CAR_Public/180418.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Wednesday, April 18, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 78



                            Headlines


24 HOUR FITNESS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, "Ralon" Suit Says
1903 UP CORP: "Ortega" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
A10 NETWORKS: Faces Class Action, May 21 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Faces Securities Class Action in Tennessee
ACARE HHC: Belabarodaya Seeks OT Compensation under Labor Law

AMG QUICKSERVE: Mejia Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
ANTHONY G. FERRY: Foxe Seeks Unpaid Overtime under Labor Law
APPLE INC: Yun Sues for Non-U.S. Residents Over iOS Updates
BESTWAY SANDWICHES: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, De Cruz Says
CALPHIN AQUATIC: Fails to Pay Wages, Noller & Lopez Say

CANADA: RCMP to Reduce Workplace Harassment
CBE GROUP: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Olszewski"
CENTURYLINK: Colorado Court Tosses 401(k) Plan Class Action
CHARLIE GRAINGERS: Trident et al Seek More Time to Defend Suit
CHINA AGRITECH: Ct. Yet to Rule on Tolling Statute of Limitations

COMBINED LIFE: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Young Claims
CONNECTICUT: Homeowners Sue Over Failing Foundation
CONTRACT SWEEPERS: Court Denies Class Certification in "Steffen"
CREDIT BUREAU: Bassett Seeks to Certify Class
CUSTOM DRYWALL: Court Grants Class Certification in "Caceres"

DEFENDERS INC: "Swearingen" Suit Moved to S.D. California
DELTA DENTAL: Moneim Sues over Collection of Refunds from Members
DENVER, CO: Class Action Over Homeless Sweeps Can Proceed
DR. PEPPER SNAPPLE: Fitzhenry-Russell Seeks Class Certification
FACEBOOK INC: Hit With 4 Lawsuits Over Cambridge Analytica

FACEBOOK INC: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Suit
FACEBOOK INC: CEO Apologizes for Cambridge Analytica Scandal
FACEBOOK INC: Cook County Files Suit Over Cambridge Analytica
FACEBOOK INC: Houston Man Files Suit Over Cambridge Analytica
FASTAFF LLC: Court Granted Class Certification in "Dalchau" Suit

FIAT CHRYSLER: Reaches Settlement with Anton Yelchin's Parents
FORD MOTORS: Lug Nuts Class-Action Lawsuit Baseless
FUYAO GLASS: 18 Additional Workers to Join Class Action
GALLIANO MARINE: Halle Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
GETSWIFT: Faces 2nd Class Action Over ASX Announcements

GIGA WATT: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
GOOGLE INC: Faces Employees' Discrimination Class Actions
HARRY CANTRELL: Louisiana Certifies Class Action Lawsuit
HIGHER ONE: July 10 Securities Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
HOMES OF OPPORTUNITY: Belmont Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

INDIANA: Property Owners File Class Action Over Condemnation
ISLAND HOSPITALITY: Perez Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
JEHOVAH'S WITNESS: Sex Abuse Survivors File Class Action Lawsuit
KUM GANG: "Palax" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Judge Approves $125MM Class Action Settlement

LIQUOR CONTROL: Court Dismisses Competition Act Class Action
LOS ANGELES, CA: Approval of "Garcia" Class Wide Accord Sought
LYFT INC: Accused by "Spreter" Class Suit of Violating TCPA
MALAYSIA: Appeals Court Tosses Class Action Over IPIC Payment
MARTEN TRANSPORT: Certification of Classes & Subclasses Sought

MARTIN, FL: Randolph et al. Sue Sheriff for Overtime Pay
MAYNE PHARMA: Briefing for Class Certification Bid Continued
MDL 2804: Canyon County Invited to Join Opioid Class Action
MDL 2804: Bay City Opioid Case Tied in to National Suit
MDL 2804: "Ambrosio" Suit vs Purdue Pharma Consolidated in Ohio

MDL 2804: New Castle Suit vs Purdue Pharma Consolidated in Ohio
MDL 2804: San Antonio Considers Whether to Join Opioid Suit
MERCEDES-BENZ: Vehicles Have Defective Sunroof, Enea Claims
METLIFE INC: Judge Conditionally Certifies Class Action
METRO SECURITY: Smith Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Class

MICHIGAN: Court Grants Renewed Class Cert. Bid in "Hill" Suit
MIDWEST SUPPLY: "Wells" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA
MONSANTO CORP: Stays on Defense in Dicamba Class Action
MONSTER INC: Cable Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Approval
MULESOFT INC: Sciabacucchi Balks at Salesforce Merger Deal

MULESOFT INC: Robinson Balks at Salesforce Merger
NATRONA COUNTY, WY: 160+ People Join Suit Over School Closure
NISSAN EXTENDED: "Arkliss" Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: "Nguyen" Class Certification Bid Denied
NUVASIVE INC: Settles Securities Class Action for $7.9 Million

OLA GROUP: Plaza Seeks Unpaid Minimum and OT wages under FLSA
OW BUNKER: Denmark High Court Approves Investors Class Action
PARKLAND HOMEOWNERS: Randels Sue over Airport Alterations
PHILLIP KNOWLES: "Morfin-Arias" Suit Wins Class Certification
PLUS500 LTD: Faces NIS100-Mil. Class Action in Tel Aviv Court

RASIER LLC: Declines to Pay Bonus to Drivers, Novak Claims
RELAY DELIVERY: Ventura Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT under FLSA
REMINGTON: Mum on Impact of Bankruptcy Filing on Rifle Settlement
RIDE RIGHT: "Chapman" Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation
RODAN & FIELDS: Lash Boost Drug Products Misleading, Gorzo Claims

ROYAL BANK: Plaintiffs Ordered to Pay Indemnity Costs
SAVANNAH LAW: Students File Breach of Contract Class Action
SEEK CAPITAL: Dirico Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
SMALL PLANET: "Peacock" Suit Moved to N.D. California
SPECIALTY GRAPHICS: "Bayer" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation

STEINHOFF: Deloitte May Compensate Shareholders in Class Action
SUNOCO: Faces Class Action Over Pipeline Construction
SUPERIOR HOSPITALITY: Williams Seeks to Recover Minimum, OT Wages
SYNGENTA: Gray Ritter Attorney Discusses GMO Corn Settlement
TEXAS: Class Action Over Foster Care System Ongoing

TIGER BRANDS: Woman Who Lost Baby to Listeriosis Joins Class Suit
TIGER BRANDS: Affidavits of 100 Listeriosis Victims Completed
TOKYO ELECTRIC: "Bartel" Suit Alleges Gross Negligence
TRANSGLOBAL SERVICES: Certification of Workers Class Sought
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Seelbach Sues Over Damaged Eggs and Sperms

UNITED STATES: ACLU Files Class Action to Stop Family Separation
UNITED STATES: High Court Refuses to Review Settlement Challenges
UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: Faces "Gola" Wage & Hour Class Suit
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Future of Fertility Clinic Suits Discussed
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Judge Friedman Intends to Rule on Motions

UTC FIRE: Not Vicariously Liable for Retailers' TCPA Violations
VITAS HEALTHCARE: "Williams" Suit Moved to N.D. California
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Law Firm Invites Consumers to Join Class Action
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Poised for Ruling on Class Action Lawsuit
VOLKSWAGEN AG: British Motorists' Compensation Case to Commence

WESTERN DENTAL: Class Action Filed Over Collection Calls
WOLVERINE WORLDWIDE: Loses Bid to Sideline Scores of Lawsuits
XPO LOGISTICS: Misclassifies Delivery Drivers, "Martinez" Alleges
ZEN'S CHINESE: Wang Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA

* EU's Executive Branch Outlines Class Action Proposals
* Event-Drive Securities Class Action Filings Rise





                            *********


24 HOUR FITNESS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, "Ralon" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY RALON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated employees v. 24 HOUR FITNESS, USA, INC, a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 250, inclusive, Case No. BC698344
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 15, 2018), alleges that
the Plaintiff and proposed class members were not paid at the
proper overtime rate for overtime work, in violation of the
California Labor Code.

