx7encu from Leagle.com.

Lori A. Mendez, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlyn C. Prichard --
cpritchard@awkolaw.com -- Aylstock Witkin Kreis & Overhotlz,
PLLC, pro hac vice & Sin-Ting Mary Liu -- mliu@awkolaw.com --
Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz PLLC.

Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, represented by Adam Frederick
Summerfield -- asummerfield@mcguirewoods.com -- Mcguirewoods LLP.


BANK OF AMERICA: Illegally Charged Overdraft Fees, Kazerouni Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Masih Kazerouni, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bank of America, National
Association, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00372 (C.D. Cal., March 7,
2018), seeks monetary damages, restitution and declaratory relief
arising from the illegal assessment and collection of overdraft
fees on accounts that were never actually overdrawn in breach of
contract and in violation of the Electronic Fund Transfers Act.

Bank of America is global bank in the business of providing
customers with a variety of banking products and services.
Kazerouni opened a checking account with Bank of America and was
provided with a debit card. Plaintiff claims that the Defendant
employs a practice whereby debits are posted to customer accounts
out of chronological order, processes them starting with the
largest debit and ending with the smallest debit, so as to
generate the largest possible number of overdrafts, often posting
debit card transactions that have accumulated over multiple days
on a single date. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE AND SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 to 26
      Email: Josh@westcoastlitigation.com


BFY BRANDS INC: Reaves Files "Slack Fill" Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------
Derrick Reaves, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BFY Brands, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-
cv- 02065 (S.D. N.Y., March 7, 2018), seeks restitution and
disgorgement of all amounts obtained by Defendant as a result of
its misconduct, together with interest thereon, all recoverable
compensatory and other damages, actual and/or statutory damages,
statutory prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any amounts,
payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such other
relief resulting from fraud and violation of New York General
Business Law (False Advertising) and various state consumer
protection laws.

BFY Brands, Inc. packages, markets, and sells 1.0 ounce
Popcorners (R) products under its "Our Little Rebellion" line of
products. Said product bags are made to appear bloated with chips
but are actually mostly filled with air, notes the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


BIG HEART: Dog Food Contains Harmful Sedative, "Roupe" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Roupe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Big Heart Pet Brands, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-01465 (N.D. Cal., March 7, 2018), seeks redress
for negligent misrepresentation, negligence, breach of express
and implied warranty, fraudulent concealment and violations of
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California False
Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition Law, California
Commercial Code, California Commercial Code, Georgia Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Georgia False Advertising
Law.

Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, labels, distributes,
and sells Gravy Train line of dog food. Plaintiff alleges that
they contain pentobarbital, a barbiturate drug used as a sedative
and anesthetic for animals. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

              - and -

       Kevin A. Seely, Esq.
       Steven M. McKany, Esq.
       ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
       600 B Street, Suite 1900
       San Diego, CA 92101
       Telephone: (619) 525-3990
       Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
       E-mail: kseely@robbinsarroyo.com
               smckany@robbinsarroyo.com

               - and -

       Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
       Karla M. Gluek, Esq.
       Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
       Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
       GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
       Canadian Pacific Plaza
       120 S. Sixth St., Suite 2600
       Minneapolis, MN 55402
       Tel: (612) 333-8844
       Fax: (612) 339-6622
       Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
              kgluek@gustafsongluek.com
              jbourne@gustafsongluek.com
              rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com

              - and -

       Charles LaDuca, Esq.
       Katherine Van Dyck, Esq.
       CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
       4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200
       Washington, DC 20016
       Telephone: (202) 789-3960
       Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
       Email: charles@cuneolaw.com
              kvandyck@cuneolaw.com

              - and -

       Joseph DePalma, Esq.
       Susana Cruz Hodge, Esq.
       LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
       570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
       Newark, NJ 07102
       Telephone: (973) 623-3000
       E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
               scruzhodge@litedepalma.com


BIG HEART: Court Dismisses Nationwide Classes in "Van Mourik"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In NANCY VAN MOURIK, Plaintiff, v. BIG HEART PET BRANDS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-03889-JD (N.D. Cal.), Defendant Big
Heart Pet Brands, Inc., moved to dismiss the complaint under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), 8(a), and 9(b).

Plaintiff Nancy van Mourik brings the dispute over the use of the
word "natural" to pet food.  She challenges representations by
the defendant that its pet food products are All Natural With
Added Vitamins, Minerals, & Nutrients. Van Mourik alleges that
these statements are false and deceptive because the foods
contain synthetic or artificial ingredients.  She sues on behalf
of putative classes of California and nationwide consumers under
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), the Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), the False Advertising Law (FAL), breach of
express and implied warranties, common law fraud, intentional
misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.

To meet the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) and to survive a
Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a claim must provide a short and
plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.
Rule 9(b)'s specificity standards apply because Van Mourik
alleges false and misleading product representations that sound
in fraud.

The Putative California Class Claims

Van Mourik divides her claims into a set for a putative
California class under California law, and a set for a putative
nationwide class.

Van Mourik is a resident of Texas who saw the challenged
advertisements in Texas and bought the defendant's dog food
there. She has no personal connection whatsoever to California,
and is not herself a member of the putative California class.
While this at first blush might seem to be only a question of her
adequacy as a class representative under Rule 23(a), it raises
more fundamental concerns of standing.

Accordingly, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California dismissed all claims on behalf of the
California classes without prejudice. Van Mourik may seek to cure
these standing defects by adding a named plaintiff who is a
California resident.

The Putative Nationwide Class Claims

Van Mourik does not specify which state's laws she means to sue
under, nor does she clearly address the elements of any of these
claims. These claims are all inadequately pleaded and fail to
advise the defendant of what it is called to answer for legally.
They are dismissed with leave to amend.

Choice Of Law For van Mourik's Individual UCL, CLRA and FAL
Claims

Consequently, under California's choice of law principles, and in
the facts and circumstances of this case, Texas law governs van
Mourik's claims. Failure to apply it would impair Texas's greater
interest in overseeing the consumer protection of its residents

Van Mourik devotes much of her opposition to arguing that
"California has sufficiently significant contact with Plaintiff's
claims that application of California's consumer protection laws
would not be arbitrary or unfair." That significant contacts
inquiry is not part of the choice of law analysis; rather, it is
relevant to the threshold question of whether California law may
constitutionally bind foreign unnamed class members. Those due
process issues are not implicated here for van Mourik's
individual claims.

Van Mourik cannot sue individually under the CLRA, FAL, or UCL.
Those individual claims are dismissed with prejudice.

The Individual Implied And Express Warranty Claims

A different result is reached for van Mourik's individual express
and implied warranty claims. As an initial matter, and contrary
to Big Heart's contention, the complaint plausibly alleges that a
reasonable consumer could be misled by the challenged
representations. A consumer might reasonably understand All
Natural Dog Food With Added Vitamins, Minerals, & Nutrients to
mean that the food is free of synthetic additives apart from the
added vitamins, minerals, and nutrients.

But the complaint alleges that the foods contain synthetic and
artificial ingredients that are not vitamins, minerals, or
nutrients, including sodium tripolyphosphate, citric acid, and
lactic acid. A consumer could also reasonably understand Big
Heart's label to mean that the added vitamins, minerals, and
nutrients are themselves naturally derived rather than
synthetically produced.

These allegations of deception and confusion are well within the
bounds of Rule 8.

All claims on behalf of California or nationwide classes are
dismissed with leave to amend. Van Mourik's individual UCL, CLRA,
and FAL claims are dismissed with prejudice. Van Mourik's
individual common law fraud, intentional misrepresentation, and
quasi-contract/unjust enrichment claims are dismissed with leave
to amend. Van Mourik may proceed on her individual express and
implied warranty claims.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 1, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ya9yzphj from Leagle.com.

Nancy van Mourik, Plaintiff, represented by George Volney Granade
-- ggranade@reesellp.com -- Reese LLP, Michael Robert Reese --
mreese@reesellp.com -- Reese LLP, Benjamin Heikali --
bheikali@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and Faruqi LLP & Barbara Ann
Rohr -- brohr@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and Faruqi, LLP.

Big Heart Pet Brands, Inc., Defendant, represented by Morgan E.
Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, Ronald Y. Rothstein, Winston and
Strawn LLP & Sean D. Meenan, Winston and Strawn.


BOB EVANS: Merger Class Suit Terminated
---------------------------------------
The case, Miller v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:17-
cv-01538 (D. Del.), which challenges a merger transaction between
Bob Evans Farms and Post Holdings, Inc., was closed on March 2,
2018.  A notice of voluntary dismissal of the case was filed by
the plaintiff, David Miller, on March 1, 2018.

The Companies on January 12, 2018, completed their transaction
wherein Post acquired Bob Evans.  Pursuant to the terms of the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of September 18, 2017,
among Post, Haystack Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Post, and Bob Evans, pursuant to which Merger Sub merged with and
into Bob Evans, with Bob Evans surviving the merger as a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Post.

Bob Evans said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended October
27, 2017, that the company and the other named defendants in the
complaints entered into a memorandum of understanding with the
plaintiffs in the cases Miller v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:17-CV-01538-VAC-CJB and Franchi v. Bob Evans Farms,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-CV-00961-MHW-CMV.

Following the announcement of the Merger, on or around October
31, 2017, two putative class action complaints were filed by
purported stockholders of the Company in the United States
District Courts for the District of Delaware and the Southern
District of Ohio. The cases are captioned Miller v. Bob Evans
Farms, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-CV-01538-VAC-CJB and Franchi
v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-CV-00961-MHW-CMV
(the "Actions"). The Actions name as defendants the Company and
the current and certain former members of the Company's board of
directors, and one of the Actions also names as defendants Post
and Merger Sub.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and certain rules promulgated thereunder by
omitting or misrepresenting certain allegedly material
information in the preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC
by the Company on October 24, 2017, which information the
plaintiffs argue is necessary for stockholders of the Company to
make an informed decision whether to vote in favor of the Merger.
The complaints seek, among other things, a declaratory judgment,
preliminary or permanent injunctive relief against the
stockholder vote on the Merger, unspecified damages, and an award
of costs, fees, and disbursements.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Actions are
without merit. However, solely in order to alleviate the costs,
risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation and to provide
additional information to its stockholders, the Company and the
other named defendants in the complaints entered into a
memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs on November 13,
2017 to resolve the individual claims asserted in the Actions,
pursuant to which the Company included certain additional
disclosures in the definitive proxy statement filed with the SEC
by the Company on November 17, 2017.

Bob Evans Farms, Inc. produces and distributes a variety of
complementary home-style, refrigerated side-dish convenience food
items and pork sausage under the Bob Evans (R), Owens, Country
Creek (R) and Pineland (R) brand names. The company is based in
New Albany, Ohio.


BRF SA: Faces "Nakamura" Suit Over Bribery Issues in Brazil
-----------------------------------------------------------
RYO NAKAMURA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. BRF S.A., PEDRO DE ANDRADE FARIA, JOSE ANTONIO DO
PRADO FAY, CLAUDIO GALEAZZI, JOSE ALEXANDRE CARNEIRO BORGES,
AUGUSTO RIBEIRO JUNIOR, LEOPOLDO VIRIATO SABOYA, and HELIO RUBENS
MENDES DOS SANTOS JUNIOR, Case No. 1:18-cv-02213 (S.D.N.Y., March
12, 2018), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements, and failed to disclose that:

     (i) BRF employees paid bribes to regulators and politicians
         to subvert inspections in order to conceal unsanitary
         practices at the Company's meatpacking plants;

    (ii) the conduct, when it came to light, would foreseeably
         subject the Company and its officers to heightened
         regulatory enforcement and/or prosecution; and

   (iii) as a result, BRF's public statements were materially
         false and misleading at all relevant times.

Founded in 1900, the Company was formerly known as "BRF-Brasil
Foods S.A." and changed its name to BRF S.A. in April 2013.  The
Company is headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil, and its American
Depositary Receipts trade on the New York Stock Exchange.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

BRF S.A. is a food processor and the world's largest poultry
exporter.  The Company's portfolio includes established brands in
Brazil and abroad, such as Sadia, Perdigao, Qualy, Chester,
Perdix and Paty.  The Company provides meat (poultry and pork),
foods processed from meats, pizzas, pastas and frozen
vegetables.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


BUMBLE BEE: Court Grants Prelim OK of "Rodriguez" Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California granted Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned MIGUEL
RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
and the general public, Plaintiff, v. BUMBLE BEE FOODS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 17cv2447-MMA (WVG) (S.D. Cal.).

The Court preliminarily approves the proposed Class Action
Settlement Agreement and finds that it appears to be proper, to
fall within the range of reasonableness, to be the product of
arm's-length and non-collusive negotiations by capable and
experienced counsel with full knowledge of the facts, the law,
and the risks inherent in litigating the Action, and with the
assistance of the assigned magistrate judge.

The Court conditionally certifies the proposed Class contained in
the Settlement, defined as:

     All persons who, between December 6, 2013, and the date a
judgment becomes Final in this Action, purchased, for household
use, and not for resale or distribution purposes, Bumble Bee's
Medium Red Smoked Salmon.

Having considered the factors set forth in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(g)(1), the Court provisionally finds The Law Office
of Jack Fitzgerald, PC, to be sufficiently experienced and
proficient in class action proceedings that they may act as Class
Counsel and are, therefore, appointed as such.

The Court provisionally appoints Plaintiff Miguel Rodriguez as
the Class Representative.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the Final
Approval Hearing will be held before the undersigned, Hon.
Michael M. Anello, on Monday, April 23, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. in
Courtroom 3D at 221 West Broadway, San Diego, California 92101,
to consider the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the
proposed Settlement preliminarily approved by this Order of
Preliminary Approval, and to consider the application of Class
Counsel for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses, and a class representative incentive award.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 1, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc6dahkl from Leagle.com.

Miguel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself, all other similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, represented by Jack
Fitzgerald -- jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- The Law Office of
Jack Fitzgerald, PC, Melanie Rae Persinger --
melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- The Law Office of Jack
Fitzgerald & Trevor Flynn -- trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com


BURLINGTON COAT: Morales Seeks to Recoup Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANA MARIA MORALES, MARICELA MARRUGO, and other similarly situated
individuals v. BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY WAREHOUSE CORPORATION
d/b/a Burlington Coat Factory, Case No. 0:18-cv-60538-JEM (S.D.
Fla., March 13, 2018), seeks to recover money damages for alleged
unpaid minimum and overtime wages, and retaliatory discharge
under the laws of the United States and of the State of Florida,
including the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Family and Medical
Leave Act of 1993.

Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation, doing business as
Burlington Coat Factory, is a company doing business in Broward
County, Florida.  Burlington operates as a retailer of branded
apparel in the United States.  The Company provides in-season and
fashion-focused merchandise, such as ladies sportswear, menswear,
coats, and family footwear, as well as baby furniture,
accessories, home decor, and gifts; designer and fashion shoes;
and baby clothing and other merchandise products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503-5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
          E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


CAN-FITE BIOPHARMA: Hearing on Piclidenoson Drug Set for Dec. 5
---------------------------------------------------------------
Can-Fite BioPharma Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that a formal hearing is scheduled for
December 5, 2018, in a suit concerning the efficacy of the
company's drug candidate, Piclidenoson.

On June 29, 2015, the Company received a lawsuit requesting
recognition of the lawsuit as a class action, naming the Company,
its Chief Executive Officer and its directors as defendants. The
lawsuit was filed with the District Court of Tel-Aviv.

The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that the Company misled
the public with regard to disclosures concerning the efficacy of
the Company's drug candidate, Piclidenoson. The claimant alleged
that he suffered personal damages of over NIS 73 thousand, while
also claiming that the shareholders of the Company suffered
damages of approximately NIS 125 million. On July 18, 2017, the
District Court of Tel-Aviv issued a ruling in which it denied the
request to recognize the lawsuit as a class action and awarded
the Company an amount of NIS 50 thousand to pay the Company's
expenses in relation to such lawsuit.

On October 26, 2017, the claimant filed a petition with the
Supreme Court appealing the District Court decision. On January
28, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a notice of procedures to be
complied with by the relevant parties leading up to a formal
hearing scheduled for December 5, 2018.

Can-Fite BioPharma said "The Company believes that according to
the legal advisors opinion the ruling of the District Court is
not likely to be overturned."

Can-Fite BioPharma Ltd., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company, develops small molecule therapeutic products for the
treatment of autoimmune-inflammatory, oncological, and liver
diseases, as well as sexual dysfunction.


CANADIAN MALARTIC: Suit over Mine Operations Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Yamana Gold Inc. said in its Form F-10 report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that Canadian Malartic General Partnership
continues to defend itself in a class action related to
neighbourhood annoyances.

On August 2, 2016, Canadian Malartic General Partnership, a
general partnership jointly owned by the Company and Agnico Eagle
Mines Limited (the "Partnership"), was served with a class action
lawsuit with respect to allegations involving the Canadian
Malartic mine. The complaint is in respect of "neighbourhood
annoyances" arising from dust, noise, vibrations and blasts at
the mine. The plaintiffs are seeking damages in an unspecified
amount as well as punitive damages in the amount of $20 million.
The class action was certified in May 2017. In November 2017, a
declaratory judgment was issued allowing the Partnership to
settle individually with class members for 2017.

The plaintiffs have since announced that they intend to file an
application for leave to appeal this declaratory judgment. On
December 11, 2017, hearings were completed in respect of certain
preliminary matters, including the Partnership's application for
partial dismissal of the class action. The Company and the
Partnership will take all necessary steps to defend themselves
from this lawsuit.

Yamana Gold Inc. operates as a gold producer with gold
production, gold development stage properties, exploration
properties, and land positions throughout the Americas, including
Canada, Brazil, Chile, and Argentina. It primarily sells precious
metals, including gold, silver, and copper. The company was
formerly known as Yamana Resources Inc. and changed its name to
Yamana Gold Inc. in July 2003. Yamana Gold Inc. was founded in
1980 and is based in Toronto, Canada.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Bid for Final Settlement Approval Due April 27
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that the motion for final approval of
the parties' settlement, in the Sinohui Litigation, has to be
filed no later than April 27, 2018.

On October 10, 2014, former venue General Manager Richard Sinohui
filed a purported class action lawsuit against CEC Entertainment
in the Superior Court of California, Riverside County (the
"Sinohui Litigation"), claiming to represent other similarly-
situated current and former General Managers of CEC Entertainment
in California during the period October 10, 2010 to the present.
The lawsuit sought an unspecified amount in damages and to
certify a class based on allegations that CEC Entertainment
wrongfully classified current and former California General
Managers as exempt from overtime protections; that such General
Managers worked more than 40 hours a week without overtime
premium pay, paid rest periods, and paid meal periods; and that
CEC Entertainment failed to provide accurate itemized wage
statements or to pay timely wages upon separation from
employment, in violation of the California Labor Code, California
Business and Professions Code, and the applicable Wage Order
issued by the California Industrial Welfare Commission.

The plaintiff also alleged that CEC Entertainment failed to
reimburse General Managers for certain business expenses,
including for personal cell phone usage and mileage, in violation
of the California Labor Code; he also asserted a claim for civil
penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA"). On December 5, 2014, CEC Entertainment removed the
Sinohui Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Southern Division. On March 16, 2016, the
Court issued an order denying in part and granting in part
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Specifically, the
Court denied Plaintiff's motion to the extent that he sought to
certify a class on Plaintiff's misclassification and wage
statement claims, but certified a class with respect to
Plaintiff's claims that CEC Entertainment had wrongfully failed
to reimburse him for cell phone expenses and/or mileage.

On June 14, 2016, the Court dismissed Sinohui's PAGA claim. After
participating in mediation on April 19, 2017, the parties agreed
to settle all of Sinohui's individual and class claims. Pursuant
to the basic terms of their settlement, Sinohui will grant a
complete release to CEC Entertainment on behalf of himself and
the class of all claims that he asserted or could have asserted
against the Company, based on the facts that gave rise to the
certified reimbursement claim in the Sinohui Litigation, in
exchange for the Company's settlement payment.

CEC Entertainment said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended October 1, 2017, that the parties in the Sinohui
litigation presented their proposed class settlement to the Court
for review and approval during the third quarter of 2017, and
expect that the settlement will be concluded and the case
dismissed by the end of the first quarter of 2018.

In its Form 10-K Report, the Company said that on December 13,
2017, the Court entered its order granting preliminary approval
of the parties' settlement and setting a final fairness hearing
for June 15, 2018. The order requires Plaintiff to file his
motion for final approval of the parties' settlement no later
than April 27, 2018. Based on the Court's order, the settlement
of this lawsuit should be funded and concluded during the second
quarter of 2018.

CEC Entertainment said "The settlement of this action will not
have a material adverse effect on our results of operations,
financial position, liquidity or capital resources."

CEC Entertainment, Inc. is a leading family entertainment and
dining company, focused on providing an exciting, fun-filled play
and food experience for children and parents alike. The company
develops, operates and franchises family dining and entertainment
centers (also referred to as "venues") under the names "Chuck E.
Cheese's" ("Where A Kid Can Be A Kid") and "Peter Piper
Pizza"("The Solution to the Family Night Out"). The company is
based in Irving, Texas.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: California General Manager Litigation Resolved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that as part of the settlement reached
by the parties in the Sinohui Litigation, the parties also agreed
to settle the California General Manager Litigation.

Pursuant to the basic terms of their comprehensive settlement,
each of the Plaintiffs granted a complete release to CEC
Entertainment of all claims that he or she asserted or could have
asserted against the Company based on the facts that gave rise to
the California General Manager Litigation in exchange for the
Company's settlement payments to each of them.

According to CEC, the comprehensive settlement of these lawsuits
was concluded and each of these cases was dismissed in August
2017.

The settlement of these actions did not have a material adverse
effect on the Company's results of operations, financial
position, liquidity or capital resources, CEC said.

CEC said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended
October 1, 2017, that after the Court in the Sinohui Litigation
issued its order denying certification of a class of California-
based general managers on misclassification and wage statement
claims, six lawsuits were filed against the Company in California
state court (the "California General Manager Litigation"). The
plaintiffs in these actions include nine current and 12 former
California General Managers asserting individual
misclassification, wage statement, and expense reimbursement
claims. Between December 20, 2016 and April 21, 2017 the Company
filed initial responses to each of the lawsuits and removed them
all to Federal District Court.

CEC Entertainment, Inc. develops, operates and franchises family
dining and entertainment venues under the names "Chuck E.
Cheese's" ("Where A Kid Can Be A Kid") and "Peter Piper Pizza"
("The Solution to the Family Night Out"). The company is based in
Irving, Texas.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Notice of Settlement Filed in "French" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that a Notice of Settlement has been
filed in a class action suit filed by Kevin French.

On January 30, 2017, former Technical Manager Kevin French filed
a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (the
"French Federal Court Lawsuit"), alleging that CEC Entertainment
failed to pay overtime wages, failed to issue accurate itemized
wage statements, failed to pay wages due upon separation of
employment, and failed to reimburse for certain business
expenses, including for mileage and personal cell phone usage, in
violation of the California Labor Code and federal law, and
seeking to certify separate classes on his federal and state
claims.

On October 30, 2017, the parties conducted a mediation. At the
conclusion of the mediation, the parties agreed to settle all of
French's class and individual claims. Pursuant to the parties'
agreement, on November 14, 2017, the Federal Court Lawsuit was
dismissed, and on November 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a new
lawsuit in Superior Court of San Bernadino County, California
(the "French State Court Lawsuit"). The French State Court
Lawsuit carried forward only the California state law claims
alleging a failure to reimburse for business expenses, and sought
to certify a class of CEC California Senior Assistant Managers,
Assistant Managers, Technical Managers and Assistant Technical
Managers who were authorized to drive on behalf of CEC from
January 30, 2013 through April 27, 2018.

On December 20, 2017, further pursuant to the parties'
settlement, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement.

CEC Entertainment said "We expect that the settlement will be
concluded and the case dismissed by the end of the third quarter
of 2018. The settlement of this action will not have a material
adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position,
liquidity or capital resources."

CEC Entertainment, Inc. is a family entertainment and dining
company, focused on providing an exciting, fun-filled play and
food experience for children and parents alike. The company
develops, operates and franchises family dining and entertainment
centers (also referred to as "venues") under the names "Chuck E.
Cheese's" ("Where A Kid Can Be A Kid") and "Peter Piper
Pizza"("The Solution to the Family Night Out"). The company is
based in Irving, Texas.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Still Defends Apollo Merger-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that the company continues to defend a
class action suit related to the merger with Apollo Global
Management, LLC.

Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that CEC
Entertainment had entered into an agreement ("Merger Agreement"),
pursuant to which an entity controlled by Apollo Global
Management, LLC ("Apollo") and its subsidiaries merged with and
into CEC Entertainment, with CEC Entertainment surviving the
merger (the "Merger"), four putative shareholder class actions
were filed in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, on
behalf of purported stockholders of CEC Entertainment, against
A.P. VIII Queso Holdings, L.P., CEC Entertainment, CEC
Entertainment's directors, Apollo and Merger Sub (as defined in
the Merger Agreement), in connection with the Merger Agreement
and the transactions contemplated thereby.

These actions were consolidated into one action (the
"Consolidated Shareholder Litigation") in March 2014, and on July
21, 2015, a consolidated class action petition was filed as the
operative consolidated complaint, asserting claims against CEC's
former directors, adding The Goldman Sachs Group ("Goldman
Sachs") as a defendant, and removing all Apollo entities as
defendants (the "Consolidated Class Action Petition").

The Consolidated Class Action Petition alleges that CEC
Entertainment's directors breached their fiduciary duties to CEC
Entertainment's stockholders in connection with their
consideration and approval of the Merger Agreement by, among
other things, conducting a deficient sales process, agreeing to
an inadequate tender price, agreeing to certain provisions in the
Merger Agreement, and filing materially deficient disclosures
regarding the transaction.

The Consolidated Class Action Petition also alleges that two
members of CEC Entertainment's board who also served as the
senior managers of CEC Entertainment had material conflicts of
interest and that Goldman Sachs aided and abetted the board's
breaches as a result of various conflicts of interest facing the
bank. The Consolidated Class Action Petition seeks, among other
things, to recover damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The
Company assumed the defense of the Consolidated Shareholder
Litigation on behalf of CEC's named former directors and Goldman
Sachs pursuant to existing indemnity agreements.

On March 23, 2016, the Court conducted a hearing on the
defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action
Petition and on March 1, 2017, the Special Master appointed by
the Court issued a report recommending to the Court that the
Consolidated Class Action Petition be dismissed in its entirety.

On March 17, 2017, Plaintiffs filed objections to the Special
Master's report and recommendation with the Kansas court and
separately filed a motion with the Special Master to amend the
complaint as to Goldman Sachs, but not objecting to the dismissal
of CEC or its former directors.

On November 20, 2017, the Special Master filed a Supplemental
Report recommending to the Court that Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to amend be denied; if the District Court accepts the
Special Master's supplemental recommendations, the case will be
dismissed in its entirety. Both remaining parties (Plaintiffs and
Goldman Sachs) filed objections to the Supplemental Report on
December 22, 2017, and the parties filed responses to these
objections on February 16, 2018. The District Court has not yet
set this case for trial.

CEC Entertainment said "While no assurance can be given as to the
ultimate outcome of the consolidated matter, we currently believe
that the final resolution of the action will not have a material
adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position,
liquidity or capital resources."

CEC Entertainment, Inc. is a family entertainment and dining
company, focused on providing an exciting, fun-filled play and
food experience for children and parents alike. The company
develops, operates and franchises family dining and entertainment
centers (also referred to as "venues") under the names "Chuck E.
Cheese's" ("Where A Kid Can Be A Kid") and "Peter Piper
Pizza"("The Solution to the Family Night Out"). The company is
based in Irving, Texas.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Asks Court to Dismiss "Jacobson" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that Peter Piper filed a motion to lift
the stay and requested the trial court to grant its motion to
dismiss.

On September 8, 2016, Diane Jacobson filed a purported class
action lawsuit against Peter Piper, Inc. ("Peter Piper") in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Tucson Division
(the "Jacobson Litigation"). The plaintiff claims to represent
other similarly-situated consumers who, within the two years
prior to the filing of the Jacobson Litigation, received a
printed receipt on which Peter Piper allegedly printed more than
the last five digits of the consumer's credit/debit card number,
in violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

On November 11, 2016, Peter Piper filed a motion to dismiss the
Jacobson Litigation. After the plaintiff filed her opposition to
the Motion to Dismiss and Peter Piper filed its reply in support
thereof, the motion was submitted to the Court for ruling on
December 22, 2016.

CEC said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended
October 1, 2017, that on February 2, 2017, the Court stayed the
Jacobson Litigation pending the decision of the U.S. Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals in Noble v. Nevada Check Cab Corp., a
case that presented an issue for decision that is relevant to
Peter Piper's motion to dismiss.

In its Form 10-K report, CEC said that on March 9, 2018, the
Ninth Circuit issued its decision in the Noble case, setting
precedent that favors Peter Piper's position in the Jacobson
Litigation. Based on the appellate court's decision in that case,
on March 15, 2018 Peter Piper filed a motion to lift the stay and
requesting that the trial court grant its motion to dismiss.

CEC Entertainment said "We believe Peter Piper has meritorious
defenses to this lawsuit and, should the Court overrule the
motion to dismiss we intend to vigorously defend it. Since the
litigation is in its earliest stages, the Company does not yet
have sufficient information to reach a good faith determination
on Peter Piper's potential liability or exposure in the event
that its defense is unsuccessful."

CEC Entertainment, Inc. is a family entertainment and dining
company, focused on providing an exciting, fun-filled play and
food experience for children and parents alike. The company
develops, operates and franchises family dining and entertainment
centers (also referred to as "venues") under the names "Chuck E.
Cheese's" ("Where A Kid Can Be A Kid") and "Peter Piper
Pizza"("The Solution to the Family Night Out"). The company is
based in Irving, Texas.


CENTRAL CREDIT: "Jones" Filed Suit Over FCDPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Andrica Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Central Credit Services, LLC and John
Does 1-25, Defendant(s), Case No. 18-cv-00152, (E.D. Tex., March
7, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief
pursuant to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Central Credit Services is a debt collection agency assigned to
collect a consumer debt from Jones over First Premier Bank that
threatened to increase the balance due to interest or other
charges in order to coerce her to pay and implicitly overshadowed
Plaintiff's right to dispute or validate. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHASE ISSUANCE: Bid to Amend Merchants' Class Suit in NY Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Issuance Trust said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that class plaintiffs, as well as other
merchants, filed motions seeking to amend their complaints.

On June 22, 2005, merchants filed a putative class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut. The complaint alleged that VISA, MasterCard and
certain member banks including Bank of America, Chase USA,
Capital One, Citibank and others, conspired to set the price of
interchange in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The
complaint further alleged tying/bundling and exclusive dealing.

Since the filing of the Connecticut complaint, other complaints
were filed in different U.S. District Courts challenging the
setting of interchange, as well as the associations' respective
rules. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated the cases in the Eastern District of New York for
pretrial proceedings. An amended consolidated complaint was filed
on April 24, 2006 which added claims relating to off-line debit
transactions. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims
that pre-date January 1, 2004. The District Court for the Eastern
District of New York granted that motion and those claims were
dismissed.

Plaintiffs filed a first supplemental complaint in May 2006
alleging that the MasterCard offering violated Section 7 of the
Clayton Act and Section 1 of the Sherman Act and that the
offering was a fraudulent conveyance. Defendants filed a motion
to dismiss both of those claims. On November 25, 2008, the
District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the
supplemental complaint with leave to replead.

In May 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class
certification which defendants opposed. The District Court for
the Eastern District of New York did not rule on the class
certification motion.

In January 2009, the plaintiffs filed and served a Second Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint against all defendants and an
amended supplemental complaint challenging the MasterCard initial
public offering ("IPO") making antitrust claims similar to those
that were dismissed previously. With respect to the Visa IPO, the
plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint challenging the Visa
IPO on antitrust theories parallel to those articulated in the
MasterCard IPO pleading.

On March 31, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. Separate
motions to dismiss each of the supplemental complaints
challenging the MasterCard and Visa IPOs were also filed.
Plaintiffs and defendants also fully briefed and argued their
motions for summary judgment. None of these motions have been
decided.

In October 2012, Visa, Inc., its wholly owned subsidiaries Visa
U.S.A. Inc. and Visa International Service Association,
MasterCard Incorporated, MasterCard International Incorporated
and various United States financial institution defendants,
including Chase USA and several of its affiliates and certain
predecessor institutions, entered into a settlement agreement
(the "Settlement Agreement") to resolve the United States
merchant and retail industry association plaintiffs' (the "Class
Plaintiffs") claims in the multi-district litigation. On November
27, 2012, the District Court for the Eastern District of New York
entered an order preliminarily approving the Settlement
Agreement, which provided, among other things, for a $6.05
billion cash payment to the Class Plaintiffs, an amount equal to
ten basis points of interchange for a period of eight months to
be measured from a date within sixty days of the end of the opt-
out period. The Settlement Agreement also provided for
modifications to each of the network's no-surcharge rules, which
were effective as of January 27, 2013.

On April 11, 2013, Class Plaintiffs moved for final approval of
the settlement. On September 12, 2013, the District Court for the
Eastern District of New York held the final approval hearing. On
January 14, 2014, the District Court for the Eastern District of
New York rendered its final order and judgment approving the
settlement. A number of entities including retailers and
objecting trade association appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, which, in June 2016, vacated the District
Court for the Eastern District of New York's certification of the
class action and reversed the approval of the class settlement.

In March 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court declined petitions seeking
review of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit. The case has been remanded to the District Court
for the Eastern District of New York for further proceedings
consistent with the appellate decision. The District Court for
the Eastern District of New York has since appointed separate
counsel for Class Plaintiffs seeking damages and injunctive
relief. These Class Plaintiffs, as well as other merchants,
recently filed motions seeking to amend their complaints which
motions the defendants opposed.


COINMACH LAUNDRY: Apartments Sue Over Additional Admin. Fee
-----------------------------------------------------------
NOB Hill of Pittsburgh Apts., Pleasant Hills Apartment Limited
Partnership, Ross Township Apts. Limited Partnership, Tower in
the Park LLC, Boulevard Towers Apartments LLC, on behalf of
itself and Norstar Apartments LLC, on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Coinmach Laundry LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00532 (N.D. Ohio, March 7, 2018), seeks
damages, injunctive relief, including payment of reasonable fees,
costs and interest for breach of fiduciary duties.

Coinmach is a provider of coin-operated laundry machines to
commercial and residential clients in the United States.

Plaintiffs are owners of residential apartment complexes, each of
which includes a laundry facility. They entered into
substantively identical Lease Agreements with Defendant so that
it could install their laundry machines and collect money from
their use. Pursuant to the Lease Agreements, the parties agreed
to split the revenues from the laundry facilities. Specifically,
they agreed that as rent for the laundry facilities, Defendant
was to pay Plaintiffs 64.5% of its gross receipts per month or
$9.00 per apartment unit, whichever was greater. On or around May
2017, CSC sent a letter to Kay-Kay announcing that it will begin
deducting a 9.75% "administrative fee" from its laundry machines'
gross collections, amount to approximately $0.10 per machine per
day. Plaintiffs never agreed to an administrative fee and did not
agree to or sign any amendments to its contracts, or otherwise
authorize the implementation of such, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
      Jonathan P. Misny, Esq.
      Geoffrey J. Moul, Esq.
      MURRAY MURPHY MOUL & BASIL LLP
      1114 Dublin Road
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Tel: (614) 488-0400
      Fax: (614) 488-0401
      Email: murphy@mmmb.com
             misny@mmmb.com
             moul@mmmb.com


CREDIT ANALYST: Powers Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned LAURA POWERS, On behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. THE CREDIT ANALYST,
INC. and JUDITH D. RETELSDORF, Case No. 8:17-cv-00229-JFB-SMB (D.
Neb.), moves for certification of a settlement class, an order
preliminarily approving the class settlement, approval of the
form and method for providing class-wide notice, and scheduling
of hearing for the final approval of the proposed settlement.