24 Hour Fitness, USA, Inc., is a California corporation doing
business, in the state of California.  24 Hour is a fitness
center chain operating throughout California.  The Plaintiff does
not know the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
          Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
          Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
          Ian M. Silvers, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP
          555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 818
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 432-8933
          Facsimile: (562) 435-1656
          E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  ian@carlinbuchsbaum.com


1903 UP CORP: "Ortega" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Israel Gonzalez Ortega and Chalo Lopic Sequec, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. 1903 UP Corp. dba
Nikitas Place, Nikitas Sparagis, and Louie Sparagis, Case No.
1:18-cv-01572 (E.D. N.Y., March 14, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Israel Gonzalez Ortega is a resident of Queens County,
New York. Ortega was employed as cook by the Defendants at
Nikitas Place from approximately September 2014 until on or about
March 2, 2018.

Plaintiff Chalo Lopic Sequec is a resident of Queens County, New
York. Sequec was employed as cook by the Defendants at Nikitas
Place from approximately June 2015 until on or about September
2016 and then from January 2018 until on or about March 28, 2018.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Mediterranean
restaurant, located at 1903 Utopia Pkwy, Flushing, New York 11357
under the name "Nikitas Place". [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Fax: (212) 317-1620


A10 NETWORKS: Faces Class Action, May 21 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A
Professional Corporation, on March 26 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
purchasers of A10 Networks, Inc. (NYSE:ATEN) ("A10" or the
"Company") securities during the period between February 9, 2016
and January 30, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors
who wish to become proactively involved in the litigation have
until May 21, 2018 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in A10 securities during the Class Period.  Members of
the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel
chosen by the lead plaintiff.  No class has yet been certified in
the above action.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that A10 had issues
with its internal controls that required an Audit Committee
investigation and that its revenues since the fourth quarter of
2015 were false due to improper revenue recognition, which
prompted an investigation by the Company's Audit Committee.

According to the complaint, following a January 16, 2018 press
release lowering its previously issued guidance and a January 30,
2018 press release announcing the Company's Audit Committee was
investigating the Company's revenue recognition practices, the
value of A10 shares declined significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in A10 securities purchased on or after February 9, 2016 and held
through the revelation of negative information during and/or at
the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about
this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff,
without cost or obligation to you, please contact Brower Piven
either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at
(410) 415-6616.

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


ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Faces Securities Class Action in Tennessee
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP on March 26 disclosed that a class action
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased the
securities of Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. ("Acadia" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:ACHC) during the period between February 23,
2017 and October 24, 2017 (the "Class Period"), including in
connection with an August 22, 2017 public offering (the
"Offering").  The complaint alleges that Defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Acadia is a healthcare company that operates inpatient
psychiatric facilities, residential treatment centers, group
homes, substance abuse facilities, and facilities providing
outpatient behavioral healthcare services throughout the United
States, the United Kingdom ("U.K.") and Puerto Rico.

The complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements  regarding Acadia's business and
operations, including by claiming that the quality of its U.K.
operations gave the Company a "competitive strength," which would
drive future growth and profitability, and by issuing false and
misleading guidance regarding the Company's actual and projected
2017 financial results.

On October 24, 2017, Acadia announced its financial results for
the third quarter of 2017, revealing a substantial shortfall in
EBITDA for its U.K. facilities, purportedly resulting from "lower
census and higher operating costs," and lower financial guidance
for 2017. As a result, Acadia's stock price fell 26%.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members
who invested in Acadia securities during the Class Period,
including in connection with the Offering. If you invested in
Acadia securities as described above, and lost money on the
transactions, you may wish to join in this action to serve as
lead plaintiff.  In order to do so, you must meet certain
requirements set forth in the applicable law and file appropriate
papers no later than May 14, 2018.

A "lead plaintiff" is a representative party that acts on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to
be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Bernstein
Liebhard LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your
counsel in this action.

If you are interested in discussing your rights as an Acadia
investor and/or have information relating to the matter, please
contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com

Bernstein Liebhard LLP has pursued hundreds of securities,
consumer and shareholder rights cases and recovered over $3.5
billion for its clients. The Firm has been named to the National
Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times.

You can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of the
court for the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee. [GN]


ACARE HHC: Belabarodaya Seeks OT Compensation under Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
NELA BELABARODAYA, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated who were employed by ACARE HHC, INC.
d/b/a FOUR SEASONS HOME CARE; PARKSHORE HEALTH CARE, LLC d/b/a
FOUR SEASONS NURSING AND REHABILITATION CERTIFIED HOME HEALTH
AGENCY and/or FOUR SEASONS CERTIFIED HOME HEALTH AGENCY, along
with other entities affiliated or controlled by ACARE HHC,
INC. d/b/a FOUR SEASONS HOME CARE; PARKSHORE HEALTH CARE, LLC
d/b/a FOUR SEASONS NURSING AND REHABILITATION CERTIFIED HOME
HEALTH AGENCY and/or FOUR SEASONS CERTIFIED HOME HEALTH AGENCY,
the Plaintiffs, v. ACARE HHC, INC. d/b/a FOUR SEASONS HOME CARE;
PARKSHORE HEALTH CARE LLC d/b/a FOUR SEASONS NURSING AND
REHABILITATION CERTIFIED HOME HEALTH AGENCY and/or FOUR SEASONS
CERTIFIED HOME HEALTH AGENCY, and/or any other related entities,
the Defendants, Case No. 153141/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 6,
2018), seeks to recover wages and benefits pursuant to the New
York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, beginning in April 2012, continuing
through the present, the Defendants have maintained a policy and
practice of requiring Plaintiffs to regularly work in excess of
ten hours per day, without providing the proper hourly
compensation for all hours worked, overtime compensation for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any given week, and "spread
of hours" compensation.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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


AMG QUICKSERVE: Mejia Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------
FARRAH MEJIA, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AMG QUICKSERVE LLC; AMG
BROADWAY QUICKSERVE LLC; and/or any other related or affiliated
entities, the Defendant, Case No. 151145/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
April 9, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
unpaid spread of hours compensation, and unpaid uniform
maintenance pay pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, beginning in or about February 2012,
the Defendants employed numerous individuals at their various
Dunkin' Donuts locations to perform work including but not
limited to barista work, cashier work, food preparation, and
baking. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from approximately
the fall of 2015 through December 2017 at their Dunkin' Donuts
fast-food restaurants performing work including but not limited
to food preparation, baking, and barista services. The Plaintiff
was often paid at her regular rate of pay, rather than one and
one-half times her regular wage rate, for hours worked beyond 40
in a week. The Putative Class members were also often paid at
their regular hourly wage rate, rather than one and one-half
times their regular hourly wage rate, for hours worked beyond 40
in a week. The Defendants thus maintained a policy and practice
of failing to pay Plaintiff and Putative Class members all earned
overtime compensation. Despite working shifts that exceeded 10
hours, the Plaintiff also did not receive spread of hours
compensation in the form of one additional hour of pay at the
applicable minimum wage rate. Like Plaintiff, Putative Class
members regularly worked shifts where the spread of hours
exceeded ten hours, and were not paid one hour of additional
compensation at the applicable minimum wage rate.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          James E. Murphy, Esq.
          Alanna R. Sakovits, Esq.
          Virginia & Ambinder, LLP
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP
          40 Broad St, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 0004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943 9082
          E-mail: jmurphy@vandallp.com