For the purpose of the settlement, the Plaintiff defines the
settlement classes as:

     "Settlement Classes" consist of (i) all persons with
     addresses in Nebraska (ii) to whom Defendants sent or
     served, or caused to be sent or served, a county court
     collection complaint in the form of Exhibit A (iii) in an
     attempt to collect alleged unpaid medical or dental
     accounts.

     The FDCPA class extends from July 23, 2016 through July 23,
     2017 (the date of filing the Amended Complaint).

     The NCPA class extends from July 23, 2013 through July 23,
     2017 (the date of filing the Amended Complaint).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5HKSp9io

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Patrick M. Heng, Esq.
          WAITE, MCWHA & HENG
          P.O. Box 38
          North Platte, NE 69103
          Telephone: (308) 532-2202
          Facsimile: (308) 532-2741
          E-mail: pheng@northplattelaw.com

               - and -

          John Ochoa, Esq.
          SMITH AMUNDSEN LLC
          150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 894-3238
          Facsimile: (312) 997-1868
          E-mail: jochoa@salawus.com

               - and -

          Michael T. Gibbons, Esq.
          WOODKE & GIBBONS, PC, LLO
          Historic Inns of Court
          619 N. 90 Street
          Omaha, NE 68114
          Telephone: (402) 391-6000
          Facsimile: (402) 391-6200
          E-mail: mgibbons@woglaw.com


CROWN AUTOMOTIVE: Denied Overtime Pay, "Clausen" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Clausen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Crown Automotive Management, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00541, (M.D. Fla., March 7, 2018),
seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, reasonable attorney's fees and costs in
accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Crown is a multi-brand automotive dealership where Clausen worked
as a Get-Ready Coordinator. He claims to have worked in excess of
40 hours per week without being paid overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Miguel Bouzas, Esq.
      Gregory A. Owens, Esq.
      FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS LLC
      16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
      Lutz, FL 33558
      Tel: (727) 254-5255
      Fax: (727) 483-7942
      Email: miguel@fgbolaw.com
             debbie@fgbolaw.com


DAVISON DESIGN: Court Awards $325K Attorney's Fees in "Dungee"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Delaware
denied Plaintiffs' Motion on Remand for Attorney's Fees and Cost
in the case captioned DEBORAH DUNGEE, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DAVISON DESIGN &
DEVELOPMENT, INC., formerly known as DAVISON & ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Defendant, C.A. No. 10-325-GMS (D. Del.).

The Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint against
Defendant Davison Design & Development, Inc. (Davison), claiming
that: (1) Davison breached its agreements with Dungee; (2)
Davison violated the American Inventor's Protection Act of 1999,
35 U.S.C. Section 297 (AIPA) by making material
misrepresentations; and (3) Davison violated the AIPA by failing
to make the proper disclosures under the statute.

After settling the claims-made, the court issued an order
granting $1,118,936.40 in attorney's fees to Dungee's counsel,
which was calculated using the lodestar amount of $257,226.76
enhanced by a multiplier of 4.35.  Davison appealed the award to
the Third Circuit, and the case was remanded for the court to
specify evidence on the record that supports the application of
an enhancement multiplier.

There are two primary methods for calculating attorney's fees
awards in the class action context: (1) the percentage-of-
recovery method; and (2) the lodestar method.

The Lodestar Method

The Lodestar Will Not Include Time Spent on Appeal

On remand, Dungee has abandoned her defense of the court's $1.18
million award and has twice decreased her fee request from
$725,462.94 to $525,125.89.  This fact alone, even absent an
express finding from the Court of Appeals, demonstrates Dungee's
recognition that her award request lacks merit. This recognition
and consequent failure to successfully defend her award on appeal
leads to the conclusion that an award of costs and fees expended
during the appeal would be inappropriate.

Thus, the court will exclude fees and costs spent on the appeal
from its calculation of the lodestar amount.

An Upward Enhancement of the Lodestar is Inappropriate

Davison argues that the circumstances of this case do not warrant
an enhancement multiplier because: (1) the evidence submitted in
support of Class Counsel's claimed true market value is not on
the record and is inapposite to Class Counsel's billing rates;
(2) there was no extraordinary outlay of expenses and the limited
motions practice involved in this action demonstrates that the
litigation was not protracted; and (3) the length of time it took
to resolve this case was not exceptional.

The court agrees that an enhancement multiplier is not
appropriate given the specific facts of this case, but believes
that Class Counsel's billing rate should be adjusted to reflect
that Class Counsel did not receive its fees until the case was
fully resolved.

Class Counsel's Hourly Rate Reflects the True Market Value of
Their Services

Dungee failed to point to any evidence on the record that Class
Counsel's billing rates were different from those that counsel
would receive in a case not governed by a federal fee-shifting
statute. What's more, the outside evidence submitted by Class
Counsel does not support their own argument. For example, Class
Counsel's billing rates both in 2010 and 2017 fall squarely
within the range of similarly experienced attorneys as described
in the Community Legal Service survey submitted to the court.

Further, Dungee has also provided no evidence that Class Counsel
charged different rates for this matter than they charge for any
other matter Class Counsel may have handled. Therefore, the court
finds that Dungee has not met her burden of providing specific
record evidence that Class Counsel's hourly rate was incorrectly
calculated or different from the rates they would receive for a
case not governed by a fee-shifting statute. As a result, the
court will not apply a .2 enhancement multiplier.

Class Counsel's Performance Did Not Include an Extraordinary
Outlay of Expenses, and the Litigation Was Not Exceptionally
Protracted

Here, Dungee has not demonstrated that her case was unusual. Both
parties agreed to engage in mediation after Davison's first and
only motion to dismiss. The mediation lasted for three years and
resulted in a claims made settlement. During and after the
settlement negotiations, the parties agreed to allow the court to
decide the issues of fees. From the time the case was filed on
April 21, 2010 until the time the court issued its fee award on
February 24, 2010, Class Counsel billed 624.3 hours.

Dungee's only proof of the protracted nature of the case is a
summary of the docket and her proffered assertion that this type
of unusual and protracted litigation warrants an enhancement.
This statement begs the question unusual and protracted compared
to what? This record does not satisfy Dungee's burden of
providing proof in the record that the delay here was outside the
normal range expected by attorneys who rely on AIPA for the
payment of their fees or quantify the disparity.

Therefore, the court will decline Dungee's request to apply a .3
enhancement multiplier to the lodestar.

A Delay in the Payment of Fees

Here, the delay in the payment of fees was not unusual or
unjustifiable. One year after Dungee filed her case, the parties
jointly entered into settlement negotiations that lasted for
three years. Both parties agreed that, after they reached a
settlement agreement in 2015, attorney's fees would be determined
by the court. Dungee filed a motion for attorney's fees with the
court and the court issued its order awarding fees in February of
2016.
Davison filed an appeal one month later, which resulted in the
case being remanded in January of 2017. Three months later,
Dungee filed her instant motion. Dungee has, again, not presented
any specific record facts that explain why the delay of the
payment of fees in this case was particularly unusual or
unjustifiable. Therefore, the court will not apply an enhancement
multiplier for the delay in the payment of fees.

The court rejects the parties' proposed awards and will enter an
order directing Davison to pay Class Counsel a lodestar amount of
$307,551.50 and $18,326.94 in costs, resulting in a total award
of $325,878.44.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 1, 2018 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycnh3pc7 from Leagle.com.

Deborah Dungee, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Richard H. Cross, Jr. --
rcross@crosslaw.com -- Cross & Simon, LLC.

Davison Design & Development Inc., formerly known as, Defendant,
represented by Kathleen Furey McDonough --
kmcdonough@potteranderson.com -- Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP,
Brian P. Anderson pro hac vice, David M. Aceto --
david.aceto@klgates.com -- K&L Gates, pro hac vice, H. Woodruff
Turner -- woodruff.turner@klgates.com -- K&L Gates, pro hac vice,
J. Nicholas Ranjan -- Nicholas.ranjan.com -- K&L Gates, pro hac
vice, John Anderson Sensing -- sensing@potteranderson.com --
Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP & Richard L. Horwitz --
rhorwitz@potteranderson.com -- Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP.


DOLLAR TREE: "Natskakula" FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled DONNA NATSKAKULA and all others similarly
situated under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) v. DOLLAR TREE STORES,
INC., Case No. 18-002734, was removed on March 12, 2018, from the
Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward
County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, Fort Lauderdale Division.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:18-cv-60523-RNS to
the proceeding.

On February 9, 2018, Donna Natskakula filed a civil action in the
Circuit Court, asserting one cause of action, which alleges a
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Specifically, the
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay her overtime
in accordance with the overtime requirements of the FLSA during
her employment as an Assistant Store Manager.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Freddy Perera, Esq.
          Valerie Barnhart, Esq.
          PERERA BARNHART
          12555 Orange Drive, Suite 268
          Davie, FL 33330
          Telephone: (786) 485-5232
          E-mail: freddy@pererabarnhart.com
                  valerie@pererabarnhart.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Aaron Reed, Esq.
          Laurie M. Weinstein, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Wells Fargo Center
          333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 400-7500
          Facsimile: (305) 603-2552
          E-mail: areed@littler.com
                  lweinstein@littler.com


DOLPHIN ENTERTAINMENT: "Reel" Claims vs. 42West Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Dolphin Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 9,
2018, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued an
order dismissing without prejudice all claims against 42West.

A putative class action was filed on May 5, 2017, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida by
Kenneth and Emily Reel on behalf of a purported nationwide class
of individuals who attended the Fyre Music Festival, or the Fyre
Festival, in the Bahamas on April 28-30, 2017. The complaint
named several defendants, including 42West, along with the
organizers of the Fyre Festival, Fyre Media Inc. and Fyre
Festival LLC, individuals related to Fyre, and another entity
called Matte Projects LLC.

The complaint alleged that the Fyre Festival was promoted by Fyre
as a luxurious experience through an extensive marketing campaign
orchestrated by Fyre and executed with the assistance of outside
marketing companies, 42West and Matte, but the reality of the
festival did not live up to the luxury experience that it was
represented to be. The plaintiffs have asserted claims for fraud,
negligent misrepresentation and violation of several states'
consumer protection laws.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a nationwide class action
comprising "All persons or entities that purchased a Fyre
Festival 2017 ticket or package or that attended, or planned to
attend, Fyre Festival 2017" and sought damages in excess of
$5,000,000 on behalf of themselves and the class. The plaintiffs
sought to consolidate this action with five other class actions
also arising out of the Fyre Festival (to which 42West is not a
party) in a Multi District Litigation, or MDL, proceeding, which
request was denied by the Judicial Panel on Multi District
Litigation on August 2, 2017.

On July 28, 2017, 42West filed a motion to dismiss the putative
class action. On September 9, 2017, one of the defendants filed a
cross-claim against all other named defendants seeking
indemnification and contribution. On October 2, 2017, 42West
filed a motion to dismiss the cross-claim. On December 29, 2017,
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida issued an order dismissing without prejudice all claims
against 42West.

Dolphin Entertainment, Inc. is an independent entertainment
marketing and premium content development company. Through its
recent acquisition of 42West, LLC ("42West") in March 2017, the
company provides  expert strategic marketing and publicity
services to all of the major film studios, and many of the
leading independent and digital content providers, as well as for
hundreds of A-list celebrity talent, including actors, directors,
producers, recording artists, athletes and authors. The company
is based in Coral Gables, Florida.


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Sent Illegal Collection Letters, Patti Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHANEL PATTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DYNAMIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 0:18-cv-
60533-CMA (S.D. Fla., March 12, 2018), alleges that the Defendant
has dispatched thousands of unlawful collection letters to
Florida consumers, whereby such letters violate the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act.

Dynamic Recovery is a South Carolina corporation, with its
principal place of business located in Greensville, South
Carolina.  The Company engages in interstate commerce by
regularly using telephone and mail in a business whose principal
purpose is the collection of debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EDWARD D JONES: Accused by "Bland" Suit of Not Paying FA Trainees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WAYNE BLAND, DANUTA DURKIEWICZ, DAVID BOWLES, and ADAM REYES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P. and THE JONES FINANCIAL COMPANIES,
L.L.L.P., Case No. 1:18-cv-01832 (N.D. Ill., March 13, 2018),
alleges that the Defendants' practice of forcing FA Trainees to
"repay" purported training costs and intentionally denying them
minimum wages and overtime compensation violates state and
federal wage and hour laws.

According to the complaint, Edward Jones recruits new trainee
brokers, called financial advisor trainees or "FA Trainees," with
promises of extensive training and high pay.  The Plaintiffs
allege that the Firm provides no meaningful training and denies
FA Trainees the minimum and overtime wages required by federal
and state law.  They add that Edward Jones forces all FA Trainees
to sign unlawful contracts agreeing to pay so-called "training
costs" of up to $75,000 if they leave the Firm for any reason
within three years after the assignment of a "can sell" date, as
most will be forced to do, but pursue a broker job.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. is a leader in the
financial services industry.  Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., its
wholly owned registered broker-dealer financial services
subsidiary, claims to serve over "7 million investors from more
offices than any other investment firm in America."  Edward Jones
claims to manage over $204 billion and to be one of the largest
financial services companies in the United States, based on
assets managed.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Linda D. Friedman, Esq.
          Suzanne E. Bish, Esq.
          George S. Robot, Esq.
          STOWELL & FRIEDMAN, LTD.
          303 W. Madison St., Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 431-0888
          E-mail: Lfriedman@sfltd.com
                  sbish@sftld.com
                  grobot@sfltd.com


ELMER'S PRODUCTS: Spacone Seeks to Certify Class of KG Purchasers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled DAVID SPACONE, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated v. ELMER'S PRODUCTS, INC., a Delaware corporation and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-02419-AB-MRW (C.D.
Cal.), seeks to certify this class:

     All individuals who purchased one or more KG Stay Fresh
     Container Products in California from January 31, 2013,
     until the date of trial.

The complaint was filed on January 31, 2017, and was removed to
the District Court on March 29, 2017.  Trial date is currently
set for October 30, 2018.  The Plaintiff's claims are typical of
the claims of class members because they all arise from the
Defendant's uniform packaging practices, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also seeks appointment as class representative and
for the appointment of Capstone Law APC as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on May 25, 2018, at 10:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bevin Allen Pike, Esq.
          Robert K. Friedl, Esq.
          Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
          Capstone Law APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com
                  Robert.Friedl@capstonelawyers.com
                  Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com


FELDCO WINDOWS: Accused by "Cooper" Class Suit of Violating TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
CLIFTON COOPER, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. FELDCO WINDOWS SIDING & DOORS LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-
01835 (N.D. Ill., March 13, 2018), is brought for monetary
damages and injunctive relief as a result of telemarketing calls
placed to the Plaintiff's home and cellular telephone numbers
using an automated dialing system, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Feldco Windows, Siding & Doors LLC is a Wisconsin Limited
Liability Company with a registered address in Cudahy, Wisconsin.
The Company markets "high quality windows, siding and doors" for
purchase and installation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lance A. Raphael, Esq.
          Craig R. Frisch, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER ADVOCACY CENTER, P.C.
          180 West Washington Street, Suite 700
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 782-5808
          E-mail: lance@caclawyers.com
                  craig@caclawyers.com

               - and -

          Christopher Kruger, Esq.
          KRUGER & GRUBER, LLP
          500 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (773) 663-4949
          E-mail: chris@krugerandgruber.com

               - and -

          Richard J. Meier, Esq.
          MEIER LLC
          401 N. Michigan Ave, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 242-1849
          Facsimile: (312) 242-1841
          E-mail: richard@meierllc.com


FLAGSHIP S B: Court Denies Conditional Certification in "Joshi"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York denied Plaintiff's Motion to Conditionally Certify as a
Representative Action the case captioned DHARM RAJ JOSHI,
Plaintiff, v. FLAGSHIP S B AMSTERDAM NY, LLC, et al., Defendants,
No. 17-CV-5785 (ALC)(SN)(S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Dharm Raj Joshi filed the action, alleging that
Defendants did not properly compensate him and other employees in
accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New
York Labor Law.

Throughout his employment with the Defendants, Joshi allegedly
spent half of each shift in the front of the restaurant taking
orders, delivering food to tables, taking payments from
customers, and cleaning tables; and he spent the other half in
the kitchen plating food and packing delivery orders.  Joshi
claims that he was not paid the full statutory minimum wage for
his work.  Joshi also alleges that he frequently worked more than
40 hours per week but was not paid one-and-one-half times the
statutory minimum wage for time worked in excess of 40 hours.

The FLSA permits employees to create a collective by opting-in to
a backpay claim brought by a similarly situated employee.

With respect to the First Cause of Action, Joshi alleges in his
complaint, and affirms in his declaration, that he was paid $7.50
per hour. Because Joshi was paid more than the full federal
minimum wage rate, he is not similarly situated to any employee
who was paid pursuant to the federal tipped minimum wage, and he
may not represent a collective seeking relief under such a claim.

Joshi's factual allegations regarding overtime practices are
insufficient to satisfy even the minimum threshold for the Court
to conditionally certify the collective. Joshi's motion is based
solely on his declaration. And while that alone is not fatal, his
declaration does not offer a foundation on which the Court can
find that the proposed members of the collective action were
victim to a common illegal policy. As is relevant to Joshi's only
valid FLSA claim, he alleges that he was never paid an overtime
premium for hours worked in excess of 40.

His declaration does not describe specific instances when he
observed other employees working more than 40 hours without
proper compensation, nor does it describe what the other
employees told Joshi about their work schedules and compensation.
Instead, Joshi merely asserts in generalized terms that he
observed other employees at work and had several conversations
with other employees about their compensation. Based upon the
complaint and Joshi's declaration alone, the Court cannot
conditionally certify this case as a collective action.

Joshi has requested conditional certification of a broadly
defined collective consisting of all servers, server assistants,
back waiters, bussers, runners, bartenders, bar backs, food
preparers, and cooks who were employed in any of Defendants'
three New York locations within the last six years. Joshi is
unfit to represent a class of all these employees. And, with
respect to those employees who may be similarly situated to
Joshi, his vague allegations do not meet the low standard of
establishing that Joshi and others were victims of a common
policy that violated the law.

Thus, Joshi's motion to conditionally certify this case as a
representative collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b) is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 1, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ya4mmxsd from
Leagle.com.

Dharm Raj Joshi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Amit Kumar, The Law Offices
of William Cafaro, 108 W 39th St, Suite 602. New York, NY 10018.

Flagship S B Amsterdam NY, LLC, doing business as, Flagship S B
New York, LLC, doing business as, Hicksville SB, LLC, doing
business as, Mathaiah Ramaiah, Veena Ramaiah Shahul Hameed &
Ooty, LLC, Defendants, represented by Brian Lee Greben --
brian@grebenlegal.com -- Brian L. Greben.


FLORIDA HEALTH: Court Dismisses "Doyle" TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In ROBERT DOYLE, individually, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. FLORIDA HEALTH SOLUTION, INC., Defendant, Civil
Action No. 17-1223 (JMV) (MF) (D.N.J.), Robert Doyle filed the
initial Complaint in this matter against Defendant Florida Health
Solution, Inc.  The Plaintiff characterizes his Complaint as a
"nation-wide class action complaint."  The Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
contacting Plaintiff on his cellular telephone via an "automatic
dialing system."

The Plaintiff seeks to bring the action in forma pauperis
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915.

Under Section 1915, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey may excuse a litigant from prepayment of
fees when the litigant establishes that he is unable to pay the
costs of his suit. When allowing a plaintiff to proceed in forma
pauperis, however, the Court must review the complaint and
dismiss the action if it determines that the action is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune.

The Plaintiff alleges that he received so far, on 24 occasions
robo calls' on his personal cell phone, by an automated telephone
dialing system using a pre-recorded voice offering the Plaintiff
Defendant's retail health savings product. the Plaintiff further
alleges that the Robo Calls were for commercial purposes and did
not constitute an emergency.  The Plaintiff contends that
Defendant's actions violated TCPA.

Plaintiff states that he does not know the number of members of
the CLASS but believes the number of CLASS members to be in the
tens of thousands. Plaintiff's Count One alleges negligent
violation of the TCPA and requests $500.00 for each and every
violation of the TCPA, injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant
from such conduct in the future, and any further relief this
Court deems just, proper, and equitable.

To plead a claim under the TCPA, plaintiffs must do more than
simply parrot the statutory language. While Plaintiff does not
need to provide precise details as to each of the telephone
calls, he must provide enough to put Defendant on notice of the
allegedly offending messages.

Here, Plaintiff stylizes his Complaint as a nation-wide class
action complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and all other
available legal and equitable relief. In order to successfully
sustain a class action suit, a party must demonstrate that the
proposed class action satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23.

To meet this burden, Plaintiff must satisfy the four
prerequisites of Rule 23(a) and show that the action can be
maintained under at least one of the three subsections of Rule
23(b). Id. Rule 23(a) requires a showing of: (1) numerosity; (2)
commonality; (3) typicality; and (4) adequacy of representation.

Plaintiff fails to provide the Court with the information
necessary to determine whether he can adequately represent the
putative class. In his Complaint, Plaintiff states that he is an
attorney admitted to practice in the State of New York and filed
the Complaint on his own behalf. Plaintiff also claims that he
has retained counsel experienced in handling class action claims
and claims involving violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

When dismissing a cause of action brought by a pro se plaintiff,
a court must decide whether the dismissal will be with or without
prejudice, thereby affording a plaintiff leave to amend. A
dismissal with prejudice means that Plaintiff is precluded from
amending the Complaint and filing any future suit against the
Defendant concerning the allegations in the Complaint. The
district court may deny leave to amend only if (a) the moving
party's delay in seeking amendment is undue, motivated by bad
faith, or prejudicial to the non-moving party or (b) the
amendment would be futile.

Nevertheless, at this point, the Court cannot conclude that the
Plaintiff's claims are futile. Therefore, the Court will dismiss
the Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice, and provide the
Plaintiff thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint that
cures the deficiencies set forth herein

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 1, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycnr2xpa from
Leagle.com.

ROBERT DOYLE, Individually, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, pro se.


GERDAU AMERISTEEL: Court Grants Prelim OK of "Wodaszewski" Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
granted preliminary approval of the Class Action Settlement in
the case captioned MICHAEL L. WODASZEWSKI, DARRELL LOUTSCH, JESSE
A. MONTEZ, JR., CHARLES NIPPOLDT, and RICKY CARL HAMBLIN, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; and
UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY,
ALLIED INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-
CIO/CLC, Plaintiffs, v. GERDAU AMERISTEEL US INC., and GERDAU
AMERISTEEL US RETIREE MEDICAL PLAN, Defendants, No. 17-cv-05564-
MJD-KMM (D. Minn.).

Parties have entered into a proposed Settlement Agreement with
Defendants to resolve the claims in this putative class action
lawsuit and a related declaratory judgment pending in this
district, and have agreed upon a proposed Notice to the Class.
The parties have entered into a Stipulation of Settlement
(Settlement Agreement), and also have agreed on a proposed Class
Notice.

The Court defines the settlement class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
in this litigation for settlement purposes only (Class) as
follows:

   Subclass A. All former USW-represented employees who (i) were
hired on or before October 1, 2000; (ii) retired from the St.
Paul Mill; (iii) met the Eligibility Criteria to participate in
the Gerdau Ameristeel Retiree Medical Plan for St. Paul Union
Retirees (the Plan) at the time of their retirement; and (iv) for
employees who retired on or before June 1, 2016, continued to
meet the Eligibility Criteria for participating in the Plan as of
August 7, 2017, as well as the Eligible Dependents of all such
former USW-represented employees.

   Subclass B. All USW-represented employees of the St. Paul Mill
who were hired on or before October 1, 2000, and who meet the
Eligibility Criteria to participate in the Gerdau Ameristeel
Retiree Medical Plan for St. Paul Union Retirees upon their
retirement.

The Court appoints Class Representatives Wodaszewski, Loutsch and
Montez to represent Subclass A, and Class Representatives
Nippoldt and Hamblin to represent Subclass B.

The Court appoints Peterson, Engberg & Peterson and Feinstein
Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC, as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(g), and finds that they will fairly and adequately
represent the Class.

The Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved subject to
notice and a fairness hearing. The Court preliminarily finds that
the Settlement is capable of being finally approved under the
Eighth Circuit's factors guiding the approval of class action
settlements.

A hearing will be conducted before this Court on June 14, 2018 at
1:30 p.m. (Minneapolis Federal Courthouse, 300 South Fourth
Street, Courtroom 13E, Minneapolis, MN 55415) to finally
determine the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the terms
and conditions of the settlement set forth in the Settlement
Agreement (Fairness Hearing), and to consider Plaintiffs' motion
for an award of attorney fees and expenses (Fee Motion).
Plaintiffs shall file their Fee Motion at least 45 days prior to
the Fairness Hearing. Any Class Member may appear personally or
by counsel at the hearing and may object or express his or her
view regarding the Settlement Agreement and/or the Fee Motion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 1, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7yztmk2 from Leagle.com.

Michael L. Wodaszewski, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Darrell Loutsch, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Jesse A. Montez, Jr., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Charles Nippoldt,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Ricky
Carl Hamblin, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated & United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC, Plaintiffs, represented by Joel
R. Hurt -- JHURT@FDPKLAW.COM -- Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec,
LLC, pro hac vice, John G. Engberg, Peterson Engberg & Peterson,
Mark W. Bay, Peterson Engberg & Peterson, 250 Marquette Ave Ste
540, Minneapolis, MN 55401-2387 & Ruairi McDonnell --
RMCDONNELL@FDPKLAW.COM -- Feinstein, Doyle, Payne & Kravec, LLC,
pro hac vice.

Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc. & Gerdau Ameristeel US Retiree Medical
Plan, Defendants, represented by Brian J. Kelly --
bkelley@frantzward.com -- Frantz Ward LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel
R. Kelly -- dkelly@felhaber.com -- Felhaber Larson, Daniel A.
Ward -- dward@frantzward.com -- Frantz Ward LLP, pro hac vice &
Randi J. Winter -- rwinter@felhaber.com -- Felhaber Larson.


GLA COLLECTION: Faces "Saines" Suit Alleging FDCPA Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Chakia Saines, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. G.L.A. Collection Company, Inc. and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00788-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind., March 12, 2018),
arises from alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act relating to the Defendant's debt collection
practices.

G.L.A. is a company that uses the mail, telephone, and facsimile
and regularly engages in business, the principal purpose of which
is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another.  The
names of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel B. Drake, Esq.
          RC LAW GROUP, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: rdrake@rclawgroup.com


GULF COAST SECURITY: "Kent" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael I. Kent, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. Gulf Coast Security Enterprises,
LLC, Showtime Body Guards & Etc., LLC and Tommie Landrum,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00106, (S.D. Ala., March 7, 2018),
seeks payment for unpaid wages, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
overtime wages, untimely wage payments and liquidated damages due
to violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants own and operate security agencies where Kent worked as
a security guard. He claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours
per week but was not paid overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ian D. Rosenthal, Esq.
      HOLSTON, VAUGHAN & ROSENTHAL, LLC
      P.O. Box 195
      Mobile, AL 36633
      Tel: (251) 432-8883
      Fax: (251) 432-8884


HENRY SCHEIN: Salkowitz Files Anti-trust Suit in N.Y. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Salkowitz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Henry Schein, Inc., Stanley M.
Bergman and Steven Paladino, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01428
(E.D. N.Y., March 6, 2018), seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by violations of federal securities laws and pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Henry Schein provides health care products and services to dental
practitioners and laboratories, animal health clinics, physician
practices, government, institutional health care clinics and
other alternate care clinics worldwide. Salkowits, owner of
publicly-traded Henry Schein securities, claims Schein filed
statements that failed to disclose that Henry Schein was engaging
in unethical, anti-competitive behavior through agreements with
Benco Dental Supply Company and Patterson Companies, Inc., in
violation of US antitrust laws and that it failed to maintain
adequate internal controls. On this news, shares of Henry Schein
fell $4.79 per share or over 6.64% to close at $67.39 per share
on February 13, 2018. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IDEAL COLLECTION: Bond Sues Over Illegal Collection Letter
----------------------------------------------------------
Brooke Bond, individually and on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ideal Collection Services and
Does 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00150 (M.D. Fla., March 7,
2018), seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief as well as
reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Ideal is a debt collection agency assigned to collect an alleged
debt incurred by Bond to Alvista at Laguna Bay. Ideal sent a
collection letter that threatened legal action if not settled
within 10 days. It since has been a year and no legal action has
been filed. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Zeig, Esq.
      ZEIG LAW FIRM LLC
      3475 Sheridan St., Suite 310
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Tel: (954) 217-3084
      Fax: (954) 272-7807
      Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


IDENTIV INC: 9th Circuit Declines to Revive "Rok" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Identiv, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit has affirmed the dismissal with prejudice, of the case
entitled, Rok v. Identiv, Inc., et al.

On December 16, 2015, the company and certain of its present and
former officers and directors were named as defendants in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Rok v.
Identiv, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-cv-05775, alleging violations
of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of
1934.

On May 3, 2016, the court-appointed lead plaintiff Thomas
Cunningham in the Rok lawsuit filed an amended complaint and a
notice of dismissal without prejudice of all current or former
officers and directors other than Jason Hart and Brian Nelson.

Identiv said "On June 6, 2016, each of us, Jason Hart, and Brian
Nelson filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted in the Rok lawsuit; on August 5,
2016, the court granted those motions with leave for the lead
plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. On September 12,
2016, the lead plaintiff in the Rok lawsuit filed a second
amended complaint. On October 10, 2016, each of us, Jason Hart,
and Brian Nelson filed a motion to dismiss that second amended
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted in the Rok lawsuit; on January 4, 2017, the court granted
those motions with prejudice and entered judgment for us and the
other defendants and against the lead plaintiff."

Identiv, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that on February 6, 2017, the
lead plaintiff initiated an appeal of the court's decision in the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Following the lead plaintiff's
routine request to extend filing deadlines, which the Court of
Appeals approved, the lead plaintiff's opening appellate brief
was filed on June 14, 2017. Following Jason Hart's routine
request to extend filing deadlines, which the Court of Appeals
approved, the answering briefs of the Company and the other
defendants were filed on August 14, 2017. Following the lead
plaintiff's routine request to extend filing deadlines, which the
Court of Appeals approved, the lead plaintiff's optional reply
brief was filed on October 5, 2017.  The Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals has not yet scheduled oral argument or entered a ruling
on the lead plaintiff's appeal.

In its Form 10-K report, Identiv said the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals held oral argument on March 13, 2018. On March 23, 2018,
the Ninth Circuit issued an order affirming the dismissal with
prejudice.

In the interim, on January 3, 2018, lead plaintiffs filed a
motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b) in the
trial court to vacate the January 4, 2017 judgment of dismissal.
On February 9, 2018, following additional briefing, the trial
court denied the motion.

Identiv, Inc. is a global security technology company that
secures and manages access to physical places, things and
information. Global organizations across government, education,
retail, transportation, healthcare and other markets rely upon
its solutions. The company is based in Fremont, California.


JAGUAR HEALTH: Continues to Defend "Plant" Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Jaguar Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 9, 2018, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, filed by Tony Plant.

Jaguar Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on July 20, 2017,
a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States
District Court, Northern District of California, Civil Action No.
3:17-cv-04102, by Tony Plant (the "Plaintiff") on behalf of
shareholders of the Company who held shares on June 30, 2017 and
were entitled to vote at the 2017 Special Shareholders Meeting,
against the Company and certain individuals who were directors as
of the date of the vote (collectively, the "Defendants"), in a
matter captioned Tony Plant v. Jaguar Animal Health, Inc., et
al., making claims arising under Section 14(a) and Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.14a-9,
promulgated thereunder by the SEC.

The claims allege false and misleading information provided to
investors in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus on Form S-4
(File No. 333-217364) declared effective by the Commission on
July 6, 2017 related to the solicitation of votes from
shareholders to approve the merger and certain transactions
related thereto.

In its 10-K report, the Company said it accepted service of the
complaint and summons on behalf of itself and the United States-
based director Defendants on November 1, 2017.  The Company has
not accepted service on behalf of, and Plaintiff has not yet
served, the non-U.S.-based director Defendants.

On October 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking appointment
as lead plaintiff and appointment of Monteverde & Associates PC
as lead counsel. That motion has been granted. Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint against the Company and the United States-based
director Defendants on January 10, 2018.

If the Plaintiff were able to prove its allegations in this
matter and to establish the damages it asserts, then an adverse
ruling could have a material impact on the Company. However, the
Company disputes the claims asserted in this putative class
action case and is vigorously

Jaguar Health, Inc. is a commercial stage natural-products
pharmaceuticals company focused on developing novel, sustainably
derived gastrointestinal products on a global basis. The company
is based in San Francisco, California.


KRIEGER-BEARD SERVICES: Certification of Technicians Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled AUNSHAWN HENDERSON, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. KRIEGER-BEARD
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00006-WHR (S.D. Ohio), asks the
Court to conditionally certify a class of, and to authorize
issuance notice of this action, to:

     all individuals who work or have worked for KBS as satellite
     installation technicians in Indiana and Illinois within the
     last 3 years.

Mr. Henderson worked as a telecommunications installation
technician, performing satellite television installation services
for Krieger-Beard Services, LLC in Indiana and Illinois.  He
contends that he and those similarly situated were improperly
classified by the Defendant as independent contractors and, as a
result, were not paid time-and-a-half for hours worked in excess
of 40 a week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WI9EHW2K

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
          250 E. Broad Street, 10th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221-4221
          E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
                  rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Camille Fundora, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: sschalman-bergen@bm.net
                  cfundora@bm.net


LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: "Raul" & "Witmer" Suits Challenge Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Layne Christensen Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 10, 2018,
for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2018, that the company
faces two class action suits related to a merger deal.

On April 3, 2018, two putative class actions captioned Malka Raul
v. Layne Christensen Company, et al., and Colleen Witmer v. Layne
Christensen Company, et al., were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas against Layne, Layne's
directors, Granite and Merger Sub.

The complaints generally allege that Layne, the Layne directors
and Granite disseminated a false or misleading registration
statement regarding the proposed merger in violation of Section
14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9.

Specifically, the complaints allege that the registration
statement misstated or omitted material information regarding the
parties' financial projections, the valuation analysis performed
by Greentech in support of its fairness opinion, and potential
conflicts of interest of Greentech. The complaints further allege
that the Layne directors and/or Granite are liable for these
violations as "controlling persons" of Layne under Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act.  The complaints seek injunctive relief,
including to enjoin and/or rescind the merger, rescission or
rescissory damages in the event the merger is consummated, and an
award of attorneys' fees, in addition to other relief.

Layne Christensen Company is a leading global water management
and services and drilling company, with more than 130 years of
industry experience. The company provides responsible,
sustainable, integrated solutions to address the world's water,
minerals and infrastructure challenges. The company is based in
Woodland, Texas.