ANTHONY G. FERRY: Foxe Seeks Unpaid Overtime under Labor Law
------------------------------------------------------------
DUANE FOXE, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by ANTHONY G. FERRY,
INC., individually, and/or any other related or affiliated
entities, the Plaintiff, v. ANTHONY G. FERRY, INC., individually,
and/or any other related or affiliated entities, the Defendant,
Case No. 153184/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 9, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, plus interest, damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under pursuant to the New York Labor
Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff performed construction
work for and on behalf of Defendants. Beginning in January 2011
and, continuing through the present, the Defendants have engaged
in a policy and practice of requiring their employees to
regularly work in excess of 40 hours per week, without providing
overtime compensation as required by applicable state law.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Putative Class:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad St, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080
          E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com


APPLE INC: Yun Sues for Non-U.S. Residents Over iOS Updates
-----------------------------------------------------------
GYE SOON YUN, DAE WON KIM, ESTRELLA GONZALEZ NAVARRO, MARIANNE
WAGNER, and LILAV AKRAWY v. APPLE, INC., Case No. 5:18-cv-01632
(N.D. Cal., March 15, 2018), is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated non-U.S. resident
persons or entities, who were owners or registered users of Apple
devices, including iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s
Plus, iPhone SE, iPhone 7, or iPhone 7 Plus, on which iOS 10.2.1
or 11.2 was installed.

The Plaintiffs question Apple's misconduct -- including its
decision to surreptitiously incorporate intentionally
performance-diminishing code into iOS updates, and its decision
to withhold critical information from users, prospective
purchasers, and the press -- helped buoy iPhone sales throughout
2017.

Apple is, and since 2010, has been, the world's most valuable
company.  In 2017, Apple's market value exceeded $750 billion.
The iPhone is Apple's flagship product line and the principal
driver of its market value.  Apple designed, manufactured,
marketed, and sold all extant iPhones, including Subject Devices,
and current models.  Apple also designed, authored, marketed, and
distributed iOS and all iOS software updates.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eli R. Greenstein, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 400-3000
          Facsimile: (415) 400-3001
          E-mail: egreenstein@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Samantha Holbrook, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                  sholbrook@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
          Olav A. Haazen, Esq.
          Kyle J. Mcgee, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500
          Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
          E-mail: jeisenhofer@gelaw.com
                  ohaazen@gelaw.com
                  kmcgee@gelaw.com


BESTWAY SANDWICHES: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, De Cruz Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
GISELA JAQUELINE JACO DE CRUZ, an individual, on her own behalf
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
BESTWAY SANDWICHES, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC701460 (Cal.
Super. Ct., April 9, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and
wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Ms. De Cruz is an hourly paid
employee for Defendant Bestway Sandwiches, Inc.  She did not
receive overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of eight
hours per work day, forty hours per work week, and/or all hours
worked on the seventh day of the work week as required by Labor
Code, and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Orders. She also did not receive all of the meal periods and rest
periods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin A. Lipeles, Esq.
          Thomas H. Schelly, Esq.
          LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC
          880 Apollo Street, Suite 336
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 322 2211
          Facsimile: (310) 322 2252


CALPHIN AQUATIC: Fails to Pay Wages, Noller & Lopez Say
-------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY NOLLER and EMILY LOPEZ, on behalf of themselves and all
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CALPHIN AQUATIC
CLUB, DOES I through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
RG18900137 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 6, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid wages under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs are individuals who were hired by Calphin Aquatic
Club as swim coaches. The Plaintiffs worked at Calphin's Fremont
location in Alameda County. The Plaintiffs were paid hourly for
their coaching duties and clocked in and out of work each day.
Plaintiffs were not paid for the full time they were clocked in
to work. The Plaintiffs were not provided with adequate leave to
take rest and meal periods. The Plaintiffs were not provided with
accurate wage statements. Noller was not compensated in full for
unpaid wages upon her last day of employment.

Calphin Aquatic offers quality swim lessons in Fremont and
Sunnyvale, serving both Northern California East Bay and South
Bay areas, doing business as California Dolphin Swim School.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arthur W. Lazear, Esq.
          Morgan M. Mack, Esq.
          LAZEAR MACK ATTORNEYS
          436-14th Street Suite 1117
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: 510 735 6316
          Facsimile: 510 545 4226
          E-mail: arthur@lazearmack.com
                  morgan@lazearmack.com


CANADA: RCMP to Reduce Workplace Harassment
-------------------------------------------
Gloria Galloway, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that The
RCMP says it is taking the steps to reduce workplace harassment
that are required as part of a settlement agreement with female
members who were bullied, discriminated against and even sexually
assaulted -- but a full transition will not happen quickly.

"It's important to recognize that some of these things are going
to take time," Assistant Commissioner Kevin Jones said in a
recent telephone interview. "To make the changes that we are
looking for, and to address complex systemic issues like gender
inequality, requires a long-term approach."

The agreement, which was signed in October of 2016 and approved
by a judge last year, includes a list of 20 "change initiatives"
the RCMP must undertake to improve the working environment for
the women it employs.

"One of the things that we're trying not to do is to treat this
as a checkbox exercise," Assistant Commissioner Jones said of the
required actions. "We want to make sure that any ongoing or new
initiatives to eliminate discrimination, bullying or harassment
are followed through on."

As of March 24, there were more than 2,550 registered plaintiffs
in the class-action settlement signed with women who were
sexually harassed while working for the RCMP over the past 40
years. Many hundreds more are expected to sign on before the May
deadline.

Sometimes female Mounties have made allegations that go far
beyond bullying and intimidation.

Two separate investigations are under way -- one in Halifax and
one in Toronto -- into allegations that doctors sexually
assaulted RCMP officers and recruits. The total number of
complainants in those two cases has topped 130.

The government recently appointed Brenda Lucki to the force's top
job, the first permanent female commissioner. Prime Minister
Justin Trudeau says it is part of her mandate to promote gender
equality in the force.

But the RCMP Civilian Review and Complaints Commission (CRCC)
said in a report released last year that the Mounties have
struggled with the problem of sexual harassment for decades and
concluded that the force lacked the will and the capacity to make
changes.

Noting the appointment of Commissioner Lucki, the CRCC said in an
e-mail that it will "continue to monitor how the RCMP addresses
these long-standing issues."

Meanwhile, Assistant Commissioner Jones said each of the 20
change initiatives required by the settlement agreement has been
assigned to a specific area within the force and each has an
action plan.

The force has created 17 new gender and harassment advisory
committees. And cadets are receiving extensive training about
harassment and sexual harassment, he said.

"We want them to be able to deal with a power imbalance," he
said, "which is a challenge in an organization that has a
hierarchy and could be considered paramilitary."

But some measures in the agreement may come more slowly.

For instance, the force is required to ensure that at least 30
per cent of its regular members are female by 2025. Women now
account for just 21.6 per cent of the regular members, up only
slightly from 20.7 per cent over the past five years.

Megan McPhee, Esq. -- mbm@complexlaw.ca -- a Toronto lawyer who
represents one of two former RCMP officers who launched the class
action, says her clients recognized sustainable change will take
time, given the size of the RCMP organization.

"They have indicated that, with this recent appointment of the
female commissioner, they are very optimistic," Ms. McPhee said.
"The statements that she made upon her appointment indicate that
she really means well. But she is going to need the funding to
support the initiatives that she has expressed that she intends
to pursue."