MARVELL TECH: April 17 Final Approval Hearing on "Luna" Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marvel Technology Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended February 3, 2018, that the final settlement approval
hearing in the Luna Litigation and Consolidated Cases has been
scheduled for April 17, 2018.

On September 11, 2015, Daniel Luna filed an action asserting
putative class action claims on behalf of the Company's
shareholders in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York ("S.D. of New York"). This action was
consolidated with two additional, nearly identical complaints
subsequently filed by Philip Limbacher and Jim Farno.

The complaints asserted violations of federal securities laws
based on allegations that the Company and certain of its officers
and directors (Sehat Sutardja, Michael Rashkin, and Sukhi Nagesh)
made, caused to be made, or failed to correct false and/or
misleading statements in the Company's press releases and public
filings. The complaints request damages in unspecified amounts,
costs and fees of bringing the action, and other unspecified
relief.

On November 18, 2015, the S.D. of New York granted the Company's
motion to transfer the consolidated cases to the N.D. of
California. On December 21, 2015, the N.D. of California granted
the Company's motion to deem the consolidated cases related to
the Saratoga litigation. On February 8, 2016, the N.D. of
California granted an unopposed motion to appoint Plumbers and
Pipefitters National Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff. On March 19,
2016, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. On
April 29, 2016, Marvell and each of the individual defendants
each filed motions to dismiss. The hearing on the motions to
dismiss took place on July 29, 2016 and the court took the matter
under submission. On October 12, 2016, the Court granted
Defendants' motions to dismiss with leave to amend and granted
lead plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint.

The parties agreed that the plaintiffs shall file and serve an
amended complaint by November 28, 2016. Plaintiffs filed and
served the amended complaint on November 28, 2016. The Initial
Case Management Conference took place on January 12, 2017.

Marvell and co-defendants filed separate Motions to Dismiss on
January 17, 2017. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss took place
on May 4, 2017 and, on May 17, 2017, the Court granted the Motion
to Dismiss as to Rashkin and Nagesh and denied the Motion to
Dismiss as to Sutardja and Marvell. On August 2, 2017, Lead
Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On October 27,
2017, after a hearing on October 26, 2017, the Court certified a
class of persons or entities that acquired Marvell stock during
the period from February 19, 2015 to December 7, 2015. The Court
set a deadline of December 29, 2017 for the conclusion of fact
discovery.

In early December 2017, an initial proposal for a monetary
settlement of the case was tendered to the Company by plaintiffs'
counsel. Negotiations regarding the conditions of a proposed
settlement continued until December 19, 2017 when Lead Plaintiff
Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund and the remaining
defendants entered into a written settlement agreement that is
subject to the Court's approval and provides for class-wide
releases in exchange for a payment by the Company of $72.5
million, which the Company placed into escrow in connection with
the Court's preliminary approval of the class settlement. In the
settlement agreement, the defendants expressly deny all charges
of wrongdoing or liability against them arising out of any of the
conduct alleged in the litigation and state that they determined
that having taken into account the uncertainty and risks inherent
in any litigation, especially in complex cases such as this, it
is desirable and beneficial to them that the litigation be fully
and finally settled.

The settlement agreement was preliminarily approved by the Court
on December 21, 2017, and the final settlement approval hearing
has been scheduled for April 17, 2018. The settlement amount plus
associated legal fees totaling $74.4 million is included in
"Litigation settlement" in the accompanying consolidated
statement of operations as of the fiscal year ended February 3,
2018.

Marvell Technology Group Ltd., together with its consolidated
subsidiaries is a fabless semiconductor provider of high-
performance application-specific standard products. The company's
core strength is developing complex System-on-a-Chip ("SoC")
devices, leveraging its technology portfolio of intellectual
property in the areas of analog, mixed-signal, digital signal
processing, and embedded and standalone integrated circuits.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces "Faircloth" Suit Over Drive-Thru Access
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPER W. FAIRCLOTH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. McDonald's Corporation and McDonald's USA,
LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-01831 (N.D. Ill., March 13, 2018), alleges
that McDonald's is denying the visually-impaired equal access to
the goods and services that McDonald's provides during "late-
night" hours at thousands of their restaurants throughout the
United States.

During these late evening and early morning operating times,
patrons are not allowed to physically enter McDonald's
restaurants; and McDonald's only offers its products and services
via "drive-thru" windows attached to its restaurants, Mr.
Faircloth contends.  He asserts that despite being accessible to
the general public, McDonald's drive-thrus lack any meaningful
accommodation for visually-impaired individuals, who are unable
to operate motor vehicles.  Since they are unable to drive, and
because it is not safe for them to walk through the drive-thru,
visually-impaired individuals are totally precluded from
accessing Defendants' products during late night hours, he
alleges.

The Defendants are Oak Brook, Illinois-based, for-profit
corporations organized under the laws of the state of Delaware.
The Defendants own, operate and/or lease restaurant buildings at
tens of thousands of locations throughout the United States.
McDonald's operates one of the largest and most well-known "fast
food" restaurant chains in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          3151 W. 26th Street, 2nd Floor
          Chicago, IL 60623
          Telephone: (773) 831-8000
          Facsimile: (504) 272-2956
          E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com
                  whb@beaumontcostales.com


MCS LEASING INC: "Sanita" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Sanita, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. MCS Leasing Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-80288
(S.D. Fla., March 7, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages,
overtime compensation, withheld tips, liquidated damages and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants operate a household equipment rental company under the
name "Family Rentals" where Sanita worked as a delivery driver.
He claims to have worked up to 60 hours per week without being
paid the appropriate overtime premium. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MERCK & CO: Rigged Cholesterol Meds Price Claims Engineers' Fund
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Union Of Operating Engineers Local 49 Health and
Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Merck & Company, Inc., Merck Sharp &
Dohme Corporation, Schering-Plough Corporation, Schering
Corporation, and MSP Singapore Company LLC and Glenmark
Pharmaceuticals Limited and Glenmark Generics Inc., USA,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00130 (E.D. Va., March 7, 2018), seeks
damages plus interest, including reasonable attorneys' fees and
such other and further relief resulting from unjust enrichment,
conspiracy and combination in restraint of trade and in violation
of various state consumer protection laws.

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

International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 Health and
Welfare Fund is a Taft-Hartley fund providing health benefits,
including prescription drug benefits, to approximately 36,000
active participants and retirees, plus their spouses and
dependents. Local 49 purchased and/or provided reimbursement for
allegedly overpriced Zetia prescriptions.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Wyatt B. Durrette, Jr., Esq.
      Christine A. Williams, Esq.
      Kevin J. Funk, Esq.
      DURRETTE, ARKEMA, GERSON & GILL PC
      1111 East Main Street, 16th Floor
      Richmond, VA 23219
      Tel: (804) 775-6900
      Fax: (804) 775-6911
      Email: wdurrette@dagglaw.com
             cwilliams@dagglaw.com
             kfunk@dagglaw.com

             - and -

      Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
      Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
      Anna M. Horning Nygren, Esq.
      Devona L. Wells, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Ave. South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Email: khriebel@locklaw.com
             hmsilton@locklaw.com
             amhorningnygren@locklaw.com
             dlwells@locklaw.com


MESSERLI & KRAMER: Kleczewski Moves for Cert. of Two Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew G. Kleczewski asks the Court to enter an order
determining that his action captioned Matthew G. Kleczewski, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Messerli &
Kramer, P.A., Gina C. Ziegelbauer, Esq., individually, and John
Does, Esqs., Case No. 2:18-cv-00422-WED (E.D. Wisc.), may proceed
as a class action against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair
Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The FCRA class is defined as:

     All consumers that have had their consumer reports/credit
     scores published in various judicial court actions within
     two year of the date of the filing of this Complaint by
     Defendants.

The FDCPA class is defined as:

     All consumers that have had their consumer reports/credit
     scores published in various judicial court actions by
     Defendants within one year of the date of the filing of this
     Complaint.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EGo700dx

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Thomas J. Lyons, Esq.
          LYONS LAW FIRM P.A.
          367 Commerce Court
          Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
          Telephone: (651) 770-9707
          Facsimile: (651) 770-5830
          E-mail: tlyons@lyonslawfirm.com


MIKES ITALIAN: "Flores" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Withheld Tips
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rufino Marcelo Flores, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mikes Italian Kitchen, LLC
(d/b/a Amsterdam Burger Co.), MG Food Inc. (d/b/a Amsterdam
Burger Co.), MLM Cuisine, LLC (d/b/a Amsterdam Burger Co.),
Michael Gershkovich, Mike Cobden, Marty Katz and Mehadrin
Kashrus, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02050 (S.D. N.Y., March 7,
2018), seeks to recover withheld tips and overtime wages, unpaid
minimum wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York
Labor Law.

Defendants own, operate, or control a kosher burger restaurant,
located at 654 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10025 under the
name "Amsterdam Burger Co." Flores worked as a delivery person.
However, he was required to spend a considerable part of his work
day performing non-tipped duties. Flores worked without
appropriate minimum wage compensation for the hours that he
worked and overtime pay, says the complaint. Defendants were not
entitled to take a tip credit because Flores' non-tipped duties
exceeded 20% of each workday. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MISSOURI, USA: MB Moves to Certify Class of Minors Under Custody
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled M.B., et al. v. Steve Corsi,
et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-04102-NKL (W.D. Mo.), moves to certify a
Plaintiff Class of:

     children under the age of eighteen who are or will be placed
     in the custody of the state of Missouri due to a report that
     they have suffered abuse or neglect in the homes of their
     parents, guardians, or other legal custodians.

Steve Corsi is the Director of the Missouri Department of Social
Services.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint M.B., K.C., and A.H.
as class representatives, and to appoint Children's Rights, the
National Center for Youth Law, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, and
the Saint Louis University School of Law Legal Clinic as class
counsel.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs seek prospective injunctive
relief to address the Defendants' alleged failure to implement a
minimally adequate system of oversight to assure that
psychotropic medications are administered to children in Missouri
foster care in a manner that is safe and appropriate.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PRmM54Ad

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sara M. Bartosz, Esq.
          Elizabeth Pitman Gretter, Esq.
          Stephen Dixon, Esq.
          Catherine Frizell, Esq.
          CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, INC.
          88 Pine Street, Suite 800
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 683-2210
          Facsimile: (212) 683-4015
          E-mail: sbartosz@childrensrights.org
                  egretter@childrensrights.org
                  sdixon@childrensrights.org
                  cfrizell@childrensrights.org

               - and -

          John J. Ammann, Esq.
          SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LEGAL CLINIC
          100 N. Tucker Blvd., Suite 704
          Saint Louis, MO 63101-1911
          Telephone: (314) 977-2778
          Facsimile: (314) 977-1180
          E-mail: ammannjj@slu.edu

               - and -

          William Grimm, Esq.
          Leecia Welch, Esq.
          Poonam Juneja, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW
          405 14th Street, 15th Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 835-8098
          Facsimile: (510) 835-8099
          E-mail: billgrimm@youthlaw.org
                  lwelch@youthlaw.org
                  pjuneja@youthlaw.org

               - and -

          Scott T. Schutte, Esq.
          Daniel T. Fahner, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          77 West Wacker Drive, 5th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 324-1000
          E-mail: scott.schutte@morganlewis.com
                  daniel.fahner@morganlewis.com


NAVIENT CORP: Adkins Moves for Certification of Class Under TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled BRIA ADKINS, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. NAVIENT CORPORATION,
ET AL., Case No. 1:18-cv-01680 (N.D. Ill.), moves the Court to
certify a class with respect to Count One of her complaint, which
seeks relief from the Defendants for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The class consists of:

   (1) All persons within the United States;

   (2) to whose cellular telephone number;

   (3) Defendants placed a non-emergency telephone call;

   (4) using an automatic telephone dialing system or an
       artificial or prerecorded voice;

   (5) within the four (4) years preceding the filing of this
       Complaint.

Excluded from this class are any such persons who provided that
cellular telephone number to Defendants or the original creditor.

Ms. Adkins further asks that she be named as class representative
and her lawyers be appointed counsel for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eRop5MsV

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. Meier, Esq.
          MEIER LLC
          401 N. Michigan Ave, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 242-1849
          Facsimile: (312) 242-1841
          E-mail: richard@meierllc.com


NOVATION COMPANIES: NJ Carpenters' Health Fund Suit Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Novation Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 10, 2018,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by the New
Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund.

On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the
New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated. Defendants in the case included
NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation ("NMFC") and NovaStar
Mortgage, Inc. ("NMI"), wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company,
and NMFC's individual directors, several securitization trusts
sponsored by the Company ("affiliated defendants") and several
unaffiliated investment banks and credit rating agencies.

The case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages,
alleging that the defendants violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by making allegedly false
statements regarding mortgage loans that served as collateral for
securities purchased by the plaintiff and the purported class
members. On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's claims, which the court granted on March
31, 2011, with leave to amend.

The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May 16, 2011,
and the Company again filed a motion to dismiss. On March 29,
2012, the court dismissed the plaintiff's second amended
complaint with prejudice and without leave to replead. The
plaintiff filed an appeal.

On March 1, 2013, the appellate court reversed the judgment of
the lower court, which had dismissed the case. Also, the
appellate court vacated the judgment of the lower court which had
held that the plaintiff lacked standing, even as a class
representative, to sue on behalf of investors in securities in
which plaintiff had not invested, and the appellate court
remanded the case back to the lower court for further
proceedings. On April 23, 2013 the plaintiff filed its memorandum
with the lower court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier
dismissal of plaintiff's claims as to five offerings in which
plaintiff was not invested, and on February 5, 2015 the lower
court granted plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and vacated
its earlier dismissal.

On March 8, 2017, the affiliated defendants and all other parties
executed an agreement to settle the action, with the contribution
of the affiliated defendants to the settlement fund being paid by
their insurance carriers. The court certified a settlement class
and granted preliminary approval to the settlement on May 10,
2017.  One member of the settlement class objected to the
settlement and sought a stay of the final settlement approval
hearing on the ground that it did not receive notice of the
settlement and had no opportunity to timely opt out of the class.
After the court rejected the motion for a stay, the objector
filed an appeal and requested a stay of the district court
proceedings pending disposition of the appeal. The court of
appeals denied the temporary stay of the district court
proceedings pending a decision on the objector's request for a
stay. Assuming the settlement is approved and completed, which is
expected, the Company will incur no loss.

Novation Companies said "The Company believes that the affiliated
defendants have meritorious defenses to the case and, if the
settlement is not approved, expects them to defend the case
vigorously."

Novation Companies, Inc., through its subsidiary, Healthcare
Staffing, Inc., provides outsourced health care staffing and
related services primarily to Community Service Boards in
Georgia. It also owns a portfolio of mortgage securities. The
company was formerly known as NovaStar Financial, Inc. and
changed its name to Novation Companies, Inc. in May 2012.
Novation Companies, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is based in
Kansas City, Missouri.


ORLEANS PARISH, LA: Caliste's Bid for Class Certification Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Eldon E. Fallon granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify the class in the lawsuit entitled ADRIAN CALISTE, ET AL.
v. HARRY E. CANTRELL, Case No. 2:17-cv-06197-EEF-MBN (E.D. La.).

On June 27, 2017, a group of Plaintiffs filed suit against
Magistrate Judge Harry Cantrell, according to the Court's Order &
Reasons.  This case arises from Defendant Magistrate Judge
Cantrell's allegedly unlawful practice of imposing unreasonably
expensive secured financial conditions of release upon arrestees
without inquiring about their ability to pay.  The Plaintiffs are
two criminal defendants, who were in the custody of the Orleans
Parish Sheriff's Office.

Defendant Harry Cantrell is the Magistrate Judge for Orleans
Parish Criminal District Court, where he is responsible for
setting bail upon arrest, and has a role in managing the
expenditures of the Judicial Expense Fund.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant routinely sets a $2,500
minimum secured money bond.  The Plaintiffs contend Judge
Cantrell sets bond without considering the facts of the case to
determine whether a lower bond amount or an alternative condition
of release might be appropriate.  The Plaintiffs further aver
that the Defendant requires the use of a for-profit bail bond and
does not allow arrestees to post cash bail.  Under Louisiana law,
1.8% of a bond amount collected from a commercial surety (but not
from any other type of bond) is allocated directly to the Court
for its discretionary use; Plaintiffs contend that this policy
involves a conflict of interest.

The Plaintiffs argue that refusing to consider ability to pay,
alternative conditions of release, or a lower bond, as well as
the resulting institutional financial conflict, violate the Due
Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that Defendant's bond
policy, which results in the creation of a modern "debtor's
prison," is a violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights, and
a declaration that Defendant's financial conflict of interest
violates their Due Process rights.

A copy of the Order & Reasons is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vRqi7W9n


OSBORNE ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA, D'Emilio Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
PARIS D'EMILIO, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, and SANDRA RONALDO, on behalf of herself and those
similarly situated v. OSBORNE ASSOCIATES INC. D/B/A GENERATIONS
SALON SERVICES and MARVIN WEINSTEIN, Case No. 2:18-cv-01055 (E.D.
Pa., March 12, 2018), seeks redress from the Defendants' alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act, the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection
Law, and state common law.

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants failed to pay minimum
wage and proper overtime wages to them and other similarly
situated individuals in violation of the FLSA and PMWA.

Osborne Associates Inc., doing business as Generations Salon
Services, is a company that operates in Pennsylvania and is
located in Levittown, Pennsylvania.  Marvin Weinstein is the
owner and CEO of Defendant Generations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 Kings Highway N., Ste. 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
          E-mail: rswartz@swartz-legal.com
                  jswindler@swartz-legal.com
                  mmiller@swartz-legal.com


OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: MOU Entered in "Nallagonda" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that the company entered into a
memorandum of understanding in the case captioned Kiran Kumar
Nallagonda v. Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. et al.

On November 23, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
by a single plaintiff, individually and on behalf of other
persons similarly situated, against the Company and three current
or former executive officers of the Company.

The action, captioned Kiran Kumar Nallagonda v. Osiris
Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case 1:15-cv-03562 (the "Nallagonda
Action"), alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
materially false or misleading statements and material omissions
in the Company's SEC filings in violation of the federal
securities laws. The complaint seeks certification as a class
action, unspecified damages and reimbursement of attorneys' fees.

On March 21, 2016, the Court entered an order appointing Dr.
Raffy Mirzayan as lead plaintiff and the firm of Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP as legal counsel. On January 17, 2018, the
Court entered an order providing that the lead plaintiff shall
have 45 days to file an amended complaint.

On March 11, 2018, the company entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle the Nallagonda Action. A memorandum of
understanding is not a definitive settlement agreement. By the
terms of the memorandum, the Company agreed in principle to a
total payment of $18.5 million in cash.

A definitive settlement agreement resulting from the memorandum
is expected to be entered into in the second quarter of 2018 and
will require court approval.

Osiris Therapeutics said "We can provide no assurance, however,
that a definitive settlement agreement will be reached, or that
it will be approved by the court."

Osiris Therapeutics, Inc., together with its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Osiris Therapeutics International GmbH, researches,
develops, manufactures and commercializes regenerative medicine
products intended to improve the health and lives of patients and
lower overall healthcare costs. The company is based in Columbia,
Maryland.


PARTNER COMMS: Customers' Suit over Unlawful Charges Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Partners Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company continues
to defend itself in a class action suit filed by its customers on
its alleged unlawful charges.

On September 7, 2010, a claim and a motion to certify the claim
as a class action were filed against the Company. The claim
alleges that the Company unlawfully charges its customers for
services of various content providers, which are sent through
text messages (SMS). The total amount claimed from the Company
was estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 405
million. The claim was certified as a class action in December
2016. In February 2017, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the
Supreme Court, regarding the definition of the group of
customers.

Partner estimates that even if the claim will be decided in favor
of the approved group of customers (as defined by the District
Court), the damages that Partner will be required to pay for,
will be immaterial.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various
telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two
segments, Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company offers cellular
telephony services, including basic cellular telephony, text
messaging, Internet browsing and data transfer, content, and
roaming services, as well as services provided to other operators
that are permitted to use its cellular network.


PARTNER COMMS: July 2014 Claim for NIS 300 Million Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Partners Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that a claim dated July 15,
2014, against the company is still in its preliminary stage.

On July 15, 2014, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company and against
additional cellular operators and content providers. The claim
alleges that the cellular operators, including the Company,
breached legal provisions and provisions of their licenses and
thereby created a platform that led to the customers' damages
alleged in the claim.

The total amount claimed against all of the defendants is
estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 300 million.
The claim is still in its preliminary stage of the motion to be
certified as a class action.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various
telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two
segments, Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company offers cellular
telephony services, including basic cellular telephony, text
messaging, Internet browsing and data transfer, content, and
roaming services, as well as services provided to other operators
that are permitted to use its cellular network.


PARTNER COMMS: Suit over Router/Adaptor Purchase Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Partners Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit related to the purchasing of a
router and/or a call adaptor and/or terminal equipment.

On November 12, 2015, a claim and a motion to certify the claim
as a class action were filed against the Company. The claim
alleges that Partner required their customers to purchase a
router and/or a call adaptor and/or terminal equipment as a
condition for using its fixed-line telephony services, an action
which would not be in accordance with the provisions of its
licenses. The total amount claimed against Partner is estimated
by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 116 million. The claim
is still in its preliminary stage of the motion to be certified
as a class action.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various
telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two
segments, Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company offers cellular
telephony services, including basic cellular telephony, text
messaging, Internet browsing and data transfer, content, and
roaming services, as well as services provided to other operators
that are permitted to use its cellular network.


PARTNER COMMS: Suit over Telecommunication Packages Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Partners Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit filed by its customers related to
telecommunication packages.

On January 4, 2016, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges
that Partner charges its customers the full price of
telecommunication packages that are intended for use abroad
despite the fact that the packages are not fully utilized and
does not allow customers to transfer the balance to the next trip
abroad or to receive a credit for the balance. The total amount
claimed against Partner is estimated by the plaintiff to be
approximately NIS 234 million. The claim is still in its
preliminary stage of the motion to be certified as a class
action.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various
telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two
segments, Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company offers cellular
telephony services, including basic cellular telephony, text
messaging, Internet browsing and data transfer, content, and
roaming services, as well as services provided to other operators
that are permitted to use its cellular network.


PARTNER COMMS: Still Defends Overcharge Services-Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Partners Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit related to its alleged overcharge
services.

On April 2, 2017, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges
among others, that Partner overcharges its customers without
their consent for services that they did not order and does not
respond to customers that apply in writing regarding the
overcharge contrary to its license. The total amount claimed
against Partner is estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately
NIS 60 million. The claim is still in its preliminary stage of
the motion to be certified as a class action.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various
telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two
segments, Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company offers cellular
telephony services, including basic cellular telephony, text
messaging, Internet browsing and data transfer, content, and
roaming services, as well as services provided to other operators
that are permitted to use its cellular network.


PARTNER COMMS: October 2017 Claim for NIS 1 Billion Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Partners Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that a claim dated October
24, 2017, against the company is still in its preliminary stage.

On October 24, 2017, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action were filed against the Company and another
cellular operator. The claim alleges that Partner harms the
privacy of its customers by unlawfully using their location data.
The total amount claimed against Partner is estimated by the
plaintiff to be approximately NIS 1 billion. The claim is still
in its preliminary stage of the motion to be certified as a class
action.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various
telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two
segments, Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company offers cellular
telephony services, including basic cellular telephony, text
messaging, Internet browsing and data transfer, content, and
roaming services, as well as services provided to other operators
that are permitted to use its cellular network.


PARTNER COMMS: Settlement of NIS 343-Mil. Claim Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Partners Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the parties await court
decision on a request to approve a settlement agreement.

On April 12, 2010, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleged
that the Company charged its customers for certain content
services without their consent. The total amount claimed from the
Company was estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS
343 million. In March 2016, the parties filed a request to
approve a settlement agreement and are waiting for the Court's
decision.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various
telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two
segments, Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company offers cellular
telephony services, including basic cellular telephony, text
messaging, Internet browsing and data transfer, content, and
roaming services, as well as services provided to other operators
that are permitted to use its cellular network.


PARTNER COMMS: Settlement Approved in Tariffs-Related Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Partners Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the court approves the
parties settlement in a class action suit related to increased
tariffs.

On November 13, 2013, a claim and a motion to certify the claim
as a class action were filed against the Company. The claim
alleged that the Company increased tariffs for its customers not
in accordance with their agreements. The total amount claimed
from Partner was estimated by the plaintiff to be NIS 150
million. The parties filed a settlement agreement in October 2015
which was approved by the Court in November 2017.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various
telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two
segments, Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company offers cellular
telephony services, including basic cellular telephony, text
messaging, Internet browsing and data transfer, content, and
roaming services, as well as services provided to other operators
that are permitted to use its cellular network.


PARTNER COMMS: Settlement of NIS 100-Mil. Claim Awaits Court OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Partners Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the parties await a
court decision on a revised settlement agreement.

On March 24, 2014, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleged
that the Company did not include in the severance pay calculation
for its employees various components that constitute an addition
to the salary for the severance pay calculation and thereby acted
unlawfully.

The total amount claimed from Partner was estimated by the
plaintiff to be approximately NIS 100 million. In November 2015,
the plaintiff filed an amended claim and a motion to certify the
claim as a class action. In November 2017, the parties filed a
revised settlement agreement and waiting for the Court's
decision.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various
telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two
segments, Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company offers cellular
telephony services, including basic cellular telephony, text
messaging, Internet browsing and data transfer, content, and
roaming services, as well as services provided to other operators
that are permitted to use its cellular network.


PARTNER COMMS: Suit over Overseas Call Tariffs Dropped
------------------------------------------------------
Partners Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the court approved the
parties' agreed upon withdrawal request.

On September 7, 2015, a claim and a motion to certify the claim
as a class action were filed against the Company and 012 Smile.
The claim alleges that Partner and 012 Smile overcharge its
customers according to a special tariff for overseas call
destinations that are defined by the Company as special tariff
destinations despite the fact that they are fixed-line
destinations.

The total amount claimed against Partner and 012 Smile if the
lawsuit is certified as a class action was not stated by the
plaintiff. In April 2017, the parties filed an agreed upon
withdrawal request which was approved by the Court.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various
telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two
segments, Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company offers cellular
telephony services, including basic cellular telephony, text
messaging, Internet browsing and data transfer, content, and
roaming services, as well as services provided to other operators
that are permitted to use its cellular network.


PARTNER COMMS: Suit over Data Packages Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
Partners Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the claim against the
company related to the usage of data packages was dismissed by
the court.

On September 11, 2016, a claim and a motion to certify the claim
as a class action were filed against the Company. The claim
alleges that Partner automatically charges its customers that use
the maximum volume of their data packages, for additional data
volume, without their consent.

The total amount claimed against Partner is estimated by the
plaintiff to be approximately NIS 250 million. In August 2017,
the Court dismissed the claim.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various
telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two
segments, Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company offers cellular
telephony services, including basic cellular telephony, text
messaging, Internet browsing and data transfer, content, and
roaming services, as well as services provided to other operators
that are permitted to use its cellular network.


PARTNER COMMS: Appeal in Suit over V.A.T. Charges Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Partners Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that parties are waiting for
the Israeli Supreme Court's decision on the plaintiff's appeal.

On July 14, 2010, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges
that Partner is breaching its contractual and/or legal obligation
and/or is acting negligently by charging V.A.T for roaming
services that are consumed abroad. The plaintiff demands to
return the total amount of V.A.T that was charged by Partner for
roaming services that were consumed abroad. The plaintiff also
pursued an injunction that will order Partner to stop charging
V.A.T for roaming services that are consumed abroad. In August
2014, the claim was dismissed and in October 2014, the plaintiff
filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. The hearing was held in
May 2016 before an expanded panel of seven judges and the parties
are waiting for the Court's decision.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various
telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two
segments, Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company offers cellular
telephony services, including basic cellular telephony, text
messaging, Internet browsing and data transfer, content, and
roaming services, as well as services provided to other operators
that are permitted to use its cellular network.


PARTNER COMMS: Customer Discrimination Suit Still in Early Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Partners Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the claim against the
company in a class action suit alleging customer discrimination,
is still in its preliminary stage.

On May 6, 2015, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges,
that Partner discriminated between its cellular customers,
including between new customers and existing customers, by
offering the same type of customers, different terms, an action
which would not be in accordance with the provisions of its
license.

The plaintiff noted that it cannot estimate the total amount
claimed in the lawsuit, if the lawsuit is certified as a class
action. The claim is still in its preliminary stage of the motion
to be certified as a class action.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various
telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two
segments, Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company offers cellular
telephony services, including basic cellular telephony, text
messaging, Internet browsing and data transfer, content, and
roaming services, as well as services provided to other operators
that are permitted to use its cellular network.


PARTNER COMMS: Claim over Junk Ad Messages Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Partners Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company continues
to defend a claim dated February 24, 2016.

On February 24, 2016, a claim and a motion to certify the claim
as a class action were filed against the Company. The claim
alleges that the Company harasses recipients by sending
advertising messages without receiving their prior approval for
this. In addition, the content of the advertisements does not
comply with the legal provisions, among others, with respect to
the fact that most of the advertising messages do not easily
include an option to remove or send a refusal notice.

The total amount claimed against the Company if the lawsuit is
certified as a class action was not stated by the plaintiff. The
claim is still in its preliminary stage of the motion to be
certified as a class action.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various
telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two
segments, Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company offers cellular
telephony services, including basic cellular telephony, text
messaging, Internet browsing and data transfer, content, and
roaming services, as well as services provided to other operators
that are permitted to use its cellular network.


PARTNER COMMS: November 2016 Claim over Data Packages Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Partners Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that a claim against the
company was made on November 1, 2016, and that claim is still in
its preliminary stage.

On November 1, 2016, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges
that the Company sends text messages regarding the volume rate of
data packages, which unlawfully include advertisement content,
intended to encourage purchasing another data package.

The total amount claimed against the Company if the lawsuit is
certified as a class action was not stated by the plaintiff. The
claim is still in its preliminary stage of the motion to be
certified as a class action.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various
telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two
segments, Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company offers cellular
telephony services, including basic cellular telephony, text
messaging, Internet browsing and data transfer, content, and
roaming services, as well as services provided to other operators
that are permitted to use its cellular network.


PARTNER COMMS: September 2016 Claim Still in Early Stage
--------------------------------------------------------
Partners Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that a claim made against
the company on September 29, 2016, remains pending.

On September 29, 2016, a claim and a motion to certify the claim
as a class action were filed against the Company. The claim
alleges that Partner refunded its customers, in cases where it
was apparent that they were overcharged, not in accordance with
legal provisions. In addition, the claim alleges that Partner
charges some of its customers that subscribe to the "One" service
for the provision of this special service even though it was
terminated.

The plaintiff noted that it cannot estimate the total amount
claimed in the lawsuit, should the lawsuit be certified as a
class action. The claim is still in its preliminary stage of the
motion to be certified as a class action.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various
telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two
segments, Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company offers cellular
telephony services, including basic cellular telephony, text
messaging, Internet browsing and data transfer, content, and
roaming services, as well as services provided to other operators
that are permitted to use its cellular network.


PARTNER COMMS: September 19, 2017 Claim Still in Early Stage
------------------------------------------------------------
Partners Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that a claim made against
the company on September 19, 2017, remains pending.

On September 19, 2017, a claim and a motion to certify the claim
as a class action were filed against the Company. The claim
alleges that Partner breaches its license with respect to
coordination of technician visits for internet malfunction
repairs. The plaintiff noted that it cannot estimate the total
amount claimed in the lawsuit, should the lawsuit be certified as
a class action. The claim is still in its preliminary stage of
the motion to be certified as a class action.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various
telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two
segments, Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company offers cellular
telephony services, including basic cellular telephony, text
messaging, Internet browsing and data transfer, content, and
roaming services, as well as services provided to other operators
that are permitted to use its cellular network.


PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: "Franchi" Suit Seeks to Halt Sale to Penn
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Franchi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc., Anthony M.
Sanfilippo, Carlos Ruisanchez, Charles L. Atwood, Stephen Comer,
Ron Huberman, James L. Martineau, Jaynie Miller Studenmund, And
DesirÇe Rogers, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00415, (D. Nev., March
7, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in
concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing
the acquisition of Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. by Penn National
Gaming, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary, Franchise Merger
Sub, Inc., rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding
rescissory damages in the event defendants consummate the merger.
The Plaintiff further seeks costs of this action, including
reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such
other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Shareholders of Pinnacle will receive $20.00 in cash and 0.42
shares of Penn National common stock for each share of Pinnacle
common stock they own.

Pinnacle owns and operates 16 gaming, hospitality, and
entertainment businesses, of which 15 operate in leased
facilities.

Defendants filed a proxy statement that failed to include
financial projections and valuation analyses performed by its
financial advisor, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC including
discounted cash flow analysis, calculation of the estimated
present value of the unlevered free cash flows that Pinnacle is
expected to generate during fiscal years 2017 through 2021 and
unlevered free cash flows for years 2018 through 2025 at the
then-proposed 21% tax rate. [BN]

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
      Tel: (702) 385-6000

             - and -

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Tel: (302) 295-531
      Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
      Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
             gms@rl-legal.com

             - and -

      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800


PIRON LLC: Court Certifies Class of Employees in "Ali" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Linda V. Parker entered an opinion and order
granting, in part, and denying, in part, the motion to certify
class filed by the Plaintiffs of the lawsuit styled SUHAIL ALI,
SHALAN ALMANSOOB, QASEM SALEH, and KASSEM DUBAISHI, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. PIRON,
LLC, STEVE HANNAH, CRAIG MONROE, REYNOLDS QUALITY INSTALLATIONS,
LLC, RODERICK REYNOLDS JR., AERO COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and COMCAST
CABLE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 4:17-cv-11012-LVP-
DRG (E.D. Mich.).

The Motion is granted to the extent that the Court conditionally
certifies this action as a collective action on behalf of:

     All current and former employees (including those
     misclassified as independent contractors) of Defendant Piron
     and Defendant Reynolds Quality, who worked in Michigan, for
     Defendant Aero Communications and Defendant Comcast, who
     were not paid at least $7.25 per hour for every hour worked
     and/or did not make at least one and one half times their
     regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
     in a workweek.

Judge Parker approves, with certain modification, the Plaintiffs'
proposed notice and consent forms to be sent via U.S. Mail and e-
mail.  Judge Parker appoints The Law Offices of Bryan Yaldou,
PLLC as interim Class Counsel.  The Defendants are to serve the
Claims Administrator with a computer-readable and exportable
Excel file containing the full name, last known address, last
known telephone number, employee ID number and last known e-mail
of all putative class members identified above within 30 days
from the date of the entry of this Order.

The Court authorizes the Claims Administrator to promptly
disseminate the approved notice and consent form, with the
modification, to all Collective Group Members pursuant to the
"opt-in" mechanism for collection class actions authorized by the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Court requires the Claims Administrator to file all opt-in
consent forms they receive within 60 days of sending the court-
approved notice.  The Court also require the Defendants to
refrain from communication with the Collective Group Members
concerning this lawsuit or the underlying issues.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=B6qlPgvN


PJ IOWA: Frazier Seeks to Certify 3 Classes of Delivery Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled BILLY D. FRAZIER, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PJ
IOWA, L.C., Case No. 4:17-cv-00160-JEG-HCA (S.D. Iowa), seeks
conditional certification of this Fair Labor Standards Act
collective:

    "All tipped delivery drivers who worked for PJ Iowa, L.C. at
     any Papa John's restaurant owned by PJ Iowa, L.C. at any
     time from April 13, 2014 to the present."