David Klein, Esq., another of the lawyers in the class-action
case, said his clients who recently left the force or are still
there say they have seen no concrete changes to reduce the
climate of harassment.

"They report, however, that some women are now more willing to
report harassment," Mr. Klein said. "We attribute this to the
#MeToo movement. The women feel less isolated as a result of the
general public awareness that gender harassment is a problem in
many work environments." [GN]


CBE GROUP: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Olszewski"
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARY ANN OLSZEWSKI, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE
CBE GROUP, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00553-DEJ (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
proposed classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiff as class
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing
on the certification motion until discovery could commence.
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense
when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay
should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs
contend.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mBRe8tXF

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CENTURYLINK: Colorado Court Tosses 401(k) Plan Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Lidgett, writing for Law360, reports that CenturyLink Inc.
on March 23 urged a Colorado federal court to toss a proposed
class action accusing it and the investment fiduciary of its
401(k) plan of improperly managing and administering the plan,
saying the suit's allegations "amount to nothing more than
Monday-morning quarterbacking."

CenturyLink and the CenturyLink Investment Management Co. moved
to dismiss Bonnie Birse's Employee Retirement Income Security Act
proposed class action alleging CenturyLink Dollars & Sense 401(k)
Plan participants have lost millions of dollars in retirement
funds.

The case is Birse v. CenturyLink, Inc et al, Case No. 1:17-cv-
02872 (Colorado Court).  The case is assigned to Judge Christine
M. Arguello.  The case was filed November 30, 2017. [GN]


CHARLIE GRAINGERS: Trident et al Seek More Time to Defend Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TRIDENT ATLANTA, LLC, DUAL ENERGY, LLC, and
CYNERGETIC AR, LLC, the Plaintiffs, CHARLIE GRAINGERS
FRANCHISING, LLC, CHARLIE GRAINGERS FRANCHISING, INC., LOUIS
CRAIG NORTH, GREGORY BRUCE GEORGE, and JASON MATTHEW NISTA, the
Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-00010-BO (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to allow them until April 20, 2018, to file their
response to the Defendant North's Motion to dismiss.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard W. Farrell, Esq.
          THE FARRELL LAW GROUP
          500 Falls of Neuse Rd. Suite 410
          Raleigh, NC, 27609
          Telephone: (919) 8782 0300
          E-mail: rfarrell@farrel-lawgroup.com

Counsel for Jason Matthew Nista:

          Andrew R. Jones, Esq.
          FORREST FINN, P.C.
          105 Grace Street, Suite 101
          Wilmington, NC 28401
          E-mail: andy.jones@forrestfirm.com

Counsel for Louis Craig North:

          Samuel B. Potter, Esq.
          HODGES COXE POTTER & PHILLIPS, LLP
          3901-100 Wrightsville Avenue
          Wilmington, NC 28403
          E-mail: sam@hccplaw.com

Co-Counsel for Gregory Bruce George:

          Joseph Z. Frost, Esq.
          Matthew W. Buckmiller, Esq.
          STUBBS & PERDUE, P.A.
          9208 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 201
          Raleigh, NC 27615
          E-mail: jfrost@stubbsperdue.com
                  mbuckmiller@stubbsperdue.com


CHINA AGRITECH: Ct. Yet to Rule on Tolling Statute of Limitations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edith Roberts, writing for SCOTUS Blog, reports that in China
Agritech v. Resh, the court will decide whether the rule tolling
the statute of limitations for individual actions filed after a
failed class action also applies to subsequent class actions.
Ronald Mann had this blog's preview.  Fred Titcomb and Vadim
Belinskiy preview the case for Cornell.  At The National Law
Review, Jay Varon and Jennifer Keas note that China Agritech "has
the potential to clarify a long-standing split among the circuit
courts of appeals on the propriety and wisdom of permitting class
action stacking." [GN]


COMBINED LIFE: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Young Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE YOUNG AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. COMBINED LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
NEW YORK AND CHUBB GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-03071-PGG (S.D.N.Y., April 6, 2018), seeks to recover
damages caused by Defendant's failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually
impaired people.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually impaired
and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to
read website content using his computer. Plaintiff uses the terms
"blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual
impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that
they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal
to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have
limited vision. Others have no vision.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the
American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately
400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.
Despite Defendants having an accessible statement, their website
is in fact no accessible. The Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products
and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act. Because Defendant's websites,
WWW.COMBINEDINSURANCE.COM and WWW.COMBINEDINSURANCE.COM/US-EN/,
is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, it violates the ADA.

Combined Insurance Company provides supplemental accident and
health, disability, and life insurance products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
          175 Varick St., 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Telephone: (646) 770 3775
          Facsimile: (646) 867 2639
          E-mail: brad@markslawpc.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228 9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982 6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


CONNECTICUT: Homeowners Sue Over Failing Foundation
---------------------------------------------------
Kathleen McWilliams, writing for Hartford Courant, reports that
dozens of Connecticut residents with failing foundations arrived
at the Capitol on March 26 to make the case for more financial
assistance to be made available to homeowners.

"I eat, sleep and breathe this crisis and I have been for the
last two and a half years," homeowner and Willington resident Tim
Heim said on March 26.  "Insurance companies in Connecticut have
gotten away with too much for too long."

The bill before the judiciary committee would require insurance
companies to cover "the peril of collapse" and the costs of
mitigation to prevent a collapse or cave-in.  Currently,
insurance companies do not cover the replacement of a failing
foundation. The bill would also require a $20 surcharge on
insurance policies to pay into a crumbling foundations assistance
fund.

"The insurance companies are fighting this legislation . . . I
have a problem with that. The victims of crumbling concrete have
been fighting this for 26 years," Stafford resident and homeowner
Linda Tofolowsky said.  "Many of us have used our entire savings,
our retirement funds to fix this disaster."

President of the Insurance Association of Connecticut,
Eric George, told members of the judiciary committee on March 26
that requiring insurance providers to cover the peril of collapse
would raise premiums for everyone.

"I want to start off by saying I have extraordinary empathy for
these homeowners.  I live in Glastonbury, my neighbors have this
issue," Mr. George said.  "Our main concern with this coverage
mandate is that it is going to have a significant impact on
premiums."

Since the issue of failing foundations was detected in north
central Connecticut, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has estimated that as
many as 34,000 homes in 36 towns might have failing foundations.

According to a state report, a mineral known as pyrrhotite --
used in the concrete aggregate for the foundations that are now
crumbling -- is partly to blame.

Insurance companies have denied homeowners' claims, saying the
problem does not qualify for coverage under their definition of
collapse, leaving homeowners to bear the burden of a repair or
replacement, which can cost as much as $200,000.

Homeowners have sought solutions, including lawsuits against
their insurance companies and a class-action lawsuit against 111
active Connecticut insurance companies.

Last year, the state appropriated $100

Jim Williams, a homeowner in Tolland, said he discovered cracking
in his basement walls two years ago.  Mr. Williams urged
lawmakers to take action and look after the well-being of their
constituents.

"My story is shared 34,000 times over in Connecticut," he said.
"The silence from the state is deafening.  Plot a course and find
it in your hearts to do the right thing for your constituents."

Debra MacCoy lives in Vernon -- one of the towns hardest hit by
the crisis, according to data from the state.

"The homeowner's perspective on this is that there is a
reasonable expectation that this would be covered in an insurance
policy.  It only makes sense that lawmakers would seek a remedy
that would help everyone," Ms. MacCoy said. [GN]


CONTRACT SWEEPERS: Court Denies Class Certification in "Steffen"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ANDY STEFFEN, the Plaintiff, v. CONTRACT
SWEEPERS & EQUIPMENT, CO., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00579-
GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge George C. Smith entered an
order denying Steffen's motion for conditional certification and
Court-supervised notice.

The Court said, "While the standard for granting conditional
certification is "fairly lenient," White, 699 F.3d at 877, and
requires only a "modest showing," Lewis, 789 F. Supp. 2d at 867,
the Court may not merely "rubber-stamp" any proposed collective
action, even at the conditional certification stage. Lutz v.
Huntington Bancshares Inc., No. 2:12-CV-01091, 2013 WL 1703361.
Rather, Steffen "must present some evidence to support
allegations that others are similarly situated." Here, Steffen
has not provided any evidentiary support for his assertion that
other equipment operators are similarly situated; he has made no
more than a conclusory allegation that he and other equipment
operators did not consistently receive an uninterrupted meal
break. Accordingly, Steffen has not met his burden to establish
that other equipment operators are similarly situated.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IcT6vZu1


CREDIT BUREAU: Bassett Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KELLY M. BASSETT, individually and as heir
of JAMES M. BASSETT, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CREDIT BUREAU SERVICES,
INC. and C.J. TIGHE, the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-00449-JFB-
SMB (D. Neb.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class
of:

   "(i) all persons with addresses in Nebraska; (ii) to whom
   Defendants sent a letter; (iii) in an attempt to collect a
   debt incurred for personal, family or household purposes as
   shown by Defendants' or the creditors' records; and (iv)
   allegedly due for a medical obligation."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Edkse0Zm

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          William L. Reinbrecht, Esq.
          Pamela A. Car, Esq.
          CAR & REINBRECHT, P.C., L.L.O.
          2120 S. 72nd Street, No. 1125
          Omaha, NE 68124
          Telephone: (402) 391 8484

              - and -

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


CUSTOM DRYWALL: Court Grants Class Certification in "Caceres"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JORGE CACERES, the Plaintiff, v. CUSTOM
DRYWALL & PAINTING LLC, ET AL., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
06949-CJB-JVM (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Carl J. Barbier entered
an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for conditional class
      certification, judicial notice, and for disclosure of the
      names and addresses of potential opt-in plaintiffs;

   2. approving the notice to be sent to:

      "all individuals who worked or are working performing
      manual labor for Custom Drywall & Painting, LLC during the
      previous three years who worked in excess of forty hours in
      any work week and failed to receive premium pay, at the
      rate of one-and-a-half times their regular rate of pay, for
      all hours worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek.";

   3. granting Defendants 14 days from the entry of this Order
      to produce the full names, dates of employment, and last
      known addresses of all potential opt-in plaintiffs; and

   4. directing that the time period in which potential opt-in
      plaintiffs may opt-in is 90 days. The 90-day opt-in
      period will begin to run on the date that Defendants
      provide a complete list of the names, dates of employment,
      and last known addresses of all potential opt-in
      plaintiffs.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qK5jukq4


DEFENDERS INC: "Swearingen" Suit Moved to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Matthew John Swearingen,
Individually and on Behalf of Other Members of the Public
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Defenders, Inc. and
DOES 1-10, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-02018-00008302-
CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of SD-Central Division, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (San Diego) on April 9, 2018. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00703-DMS-JLB to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Dana M.
Sabraw.

Defenders, Inc., doing business as Protect Your Home, provides
and installs security equipment for homes in the United States.
The company offers monitor, arm, and disarm systems; allows users
to view real-time video of their home; enables users to get email
and text alerts; and offers alarm systems with monitored
burglary.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy Joseph O'Leary, Esq.
          SKILLING O'LEARY, PC
          401 West A Street, Suite 1745
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 500 4027
          Facsimile: (888) 483 3049
          E-mail: tim@skolegal.com

Attorneys for Defenders, Inc.:

          Mia Farber, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS LLP
          725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 689 0404
          Facsimile: (213) 689 0430
          E-mail: farberm@jacksonlewis.com


DELTA DENTAL: Moneim Sues over Collection of Refunds from Members
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AHMED MONEIM, D.D.S.; CHARINA BAILON, D.D.S.; JOYCE TSE, D.D.S.
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. DELTA DENTAL OF CALIFORNIA, a California
Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. GGC-18-565581 (Cal. Super.
Ct., April 6, 2018), seeks injunctive relief restraining Delta
Dental from demanding unlawful and improper requests for
reimbursement from its provider dentists.

This action arises out of Delta Dental's conduct in performing
audits on provider dentists and submitting requests for
reimbursements to participating dentists after the statutorily
allowed time permitted by the Keene-Knox Act and other applicable
regulations. Delta's actions in collecting refunds on time barred
claims breaches its contractual obligations to participating
dentists as well as the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing owed to all participating dentists Delta Dental has
contracted with, and such conduct also violates California's
Unfair Competition Law. Pursuant to Delta Dental's terms of
service, Delta Dental and participating dentists are governed by
the regulations set forth in Title 28 California Code of
Regulations Section. The Knox-Keene Act governs and regulates
health care service plans, including health maintenance
organizations (HMOs) with the State of California.

The Plaintiffs and members of the class all entered into written
provider agreements with Delta Dental for the payment of dental
claims after submission of such claims and approval by Delta
Dental. The written agreements between Plaintiffs, members of the
Class and Delta Dental all contained identical or substantially
similar clauses regarding the potential for audits performed by
Delta of previously approved dental claims submitted by provider
dentists.

Specifically, Delta Dental's participating dentist rules state
that a participating dentist is required to keep accurate and
complete billing, financial, and treatment records of all
eligible patients for a minimum of five and maintain the records
at the dental office of at least three years. Further, the
agreements require that dentists provide said information to
Delta as may be necessary for compliance with provisions of the
Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan of 1975. The provider
agreements further give Delta the right to inspect, make copies
of the books records and papers of a participating dentist,
relating to the fees the dentist charged for the dental services
provided, the cost to the patient, and the payments received by
the dentist. The provider agreements entered into between
Plaintiffs and members of the class included a provision for
"Dispute Resolution" which stated that in the event of any
controversy or claim arising out of or relating to any obligation
under the Participating Dentist Rules or any Delta Care
Program, or the breach thereof, including but not limited to the
amount determined by Delta to be refunded by the dentist to Delta
and/or to an eligible patient shall be subject to binding
arbitration in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules
of the American Arbitration Association.

Furthermore the Dispute Resolution provides that any demand for
arbitration shall be submitted within six months from the date of
the action which is the subject of the dispute. Despite the
provisions included in the provider agreements with Delta and the
relevant regulations of the Knox-Keene act barring requests for
reimbursement more than 365 days or one year after payment has
been made, Delta Dental has repeatedly and routinely performed
audits on provider dentists which have resulted in demands by
Delta Dental for reimbursement of dental claims that were
submitted by the dentist and paid by Delta Dental more than 365
days prior to the demand by Delta Dental. Such a practice in
demanding payment on time barred previously approved and paid
dental claims has perpetuated improperly and incorrectly
calculated reimbursement requests from Delta Dental to providing
dentists in California. Delta Dental consistently fails to inform
participating dentists subject to its audits and requests for
reimbursement that claims previously submitted by the dentist and
approved and paid by Delta Dental more than 365 days prior to the
request for repayment is time barred as provided by Section
1300.71(b)(5) of the Knox-Keene Act. Furthermore, Delta fails to
inform participating dentists including the Plaintiffs and Class
members that a non-judicial dispute resolution provision binds
the parties to binding arbitration with a six month limitation as
to filing for arbitration for such a dispute.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ronald P. Goldman, Esq.
          Theodore H. Chase, Esq.
          THE GOLDMAN LAW FIRM
          Merchant Bank Building
          55 Main Street
          Tiburon, CA 94920
          Telephone: (415) 435 5500
          Facsimile: (415) 435 5156
          E-mail: tchase@goldmanlawfirm.net


DENVER, CO: Class Action Over Homeless Sweeps Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------
Kirk Mitchell, writing for Denver Post, reports that a federal
class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of Denver's homeless
population will go forward after a judge rejected a motion by
Denver officials to dismiss the case.