Plaintiff Angela Kearns, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated (except for plaintiff Billy Frazier), seeks
conditional certification of this FLSA collective:

    "All tipped delivery drivers who worked for PJ Iowa, L.C. at
     any Papa John's restaurant owned by PJ Iowa, L.C. at any
     time from April 13, 2014 to the present and used their
     personal vehicles for Papa John's deliveries."

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated, seek class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure of this class:

    "All tipped delivery drivers who worked for PJ Iowa, L.C. at
     any Papa John's restaurant owned by PJ Iowa, L.C. located in
     Iowa at any time from April 13, 2015 to the present."

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to:

   a. approve as to form and content Plaintiffs' proposed FLSA
      collective action notice and opt-in consent form;

   b. approve as to form and content the proposed Rule 23 class
      notice;

   c. direct the mailing of all notices by first class mail to
      the potential collective or class members;

   d. appoint Erbe Law Firm and Wandro & Associates as class
      counsel; and

   e. enjoin potential class members from filing or prosecuting
      any claims, suits, or administrative proceedings regarding
      claims encompassed by the proposed Rule 23 class action
      unless and until such class members have filed a valid
      Exclusion Request with class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DJw5NVSc

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Harley C. Erbe, Esq.
          ERBE LAW FIRM
          2501 Grand Avenue
          Des Moines, IA 50312
          Telephone: (515) 281-1460
          Facsimile: (515) 281-1474
          E-mail: erbelawfirm@aol.com

               - and -

          Steven P. Wandro, Esq.
          WANDRO & ASSOCIATES
          2501 Grand Avenue
          Des Moines, IA 50312
          Telephone: (515) 281-1475
          Facsimile: (515) 281-1474
          E-mail: swandro@2501grand.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jill R. Jensen-Welch, Esq.
          Bryan P. O'Neill, Esq.
          DICKINSON, MACKAMAN, TYLER & HAGEN, P.C.
          699 Walnut St., Suite 1600
          Des Moines, IA 50309
          Telephone: (515) 246-4536
          E-mail: jjensen@dickinsonlaw.com
                  boneill@dickinsonlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick F. Hulla, Esq.
          Mary K. Paulus, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4520 Main St., Suite 400
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 410-2226
          E-mail: patrick.hulla@ogletree.com
                  katherine.paulus@ogletree.com


QUALITY MENTAL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, "Dukes" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FLORA DUKES, et al. v. QUALITY MENTAL HEALTH, INC. f/k/a LIFE
HELP, INC., BEACON HARBOR, INC., BEACON HARBOR II, INC., & H.L.
HODGES, Case No. 4:18-cv-00063-SA-JMV (N.D. Miss., March 13,
2018), alleges that the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated employees with straight time or overtime
at one and one-half times their regular hourly rates of pay when
they worked overtime for the Defendants.

Quality Mental Health, Inc., is a Mississippi not-for-profit
corporation, and formerly conducted business under the name "Life
Help" throughout the state of Mississippi, and operates under the
supervision of regional commissions appointed by county boards of
supervisors comprising their respective service areas within the
State.

Beacon Harbor, Inc., and Beacon Harbor II, Inc., are Mississippi
not-for-profit corporations, doing business as a group home
located in Greenwood, Mississippi.  H. L. Hodges is an
incorporator of both Quality Mental Health, Inc. f/k/a Life Help,
Inc. and Beacon Harbor II, Inc., according to the records of the
Mississippi Secretary of State.

According to the Defendants' Web site, at http://region6-
lifehelp.org/index2.html, the Defendants currently operate
outpatient, residential, alcohol and drug, and crisis mental
health services for children, adults, the elderly, and the
developmentally disabled, at over twenty-five locations
throughout the South, including doing business under the assumed
name of "Beacon Harbor", "Life Help", and using other names.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Casey L. Lott, Esq.
          Dustin C. Childers, Esq.
          LANGSTON & LOTT, PLLC
          100 South Main Street
          Post Office Box 382
          Booneville, MS 38829
          Telephone: (662) 728-9733
          Facsimile: (662) 728-1992
          E-mail: clott@langstonlott.com
                  dchilders@langstonlott.com

               - and -

          Glen J. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
          GLEN J. DUNN & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 546-5056
          Facsimile: (312) 546- 5058
          E-mail: gdunn@gjdlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq.
          JEFFREY GRANT BROWN, P.C.
          221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 789-9700
          E-mail: jeff@jgbrownlaw.com


QUDIAN INC: Securities Litigation Underway in New York
------------------------------------------------------
Qudian Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 9, 2018, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company is facing a
consolidated class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York entitled, In re Qudian Inc.
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 1:17-cv-09741-RA
(S.D.N.Y.)

Qudian said "We and certain of our directors and officers were
named as defendants in four putative securities class actions
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York: Ramnath v. Qudian Inc. et al., Civil Action
No. 1:17-cv-09741-RA (S.D.N.Y.), Maia v. Min Luo et al., Civil
Action No. 1:17-cv-09796-RA (S.D.N.Y.), Foat v. Qudian Inc. et
al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-09875-RA (S.D.N.Y.), and Perez v.
Qudian Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-09903-RA (S.D.N.Y.)
(collectively, the "Federal Actions")."

"The Federal Actions -- purportedly brought on behalf of a class
of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their
purchase of our ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to our IPO --
allege violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the United States
Securities Act of 1933 in connection with our disclosure of
business and regulatory risks.

"On March 16, 2018, the Court entered an order consolidating the
Federal Actions under master caption In re Qudian Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 1:17-cv-09741-RA (S.D.N.Y.) and
appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the consolidated
case. The consolidated case remains at its preliminary stages."

Qudian Inc. provides online small consumer credit in China. The
company uses big data-enabled technologies, such as artificial
intelligence and machine learning to transform the consumer
finance experience.


QUDIAN INC: Faces "Song" Class Action Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Qudian Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 9, 2018, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company is facing a
class action suit entitled, Song v. Qudian Inc. et al.

The company and certain of its directors and officers were named
as defendants in Song v. Qudian Inc. et al., Case No. 18CIV01425
(Cal. Supr. Ct., San Mateo Cty.), a putative securities class
action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Mateo (the "California Action").

According to the Company: "The California Action -- purportedly
brought on behalf of a class of persons who allegedly suffered
damages as a result of their purchase of our ADSs pursuant and/or
traceable to our IPO -- alleges violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the United States Securities Act of 1933 in
connection with our disclosure of business and regulatory risks.
The California Action remains at its preliminary stages."

Qudian Inc. provides online small consumer credit in China. The
company uses big data-enabled technologies, such as artificial
intelligence and machine learning to transform the consumer
finance experience.


QUINCY PROPERTY: Joint Bid for Class Cert. Filed in "Brasher"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit captioned APRIL R. BRASHER; RICHARD M.
ORENCIA; CHAD O. LEBOW, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated as collective representative under and/or as
members of the Collective as permitted under the Fair Labor
Standards Act v. QUINCY PROPERTY, LLC, doing business as "Welcome
Inn"; and VANDIVER MOTEL, doing business as Welcome Inn Columbia;
WELCOME INN COLUMBIA; JEFFERSON PROPERTY, doing business as
Extended Stay by Welcome Inn; COUNTY LINE PROPERTIES I LLC, doing
business as Welcome Inn; AMERICAN MOTELS LLC, doing business as
Welcome Inn; B & W INVESTMENT PROPERTIES LLC, doing business as
Holiday Apartments; SPRINGFIELD WELCOME INN; and BRETT BURGE;
KENNETH LOGAN; QUENTIN KEARNEY; JOE WIMBERLY, as individuals
under FLSA and Illinois Wage Laws, Case No. 3:17-cv-03022-SEM-TSH
(C.D. Ill.), file with the Court their Joint Motion for
Conditional Certification of Collective Action and Court Guidance
on Class Notice.

Since October 30, 2017, the parties have been discussing
settlement and have had three telephone status hearings with
Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins.  This Motion is a result
of those continued settlement negotiations, as the parties hope
to reach agreement on all outstanding disputes, according to the
parties.

While the parties have been working together to finalize
acceptable class notice documents since October 10, 2017, that
process is not complete, thus, they need Court's guidance on a
number of issues related to the Notice and contents of the
Notice.  In that effort, the parties have communicated via e-
mail, presented opposing position statements, submitted and
reviewed a 29-page proposed "Settlement Agreement", presented
competing drafts of Notices, and communicated by phone numerous
times from October 30, 2017, to late February of 2018 discussing
their differences on the collective Notice and related issues,
which the parties are still discussing or have yet to resolve.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Craig Ireland, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND
          636 Spruce Street
          South Elgin, IL 60177
          Telephone: (630) 464-9675
          Facsimile: (630) 206-0889
          E-mail: atty4employees@aol.com

Defendants QUINCY PROPERTY, LLC, d/b/a "Welcome Inn"; VANDIVER
MOTEL, LLC, d/b/a Welcome Inn Columbia, VANDIVER MOTEL, d/b/a
Welcome Inn Columbia; JEFFERSON PROPERTY, d/b/a Extended Stay by
Welcome Inn; COUNTY LINE PROPERTIES I LLC, d/b/a Welcome Inn;
AMERICAN MOTELS LLC, d/b/a Welcome Inn; KENNETH LOGAN; and
QUENTIN KEARNEY are represented by:

          Ambrose V. McCall, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          416 Main Street, 6th Floor
          Peoria, IL 61602
          Telephone: (309) 674-1025
          Facsimile: (309) 674-9328
          E-mail: amccall@hinshawlaw.com

Defendants B&W Investment Properties LLC, d/b/a Holiday
Apartments; Springfield Welcome Inn; Brett Burge; and Joe
Wimberly are represented by:

          Kevin W. Doherty, Esq.
          Ryan Andrew Danahey, Esq.
          Samantha Elizabeth Kaplan, Esq.
          DOHERTY & PROGAR LLC
          200 W. Adams, Suite 2220
          Chicago, IL 60606-5231
          Telephone: (312) 630-9630
          Facsimile: (312) 630-9001
          E-mail: kwd@doherty-progar.com
                  rad@doherty-progar.com
                  sek@doherty-progar.com


REPUBLIC WASTE: Fails to Pay Drivers' Overtime, "Auxer" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL AUXER, JUSTIN PARDI, RICHARD SPIVEY, JOHN P. BURTYK, JAMES
L. JOHNSON, WILLIAM WARD, CHAD JORDAN, DAVID N. STEEN, VICTOR
NEW, CHAD RYAN, GARY JORDAN, JASON STAMPER, RUSSELL ORRIS, PAUL
D. SNYDER, TODD W. ADAMS, JEFF SECREST, ROSS M. RENSI, BUD E.
BODNAR, ADAM RIEDMILLER, PHILLIP MARTIN, STEVEN MCCLOY, CHARLES
MILLER, JEFFERY TOLBERT, JACK LYTTLE, AND MICHAEL D. HARRIS, On
behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals v.
REPUBLIC WASTE SERVICES OF OHIO HAULING, LLC d/b/a REPUBLIC WASTE
SERVICES; REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC.; REPUBLIC SERVICES OF OHIO
HAULING, LLC d/b/a REPUBLIC WASTE SERVICES OF OHIO HAULING, LLC;
and REPUBLIC SERVICES OF OHIO HAULING, LLC d/b/a REPUBLIC
SERVICES OF OHIO, Case No. 2:18-cv-00212-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio,
March 13, 2018), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to pay their waste disposal
drivers across Ohio, including Plaintiffs and the Putative Class
Members, time and one-half for each hour worked in excess of 40
hours per workweek.

The Plaintiffs bring the collective action pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

Republic Waste Services is a for-profit limited liability company
organized in the state of Ohio that has been operating a solid
waste disposal and hauling business, essentially, within Franklin
County, Ohio, and the central Ohio area.  Republic Waste Services
operates as a subsidiary of Republic, Inc.

Republic Inc. is a for-profit corporation incorporated in the
State of Delaware that provides recycling and waste disposal
services throughout the United States, including the State of
Ohio.  Republic Inc.'s corporate headquarters and principal place
of business are located in Phoenix, Arizona.

Republic Waste Services of Ohio is a Trade Name or Fictitious
Name of Defendant Republic Services of Ohio Hauling, LLC d/b/a
Republic Waste Services, a for-profit limited liability company
organized in the state of Ohio, and is a subsidiary of Republic,
Inc.  Republic Services of Ohio is a Trade Name or Fictitious
Name of Defendant Republic Services of Ohio Hauling, LLC d/b/a
Republic Waste Services, a for-profit limited liability company
organized in the state of Ohio, and is a subsidiary of Republic,
Inc.

The Defendants operate recycling and waste solution facilities
throughout the United State, and specifically throughout the
state of Ohio.  Particularly, Republic, Inc.'s Web site claims to
service, through Ohio based Republic Waste Services, over 800
cities in Ohio, including 37 postal codes in the city of
Columbus, Ohio alone.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert E. DeRose II, Esq.
          Jason C. Cox, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDLEMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
          250 East Broad Street, 10th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221-4221
          E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
                  jcox@barkanmeizlish.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Moses, Esq.
          MOSES LAW OFFICES, L.L.C.
          533 S. 3rd Street
          Columbus, OH 43215-5720
          Telephone: (614) 224-7294
          E-mail: michaelmoses@moseslawllc.com


ROSS STORES: Still Faces Wage-and-Hour Class Suits in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 28, 2017, that the Company has been named in class action
lawsuits, primarily in California, alleging violation of wage and
hour/employment laws and consumer protection laws. Class action
litigation remains pending as of October 28, 2017.

Ross Stores said "In the opinion of management, the resolution of
pending class action litigation and other currently pending legal
and regulatory proceedings will not have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows.

Ross Stores, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates off-
price retail apparel and home fashion stores under the Ross Dress
for Less and dd's DISCOUNTS brand names in the United States.
The Company was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Dublin,
California.


SAINT LUKE'S HEALTH: Houston Moves for Certification of 2 Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled TORRI M. HOUSTON,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
SAINT LUKE'S HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., and SAINT LUKE'S NORTHLAND
HOSPITAL CORPORATION, Case No. 4:17-cv-00266-BCW (W.D. Mo.),
moves for conditional certification of two classes.

The Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant Saint Luke's Health
System, Inc. alleging that it had a policy and practice of
failing to properly pay the Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees, overtime and/or minimum wage in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Missouri law.

Pursuant to the FLSA, the Plaintiff seeks conditional collective
action certification of this collective:

     Nationwide Timekeeping Policy Collective:

     All hourly employees who worked for SLHS Entities in the
     United States at any time from three years prior to the
     filing of the Complaint, who clocked-in and clocked-out on
     an automated timeclock.

Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Plaintiff seeks to certify this class:

     Missouri Unjust Enrichment Class:

     All hourly employees who worked for SLHS Entities in the
     State of Missouri at any time from five years prior to the
     filing of the Complaint, who clocked-in and clocked-out on
     an automated timeclock.

Ms. Houston asks the Court to appoint her as class representative
for the Classes and to appoint Osman & Smay LLP and McClelland
Law Firm, P.C. as class counsel for each class and collective.
She also asks the Court to order the Defendant to produce
necessary information for each member of each class and to
approve the FLSA Collective Notice to Class Members and Consent
Form.  She further asks the Court to approve the sending and
posting of the Notice, and to set necessary deadlines.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=X4f3Zd3O

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew E. Osman, Esq.
          Kathryn S. Rickley, Esq.
          OSMAN & SMAY LLP
          8500 W. 110th Street, Suite 330
          Overland Park, KS 66210
          Telephone: (913) 667-9243
          Facsimile: (866) 470-9243
          E-mail: mosman@workerwagerights.com
                  krickley@workerwagerights.com

               - and -

          Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
          MCCLELLAND LAW FIRM, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          The Flagship Building
          200 Westwoods Drive
          Liberty, MO 64068-1170
          Telephone: (816) 781-0002
          Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
          E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com


SAVASENIORCARE ADMINISTRATIVE: Dolison Moves to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled TANYA DOLISON, Individually
and as a representative of the putative class v. SAVASENIORCARE
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-03135-JD (E.D.
Pa.), moves for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=q2hoK9Ae

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          155 2nd Street, Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (201) 630-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107-3304
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
          E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com
                  klaukaitis@kohnswift.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Henry M. Perlowski, Esq.
          Chesley S. McLeod, Esq.
          Megan P. Mitchell, Esq.
          ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP
          171 - 17th Street Northwest, Suite 2100
          Atlanta, GA 30363
          Telephone: (404) 973-8524
          E-mail: henry.perlowski@agg.com
                  chesley.mcleod@agg.com
                  megan.mitchell@agg.com

               - and -

          Henry E. Gallagher, Jr., Esq.
          Ryan P. Newell, Esq.
          Josiah R. Wolcott, Esq.
          CONNOLLY GALLAGHER LLP
          The Brandywine Building
          1000 West Street, Suite 1400
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 757-7300
          E-mail: hgallagher@connollygallagher.com
                  rnewell@connollygallagher.com
                  jwolcott@connollygallager.com



SSC CARMICHAEL: Nurses Seek Redress for Missed Breaks, Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Naomi Farfan, Lollie Webster and Terri Richter, individually and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. SSC Carmichael Operating Company LP, SSC
Carmichael Operating GP, LLC, SSC Carmichael Management Company
LP, SSC Hickory 13th Operating Company LLC, SSC Hickory East
Operating Company LLC, Savaseniorcare Administrative Services,
LLC, Savaseniorcare, LLC, Savaseniorcare Consulting, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01472 (N.D. Cal., March 7, 2018),
seeks redress for violations of the California Labor Code,
California Business and Professions Code (Unfair Practices Act)
and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

Defendants operate residential care and rehabilitation facilities
doing business under the name "Mission Carmichael." Farfan,
Webster and Richter worked as nurses for their facilities. They
allege that they have been denied meal and rest breaks, overtime
compensation and other wages, that they were not provided proper
wage statements including final wages at time of termination in
violation of California labor law. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bryan J. McCormack, Esq.
     MCCORMACK AND ERLICH, LLP
     150 Post Street, Suite 742
     San Francisco, CA 94108
     Telephone: (415) 296-8420
     Facsimile: (415) 296-8552

            - and -

     Edward J. Wynne, Esq.
     WYNNE LAW FIRM
     80 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Suite 3G
     Larkspur, CA 94939
     Telephone (415) 461-6400
     Facsimile (415) 461-3900


STAGE STORES: Accused by Qazi of Not Paying Overtime Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
MALEEHA QAZI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. STAGE STORES, INC. d/b/a PEEBLES, INC., Case No.
4:18-cv-00780 (S.D. Tex., March 12, 2018), alleges that Stage
Stores violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay
the Plaintiff and other Collective Action Members overtime
premium compensation for hours worked over 40 in any workweek.