U.S. District Judge William J. Martinez also denied most of a
second motion filed by the city of Denver to strike much of the
evidence in the case filed September 2016 by Denver attorney
Jason Flores-Williams. Martinez also denied a motion by the
plaintiffs asking for summary judgment.

In his ruling, Judge Martinez said there is abundant evidence
that Denver has repeatedly engaged in mass sweeps to move
homeless people.

City officials have previously said the city would not continue
to have large-scale operations to clear homeless encampments. But
officials have failed to establish new procedures intended to
prevent any of the allegedly unconstitutional aspects of previous
sweeps, Martinez said.

"There was one promise made at the outset," Mr. Flores-Williams
announced in a news release on March 26.  "That the thousands of
poor who have been broken and violated by the homeless sweeps
would have their day in court -- and now they're getting it."

Mr. Flores-Williams said that the trial will likely go forward
within about six months.  He filed the suit on behalf of nine
homeless men and a woman living in Denver and sought class-action
status.

The suit claims that sweeps in which the personal property of
homeless people is confiscated and summarily destroyed violates
the constitutional rights of the homeless. [GN]


DR. PEPPER SNAPPLE: Fitzhenry-Russell Seeks Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JACKIE FITZHENRY-RUSSELL, ROBIN DALE, and
GEGHAM MARGARYAN, as individuals, on behalf of themselves, the
general public and those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
DR. PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP, INC., DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP, INC., and
DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00564-NC (N.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs will move the Court on June 13, 2018 for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons who, between December 28, 2012 and the
      present, purchased any Canada Dry Ginger Ale products in
      the state of California";

   2. appointing Jackie Fitzhenry-Russell and Gegham Margaryan as
      class representatives on all claims, and Gutride Safier LLP
      as lead class counsel and The Margarian Law Firm as liaison
      class counsel; and

   3. directing parties to meet and confer and present this
      Court, within 15 days of an order granting class
      certification, a proposed notice to the certified class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9ZCSBU8d

Attorneys for Jackie Fitzhenry-Russell and Robin Dale

          Adam J. Gutride, Esq.
          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Marie Mccrary, Esq.
          Matthew T. Mccrary, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94114
          Telephone: (415) 639 9090
          Facsimile: (415) 449 6469

Attorney for Gegham Margaryan:

          Hovanes Margarian, Esq.
          THE MARGARIAN LAW FIRM
          801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 210
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 553 1000
          Facsimile: (818) 553 1005


FACEBOOK INC: Hit With 4 Lawsuits Over Cambridge Analytica
----------------------------------------------------------
Mallory Locklear, writing for Engadget, reports that a week since
the bombshell reports on Cambridge Analytica's use of Facebook
user data dropped and already the social media giant is facing at
least four lawsuits. Along with a class action suit filed on
behalf of Facebook users whose data was obtained by Cambridge
Analytica, three shareholders have also filed their own
complaints.

Bloomberg reported that shareholder Fan Yuan filed a class action
lawsuit against Facebook, CEO Mark Zuckerberg and CFO David
Wehner in a San Francisco federal court. Yuan's suit focuses on
the drop in share price following the Cambridge Analytica
revelations and seeks to represent those who purchased shares
between February 3rd, when Facebook released its annual report,
and March 19th, two days after the New York Times report was
published. Shareholder Robert Casey filed a similar complaint in
a San Jose court, SFGate reports.

An additional lawsuit filed by Jeremiah Hallisey in San Jose
names Zuckerberg, COO Sheryl Sandberg and Facebook board members
Marc Andreessen, Peter Thiel, Reed Hastings, Erskine Bowles,
Susan Desmond-Hellmann and Jan Koum as defendants. "Each of the
Defendants consciously and deliberately breached their fiduciary
duties of candor, good faith, loyalty and reasonable inquiry to
Facebook and its stockholders by failing to act to ensure
Facebook maintained adequate internal controls to comply with the
consent order and other applicable laws," the complaint states.
It seeks damages and a court direction for Facebook to improve
its corporate governance.

Facebook has been hit with inquiries from Congress and the UK
Parliament. It's also being investigated by the states of New
York and Massachusetts and reportedly the FTC. Mark Zuckerberg
and Sheryl Sandberg finally addressed the situation, days after
the reports surfaced.

Update: Actually, make that six lawsuits. As Ars Technica's Cyrus
Farivar notes, two more have now been filed -- one in Illinois
and one in Texas. In Illinois, two Facebook users -- Victor
Comforte II and Brendan Carr -- have filed for a class action
suit wherein they seek compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of themselves and a number of other individuals. The suit
names Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg and Cambridge Analytica as
defendants as well as up to 100 other unnamed individuals. In
Texas, Facebook user Matthew Lodowski has filed a class action
suit and also seeks damages. His complaint names Facebook,
Cambridge Analytica, Robert Mercer and Aleksandr Kogan as
defendants. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, and KSF partner, former Attorney General
of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they
have until May 21, 2018 to file lead plaintiff applications in a
securities class action lawsuit against Facebook, Inc.
(Nasdaq:FB), if they purchased the Company's shares between
February 3, 2017 and March 19, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). This action is pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of Facebook and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your
right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis
Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email
(lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-fb/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by May 21, 2018.

                          About the Lawsuit

Facebook and certain of its executives are charged with failing
to disclose material information during the Class Period,
violating federal securities laws.

The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions
include, but are not limited to, that: (i) the Company had
engaged in a practice of allowing third party companies to access
the personal data of millions of users without their consent for
advertising and political research, in violation of its own data
privacy policies; (ii) the discovery of those actions would
likely result in increased scrutiny and/or fines by government
regulators; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Facebook's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

                 About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities,
antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger &
acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly
traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices
in New York, California and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         206 Covington St.
         Madisonville, LA 70447
         Telephone: 1-877-515-1850
         E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com   [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: CEO Apologizes for Cambridge Analytica Scandal
------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Zhao, writing for Newsweek, reports that
Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's founder and CEO, issued a statement
apologizing for "breach of trust" in the Cambridge Analytica
scandal in full-page newspaper ads across major print
publications on March 25.

The statement, signed by Mr. Zuckerberg, appeared in The New York
Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal in the
U.S., and The Observer, The Sunday Times, The Mail on Sunday,
Sunday Mirror and The Sunday Telegraph in the U.K.

"You may have heard about a quiz app built by a university
researcher that leaked Facebook data of millions of people in
2014," the ad, that featured black text on a white background
with the Facebook logo at the bottom, read.

It continued: "This was a breach of trust, and I'm sorry we
didn't do more at the time.  We're now taking steps to ensure
this doesn't happen again."

The apology went on to say that the apps have already been
limited to ensure they don't get so much information, and that
the company is investigating "every single app that had access to
large amounts of data."

"Thank you for believing in this community. I promise to do
better for you," Mr. Zuckerberg concluded.

Earlier in March, Facebook suspended Cambridge Analytica for
violating the platform's privacy policies following reports that
the software company was gathering the personal data of more than
50 million social media users.