Stage Stores, Inc., is a Nevada corporation with its headquarters
in Houston, Texas, and does business under the brands Peebles,
Stage, Bealls, Palais Royal and Goody's.  Stage Stores operates
approximately 187 Peebles branded specialty department stores
locations across 21 states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
          Logan A. Pardell, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1515 S. Federal Hwy., Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: aquiles@shavitzlaw.com
                  gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com
                  lpardell@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
          Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
          David A. Roth, Esq.
          Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
          HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
          192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-1199
          Facsimile: (212) 532-3801
          E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com
                  cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com
                  droth@hgrlawyers.com
                  rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com


SUPER TACOS: Allende Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELLA NAVARRO ALLENDE, Individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. ESTELA CHAUCA, CLEOTILDE ROSENDO
Individually and SUPER TACOS FOOD TRUCK, Case No. 1:18-cv-02191
(S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2018), seeks recovery of alleged unpaid
wages and related damages for unpaid minimum wage and overtime
hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

Super Tacos is a New York Corporation.  Super Tacos is a food
truck that is located at 96th Street and Broadway in New York
City.  The Individual Defendants are owners and operators of
Super Tacos.

The Defendants also own and operate a Mexican restaurant named
Rivera Maya, which is located at 301 W. 96th St., in New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq.
          THE KLEIN LAW GROUP PC.
          39 Broadway, Suite 1530,
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 344-9022
          Facsimile: (212) 344-0301
          E-mail: Darren@thekleinlawgroup.com


TOP SHIPS: Faces Two Class Action Suits in New York
---------------------------------------------------
Top Ships Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the company faces two class action suits
in United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.

On August 23, 2017, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (No. 2:17- cv-04987(JMA)(SIL)) by
Christopher Brady on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated against (among other defendants) the company and two of
its executive officers.

The complaint is brought on behalf of an alleged class of those
who purchased common stock of the Company between January 17,
2017 and August 22, 2017, and alleges that we and two of our
executive officers violated Sections 9, 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On August 24, 2017, a second purported securities class action
complaint was filed in the same court against the same defendants
(No. 2:17-cv-05016(LDW) (AYS)) which makes similar allegations
and purports to allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Other
similar complaints may be filed in the future.

Top Ships said "We will respond to these complaints (or an
amended and/or consolidated complaint) by the appropriate
deadline to be set in the future. We and our management believe
that the allegations in the complaints are without merit and plan
to vigorously defend themselves against the allegations."

Top Ships Inc. provides seaborne transportation services
worldwide. It owns and operates medium range tanker vessels that
transport crude oil, petroleum products, and bulk liquid
chemicals. The company transports petroleum products and crude
oil for the oil industry.


TRG CUSTOMER: Class Certification Bid in "Andrews" Due This Month
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IBEX Holdings Limited said in its Form F-1/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on March 28, 2018, that
state class certification motions in the case, Mary Andrews et
al. v. TRG Customer Solutions, Inc. d/b/a IBEX Global Solutions,
are currently due to be filed in April 2018.

In November 2014, a group of current and former employees filed a
collective action under the US Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
and Tennessee law in the US District Court of Tennessee against
TRG Customer Solutions, Inc. d/b/a IBEX Global Solutions,
alleging that such plaintiffs were forced to work "off the clock"
without being paid for that time. In December 2014, a similar
FLSA collection action case was filed against IBEX Global
Solutions in the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

In February 2015, the two cases were consolidated in Tennessee
and the plaintiffs agreed to submit all claims to binding
arbitration before the American Arbitration Association.
Presently, there are approximately 3,500 individuals who have
opted into the FLSA class action claims, and there are pending
wage and hour class action claims under various state laws
involving approximately 25,000 potential class action claimants.

State class certification motions are currently due to be filed
in April 2018. Discovery and internal investigations into this
matter are ongoing.

IBEX Holdings said "The plaintiffs have not identified the amount
of damages sought at this time, and we cannot reasonably
determine such damages at this time. We intend to vigorously
defend this action and have made a reserve against this matter of
$404,519 reflecting the cost of defense."

IBEX Holdings Limited operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, offers a platform that provides
technology-enabled customer lifecycle solutions. IBEX Holdings
serves clients worldwide.


TURNING POINT: "Eutsy" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Eutsey, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, V. Turning Point Community Service, Inc.,
(a/k/a Turning Point Community Inc.) and Christine McCloud,
Individually, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-03267, (D. N.J., March 7,
2018), seeks recovery of overtime compensation, liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

Turning point provides housing and supportive services to
minorities where Eutsey attended to their women and children's
shelter. Eutsey worked approximately nine hours per day,
approximately forty-five hours per week and was not paid overtime
and for all of the time she rendered. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
      Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      301 N Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
      Princeton, NJ 08540
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      Email: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com
             AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Kho Files Suit Over False Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN KHO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC., ROBERT J. PERA and KEVIN
RADIGAN, Case No. 1:18-cv-02242 (S.D.N.Y., March 13, 2018),
accuses the Defendants of violating the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by disseminating materially false and misleading
statements and concealing material adverse facts regarding
Ubiquiti's current financial condition and growth prospects.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements concerning the Company's true business
and financial condition, including the size and level of
engagement of the Ubiquiti Community; the identity of its
distributors and the nature of its relationships with them; the
Company's international trade practices; Ubiquiti's accounting
practices; and the Company's forecasted financial growth
prospects and the extent to which they were reliant upon inflated
accounts receivable amounts, cash and margin metrics and
inventory that had become obsolete.

Ubiquiti is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business now purportedly located in New York City.  Robert J.
Pera founded Ubiquiti as Pera Networks, Inc. in 2003.  He is the
CEO and Chairman of the Board of Ubiquiti.  Kevin Radigan is the
Company's Chief Accounting Officer.

Ubiquiti describes itself as a company that develops technology
platforms for hi-capacity distributed Internet access, unified
information technology, and next-generation consumer electronics
for home and personal use.  The Company is primarily a hardware
company that focuses on network routers, but, with the May 2016
announcement of Ubiquiti Labs, the Company moved into consumer
electronics as well.[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 -

          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@holzerlaw.com


ULTIMATE FITNESS: Illegally Sends Telemarketing Texts, Cline Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER CLINE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ULTIMATE FITNESS GROUP, LLC d/b/a
ORANGETHEORY FITNESS, Case No. 8:18-cv-00602-SCB-AEP (M.D. Fla.,
March 13, 2018), seeks redress for the Defendant's alleged
willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
sending telemarketing texts to the Plaintiff's telephone using
automatic telephone dialing systems without their express written
consent, and by placing telemarketing texts to his and other
class members' cellular telephones in the absence of or after
they had withdrawn any consent for such calls.

Orangetheory is a limited liability company organized under the
laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in Boca
Raton, Florida.  The Company is a franchisor of fitness studios.
Orangetheory currently has more than 880 open fitness
studios.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven G. Wenzel, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-6545
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: swenzel@wfclaw.com


VERINT SYSTEMS: Parties Agree to Another Round of Mediation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Verint Systems Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
January 31, 2018, that the parties have agreed to enter into a
further round of mediation in an effort to settle the matter.

On March 26, 2009, legal actions were commenced by Ms. Orit
Deutsch, a former employee of the company's subsidiary, Verint
Systems Limited ("VSL"), against VSL in the Tel Aviv Regional
Labor Court (Case Number 4186/09) (the "Deutsch Labor Action")
and against CTI in the Tel Aviv District Court (Case Number
1335/09) (the "Deutsch District Action").

In the Deutsch Labor Action, Ms. Deutsch filed a motion to
approve a class action lawsuit on the grounds that she purported
to represent a class of the company's employees and former
employees who were granted Verint and CTI stock options and were
allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension of option
exercises during the period from March 2006 through March 2010,
during which the company did not make periodic filings with the
SEC as a result of certain internal and external investigations
and reviews of accounting matters discussed in the company's
prior public filings.

In the Deutsch District Action, in addition to a small amount of
individual damages, Ms. Deutsch was seeking to certify a class of
plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to
exercise Verint and CTI stock options as a result of alleged
negligence by CTI in its financial reporting. The class
certification motions did not specify an amount of damages.

On February 8, 2010, the Deutsch Labor Action was dismissed for
lack of material jurisdiction and was transferred to the Tel Aviv
District Court and consolidated with the Deutsch District Action.

On March 16, 2009 and March 26, 2009, respectively, legal actions
were commenced by Ms. Roni Katriel, a former employee of CTI's
former subsidiary, Comverse Limited, against Comverse Limited in
the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court (Case Number 3444/09) (the
"Katriel Labor Action") and against CTI in the Tel Aviv District
Court (Case Number 1334/09) (the "Katriel District Action").

In the Katriel Labor Action, Ms. Katriel was seeking to certify a
class of plaintiffs who were granted CTI stock options and were
allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension of option
exercises during an extended filing delay period affecting CTI's
periodic reporting discussed in CTI's historical SEC filings. In
the Katriel District Action, in addition to a small amount of
individual damages, Ms. Katriel was seeking to certify a class of
plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to
exercise CTI stock options as a result of alleged negligence by
CTI in its financial reporting.

The class certification motions did not specify an amount of
damages. On March 2, 2010, the Katriel Labor Action was
transferred to the Tel Aviv District Court, based on an agreed
motion filed by the parties requesting such transfer.

On April 4, 2012, Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel filed an
uncontested motion to consolidate and amend their claims and on
June 7, 2012, the District Court allowed Ms. Deutsch and Ms.
Katriel to file the consolidated class certification motion and
an amended consolidated complaint against VSL, CTI, and Comverse
Limited.

Following CTI's announcement of its intention to effect the
Comverse Share Distribution, on July 12, 2012, the plaintiffs
filed a motion requesting that the District Court order CTI to
set aside up to $150.0 million in assets to secure any future
judgment. The District Court ruled at such time that it would not
decide this motion until the Deutsch and Katriel class
certification motion was heard. Plaintiffs initially filed a
motion to appeal this ruling in August 2012, but subsequently
withdrew it in July 2014.

Prior to the consummation of the Comverse Share Distribution, CTI
either sold or transferred substantially all of its business
operations and assets (other than its equity ownership interests
in us and its then-subsidiary, Comverse, Inc.) to Comverse, Inc.
or unaffiliated third parties. On October 31, 2012, CTI completed
the Comverse Share Distribution, in which it distributed all of
the outstanding shares of common stock of Comverse, Inc. to CTI's
shareholders.

As a result of the Comverse Share Distribution, Comverse became
an independent company and ceased to be a wholly owned subsidiary
of CTI, and CTI ceased to have any material assets other than its
equity interest in us. As of February 28, 2017, Mavenir Inc.
became successor-in-interest to Comverse, Inc.

On February 4, 2013, the company completed the CTI Merger. As a
result of the CTI Merger, the company had assumed certain rights
and liabilities of CTI, including any liability of CTI arising
out of the Deutsch District Action and the Katriel District
Action. However, under the terms of the Distribution Agreement
between CTI and Comverse, Inc. relating to the Comverse Share
Distribution, the company, as successor to CTI, is entitled to
indemnification from Comverse, Inc. (now Mavenir) for any losses
the company suffers in its capacity as successor-in-interest to
CTI in connection with the Deutsch District Action and the
Katriel District Action.

Following an unsuccessful mediation process, the proceeding
before the District Court resumed. On August 28, 2016, the
District Court (i) denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify the
suit as a class action with respect to all claims relating to
Verint stock options and (ii) approved the plaintiffs' motion to
certify the suit as a class action with respect to claims of
current or former employees of Comverse Limited (now Mavenir) or
VSL who held unexercised CTI stock options at the time CTI
suspended option exercises. The court also ruled that the merits
of the case and any calculation of damages would be evaluated
under New York law.

On December 15, 2016, CTI filed with the Supreme Court a motion
for leave to appeal the District Court's August 28, 2016 ruling.
The plaintiffs did not file an appeal of the District Court's
August 28, 2016 ruling. On February 5, 2017, the District Court
approved the plaintiffs' motion to appoint a new representative
plaintiff, Mr. David Vaaknin, for the current or former employees
of VSL who held unexercised CTI stock options at the time CTI
suspended option exercises, in replacement of Ms. Deutsch.

Verint Systems said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2017, that on August 8, 2017, the Supreme
Court partially allowed CTI's appeal and ordered the case to be
returned to the District Court to determine whether a cause of
action exists in this case under New York law, based on CTI's
previously submitted expert opinion and the opinion of any expert
the plaintiffs elect to introduce. The District Court's decision
on this question will act to either affirm its earlier ruling to
certify a portion of the suit as a class action or to reverse
this class certification. A hearing date before the District
Court has not yet been set.

In its Form 10-K report, the Company said that on November 28,
2017, the plaintiffs submitted an expert opinion regarding New
York law. On January 3, 2018, CTI filed a motion to dismiss the
motion to certify the class action on the basis that the New York
law opinion submitted by the plaintiffs does not directly address
the causes of action in question, or alternatively, to dismiss
the portions of the opinion that do not specifically relate to
CTI's expert opinion.

On January 22, 2018, the court ruled that the plaintiffs should
submit a motion to amend their class certification motion and
that CTI's motion to dismiss would remain pending. Based on input
from the court, the parties have agreed to enter into a further
round of mediation in an effort to settle the matter.

Verint Systems Inc. provides actionable intelligence solutions
and value-added services worldwide.  It sells its solutions
through its direct sales team; and through indirect channels,
such as distributors, systems integrators, value-added resellers,
and original equipment manufacturer partners.  The Company was
founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Melville, New York.


VIMO INC: Fails to Pay Sales Agents OT Wages, Quintana Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peggy Quintana, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Vimo, Inc., d/b/a GetInsured.com, Case No.
2:18-cv-00807-DLR (D. Ariz., March 12, 2018), arises under the
Fair Labor Standards Act for the Defendant's alleged failure to
pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated sales agents all
overtime pay for all time worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Vimo, Inc., is a Delaware corporation that has its corporate
headquarters located in Mountain View, California.  The Company
operates as a health insurance broker.  The Company operates a
Web site, Getinsured.com, through which consumers across the
country research and purchase health insurance plans.

During the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint,
the Defendant operated a call center in Phoenix, Arizona, where
its telephone-based insurance sales agents engaged in insurance
sales and attempted to enroll people in health insurance plans,
including enrollment under the Affordable Care Act, according to
the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked as a telephone-dedicated sales agent at the
Defendant's call center in Phoenix.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
          8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 201-0575
          E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
                  cpsons@bormeslaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
          35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 726-3400
          E-mail: tom@tomryanlaw.com

               - and -

          Michelle R. Matheson, Esq.
          MATHESON &MATHESON, P.L.C.
          15300 North 90th Street, Suite 550
          Scottsdale, AZ 85260
          Telephone: (480) 889-8951
          E-mail: mmatheson@mathesonlegal.com


WALGREENS BOOTS: Briefing Schedule Set in Merger-Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended February 28, 2018, that a briefing schedule has been
set in a class action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania, related to the merger with
Rite Aid.

Pursuant to a briefing schedule set by the Court, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss on February 16, 2018. Response briefs
are due by April 17, 2018 and reply briefs by May 17, 2018.

As of August 31, 2017, the Company was aware of two putative
class action lawsuits filed by purported Rite Aid stockholders
against Rite Aid and its board of directors, Walgreens Boots
Alliance and Victoria Merger Sub, Inc. for claims arising out of
the transactions contemplated by the original Merger Agreement
(prior to its amendment on January 29, 2017) (such transactions,
the "Rite Aid Transactions").

One Rite Aid action was filed in the State of Pennsylvania in the
Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County (the "Pennsylvania
action"), and one action was filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the "federal
action").

The Pennsylvania action primarily alleged that the Rite Aid board
of directors breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
Rite Aid Transactions by, among other things, agreeing to an
unfair and inadequate price, agreeing to deal protection devices
that preclude other bidders from making successful competing
offers for Rite Aid, and failing to disclose all allegedly
material information concerning the proposed merger, and also
alleged that Walgreens Boots Alliance and Victoria Merger Sub,
Inc. aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

The federal action alleged, among other things, that Rite Aid and
its board of directors disseminated an allegedly false and
misleading proxy statement in connection with the Rite Aid
Transactions. The plaintiffs in the federal action also filed a
motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Rite Aid
shareholder vote relating to the Rite Aid Transactions. That
motion was denied and plaintiffs agreed to stay the litigation
until after the Rite Aid Transactions closed.

On March 17, 2017, plaintiffs moved to lift the stay to allow
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. On August 4, 2017, that
motion was granted for the limited purpose of allowing plaintiffs
to file a motion seeking leave to amend their complaint in light
of the termination of the Merger Agreement. Plaintiffs filed such
a motion on September 22, 2017. The Company filed its response on
October 6, 2017. The Court granted the motion on November 27,
2017, ordering the plaintiffs to file their amended complaint
within 10 business days. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint
on December 11, 2017.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. operates as a pharmacy-led health
and wellbeing company. It operates through three segments: Retail
Pharmacy USA, Retail Pharmacy International, and Pharmaceutical
Wholesale. The company is based in Deerfield, Illinois.



                            *********


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  * * *