"We will take legal action if necessary to hold them responsible
and accountable for any unlawful behavior," Facebook said in a
statement.

Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting firm, is being
accused of using the data it harvested for its work on Donald
Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. The company has repeatedly
denied those claims, saying it deleted the data in 2015 after a
notification from Facebook.

A Maryland woman filed a federal class-action lawsuit against
Facebook and Cambridge Analytica.  Lauren Price claims she was
targeted for political advertisements during the last elections
and that her personal information had been improperly obtained,
according to the lawsuit filed to the U.S. District Court of
Northern California.

A British Parliamentary committee asked Zuckerberg to appear in
person to refute claims that Facebook data was being mined for
political campaigns.  Damian Collins, chairman of the House of
Commons digital, culture, media and sport committee, invited the
CEO to explain the "catastropic failure of process" and gave him
until March 26 to reply.

"Your officials' answers have consistently understated this risk
and have been misleading to the committee," Mr. Collins wrote in
a letter to Mr. Zuckerberg.

Mr. Collins continued, "It is now time to hear from a senior
Facebook executive with the sufficient authority to give an
accurate account of this catastrophic failure of process . . .
Given your commitment at the start of the new year to 'fixing'
Facebook, I hope that this representative will be you." [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Cook County Files Suit Over Cambridge Analytica
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ally Marotti and Corilyn Shropshire, writing for Chicago Tribune,
report that Cook County is suing Facebook and Cambridge Analytica
for allegedly violating an Illinois fraud law after reports that
the political consulting firm used ill-gotten Facebook data in an
effort to influence voter behavior.

Cambridge Analytica, which was hired by President Donald Trump's
campaign, deceived the millions of Illinois Facebook users whose
information it collected, alleges the lawsuit, filed on March 23
in Cook County Circuit Court.  And Facebook failed to protect its
users' privacy and misrepresented how their data would be used,
the lawsuit says.

"(Facebook) sought to keep developers building on its platform
and provide companies with all the tools they need to influence
and manipulate user behavior," the suit says.  "That's because
Facebook is not a social media company; it is the largest data
mining operation in existence."

Facebook said it could not comment immediately on the lawsuit,
and Cambridge Analytica did not respond to requests for comment.

The lawsuit joins others brought against the social media giant
and Cambridge Analytica in response to a report from The New York
Times and The Observer of London earlier in March.  The
newspapers reported that Cambridge Analytica, whose U.K.-based
parent SCL Group was also named in Cook County's suit, gained
access to private information of more than 50 million Facebook
users, including their profiles, locations and what they like.
The firm claimed its tools could analyze voters' personalities
and influence their behavior with targeted messages.

At least five lawsuits have been filed in federal court in
Northern California over the alleged misuse of user data.  Those
include a suit from a Facebook shareholder who is seeking class-
action status, claiming he and other company shareholders have
suffered losses and damages since the Cambridge Analytica news
was first reported, and another from a woman seeking class-action
status over Facebook and Cambridge Analytica's alleged improper
data collection.

Since the report about Cambridge Analytica was published, a
public conversation about deleting Facebook profiles has sprung
up, and the privacy of people's online information has come into
question. Some experts say that deleting a Facebook profile can't
protect the more than a decade's worth of data that users have
already poured into the platform.

The Federal Trade Commission on March 26 confirmed that it has
opened an investigation into Facebook's data practices, and 37
state attorneys general, including Illinois' Lisa Madigan, sent a
letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg demanding answers about
the company's practices and privacy protections.  Meanwhile, U.K.
investigators reportedly raided Cambridge Analytica's offices in
London.

Mr. Zuckerberg said in a post that the company took steps several
years ago to make sure users' data aren't accessed this way
again.  He also promised that the company would do more to
protect its users' data.  "We have a responsibility to protect
your data, and if we can't then we don't deserve to serve you,"
he wrote.

Cambridge Analytica improperly acquired the information, Facebook
has said, but it didn't steal the data.  Users allowed the maker
of a personality quiz app to take the data.  About 270,000 people
took the quiz several years ago, and the app-maker was able to
scrape data from their Facebook friends.  He then provided the
data to Cambridge Analytica.

Still, Facebook told its users that their personal data would be
protected, according to the Cook County lawsuit.  It engaged in
unfair and deceptive conduct when it allowed a third party to
collect its users' data, the suit alleges.

The lawsuit, filed by Cook County State's Attorney Kimberly Foxx
on behalf of Illinois residents, brings one count each against
Facebook and Cambridge Analytica for allegedly violating the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

The suit asks that both companies be fined $50,000 for each
Illinois user whose data was accessed and that Cambridge
Analytica be fined an additional $10,000 for each day a violation
affecting an Illinois resident age 65 or older has existed.

The companies "must be held accountable for their actions,"
Ms. Foxx said in a statement.

"Cambridge Analytica deliberately misled Facebook users so it
could build psychological profiles of the user and their friends,
and Facebook did not stop it," she said.  "This blatant deception
violated Illinois law and more importantly violated the privacy
of Illinois residents."

Cook County is being represented by Chicago law firm Edelson,
which has brought privacy suits against Facebook and other tech
companies, including Google and Netflix.

Cambridge Analytica has previously denied any wrongdoing and
suspended its CEO, Alexander Nix.  The app developer, Cambridge
University researcher Aleksandr Kogan, who is not named in the
Cook County suit, told the BBC that he didn't know the data would
be used for Trump's election campaign and that Cambridge
Analytica is using him as a scapegoat.

Internet security advocates have argued that there aren't enough
laws to protect consumer privacy.  Companies often lean on terms
of service that consumers sign before using an app or service,
but few actually read that fine print.  Even if they do, some
experts say it is nearly impossible for users to know the extent
to which their data could be used.

That's increasingly a problem in a world where technology
companies are building their businesses on data collection, and
it's illustrated in this case, said Alvaro Bedoya, who runs the
Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown University Law
Center.  The basis of the lawsuit is that what happened with
Cambridge Analytica on Facebook wasn't an accident: It was
Facebook's business model, Mr. Bedoya said.

"This thing didn't just happen to a couple users in California or
New York, this happened to millions of people," he said.
"Frankly, it's the tip of the iceberg." [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Houston Man Files Suit Over Cambridge Analytica
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Cochran, writing for Click2Houston, reports that a Houston
man sued Facebook and Cambridge Analytica on March 23 in a class-
action lawsuit on behalf of 50 million Facebook users who may be
impacted by the social network's massive data breach.

Matthew Lodowski is suing the social network Facebook, the data
company Cambridge Analytica LLC, New York businessman Robert
Leroy Mercer and psychology professor Aleksandr Kogan, of
Cambridge, England.

The suit alleges that private and personal profile data was
obtained from Facebook users without their consent or knowledge
"in excess of the authorization granted by Facebook and Facebook
users, in violation of the Stored Communications Act," and
Facebook "failed to protect its user data, and . . . failed to
take reasonable measure necessary to retrieve the data . . . and
notify its users . . . and only spoke publicly on the issue after
news stories exposed their negligent behavior."

The lawsuit also claims Mr. Kogan, Cambridge Analytic LLC and
Mercer conspired together to mine data from Facebook users.

The lawsuit alleges that the information mined from people's
account was initially cleared by Facebook because it was for
"academic" reasons, but it was actually used for commercial use
by Kogan and Cambridge Analytica.

The suit seeks damages of $1,000 per violation and relief from
Mr. Kogan and Cambridge Analytica for violating privacy rights,
according to documents.

The lawsuit comes after the scandal erupted when The New York
Times and UK's The Observer newspaper reported that Cambridge
Analytica harvested data from more than 50 million Facebook
users.

The data "allowed the company to exploit the private social media
activity of a huge swath of the American electorate, developing
techniques that underpinned its work on President Trump's
campaign in 2016," the Times reported.

Facebook officials say the data in question was properly gathered
a few years ago by Mr. Kogan, who said he was using the data for
academic purposes.

But in 2014, it wound up in the possession of Cambridge
Analytica, which was working to develop techniques that could be
used to influence voters and was later hired by Donald Trump's
campaign.

In a statement on March 23, officials with Cambridge Analytica
reiterated previous claims that it did not use any of the data
during its work for Trump.

Facebook officials have declined to comment on the lawsuit.
[GN]


FASTAFF LLC: Court Granted Class Certification in "Dalchau" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled STEPHANIE DALCHAU, et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. FASTAFF, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01584-
WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an
order denying Fastaff's motion to stay and granting Dalchau's
motion for class certification concerning its California state
law claims:

   "all individuals, except for those who worked exclusively on
   or after November 16, 2017 and received in-kind housing, who,
   at any time from March 25, 2013 through the date of
   certification, worked in California pursuant to an Assignment
   Agreement Letter with Fastaff during which they received a
   housing stipend or in-kind housing, received overtime pay, and
   had the value of the housing benefit excluded from their
   regular rate for purposes of calculating overtime pay."

A Case Management Conference is scheduled for May 22, 2018, at
2:00 p.m. to discuss the impact, if any, of the ruling by the
Stanislaus County Superior Court on this matter and to set a
schedule for the rest of the case. The parties shall file a Joint
Case Management Statement by May 15, 2018, which (among other
things) proposes a pre-trial and trial schedule.

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


FIAT CHRYSLER: Reaches Settlement with Anton Yelchin's Parents
--------------------------------------------------------------
JTA reports that the parents of actor Anton Yelchin reached a
confidential settlement with the makers of the car that crushed
him to death in his driveway two years ago.

The settlement was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, People
magazine first reported.  Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, the company
that manufactures the Jeep Grand Cherokee, confirmed the
settlement in a statement.

"The settlement will go to the Anton Yelchin Foundation and to
the filming of a documentary on Anton's life," Yelchin's
publicist, Jennifer Allen, said in a statement to People.  The
foundation assists young people in the arts who face career
challenges due to debilitating disease or disability.

Yelchin, 27, who starred in the rebooted "Star Trek" movies, was
found dead at his home in Studio City, California, on June 19,
2016, after being crushed by his 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee.

Friends found Yelchin pinned between his car and a brick pillar;
the vehicle was in neutral and running.  Yelchin was presumed to
have returned to his house to get something, which is why he was
outside of the car while it was running.

The Jeep was part of a global recall of 1.1 million vehicles
announced by Fiat Chrysler in April 2016.  The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration urged the recall because of
complaints from drivers that a problem with the gear shift made
it difficult to tell whether the car was in park.  When not in
park, the vehicle could roll away.  A class-action lawsuit was
filed in that case.

Yelchin starred as Chekov in the 2009 and 2013 "Star Trek"
movies, and is seen in the third film in the series, "Star Trek
Beyond," which was released in February.  He also appeared in
films including "Like Crazy," "Alpha Dog," "Terminator Salvation"
and "Fright Night." His final film, "Thoroughbreds," began
playing in theaters earlier in March.

Yelchin, a native of St. Petersburg, Russia, immigrated to the
United States with his family as an infant.  He was the son of
figure skaters Irina Korina and Viktor Yelchin, who reportedly
were persecuted for being Jewish. [GN]


FORD MOTORS: Lug Nuts Class-Action Lawsuit Baseless
---------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for Car Complaints.com, reports that a
Ford lug nuts class-action lawsuit should be dismissed because
all the claims are baseless, or so says attorneys for the
automaker who argue the plaintiffs apparently want warranties to
last forever.

The plaintiffs claim the affected Ford Escape, Fusion, Flex,
Focus, F-150 and F-350 vehicles are equipped with two-piece lug
nuts that delaminate, crack and swell because they are made with
a combination of steel, chrome, aluminum or stainless steel
instead of solid steel.

According to the class-action lawsuit, Ford could have used one-
piece lug nuts but opted to use the cheaper two-piece capped lug
nuts that crack and swell due to vibrations from the road,
moisture and changing temperatures.

The plaintiffs told the judge it can easily cost $200 to replace
the lug nuts for all four wheels and removing the cracked lug
nuts can be nearly impossible where even repair shops have
trouble unless special tools are used.

Ford drivers also claim the automaker has known about the problem
for years based on complaints from customers and dealers, with
some dealerships allegedly telling customers to replace the
swollen lug nuts with parts from any company other than Ford.

The plaintiffs further claim Ford ignores its warranty
obligations and forces customers to pay for the replacement lug
nuts and for the labor of removing the damaged lug nuts.

In its motion to dismiss, Ford says the lawsuit alleges the
automaker didn't disclose "safety defects" with the delaminated
lug nuts, but the plaintiffs never allege the swollen lug nuts
have ever caused physical injuries to any person or damage to any
property.

In addition, the automaker argues the plaintiffs make claims
based on laws in states where none of the plaintiffs reside.

Ford also says the plaintiffs talk about swollen lug nuts as if
the lug nuts should be indestructible and the warranties should
last forever, then wrongly "attempt to cast their product-defect
allegations as warranty, fraud and unjust-enrichment claims."

Unjust enrichment claims allegedly fail because Ford doesn't
benefit from indirect purchases and the plaintiffs do not allege
they paid for higher-quality lug nuts than they actually
received.

The automaker also told the judge how the plaintiffs talk about
advertisements that promote vehicles as having "quality" and
"style," but the plaintiffs confuse advertising "puffery" with
claims about Ford allegedly making specific representations about
the lug nuts.

Ford says none of the plaintiffs plead a valid warranty claim
because none of them alleges the automaker charged for
replacement lug nuts after customers visited dealers during the
warranty periods.

While the plaintiffs claim Ford should stop selling the vehicles
because of the lug nuts, Ford says wording in the warranty makes
it clear the automaker can deny coverage for damage caused by
"misuse," "deterioration" from "exposure to the elements" and
from "normal wear and tear."

In addition, Ford told the judge only one plaintiff claims their
vehicle is still covered by the manufacturer's warranty, yet
never took the vehicle to a dealer as the warranty requires.

Ford alleges some of the claims made by the plaintiffs are
outright inconceivable, such as a plaintiff talking to "Ford
salespeople" at a Buick GMC dealership, while other claims are
"nonsensical," such as plaintiffs paying out-of-pocket for
"unnecessary lug nut purchases."

Finally, Ford says in its motion to dismiss the lawsuit reads
more like a press release than clear factual allegations that
would entitle the plaintiffs to what they desire.

The Ford lug nuts class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan - Wozniak,
et. al, vs. Ford Motor Company.

The plaintiffs are represented by Hagens Berman, and the Miller
Law Firm, PC. [GN]


FUYAO GLASS: 18 Additional Workers to Join Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Gnau, writing for Dayton Daily News, reports that in the
past several days, 18 additional Fuyao Glass America workers have
filed to join a class-action lawsuit against the Moraine
manufacturer over the company's pay and work scheduling
practices.

One worker filed to join the suit in Dayton's U.S. District Court
on March 22, then 17 additional workers filed to join the next
day.

Earlier in March, a federal judge granted class-action status to
the lawsuit, defining a legal class that includes current and
former Fuyao production workers who worked for the company some
time in the last three years.

Attorneys for those suing Fuyao won permission to contact workers
and former workers with information about the legal action.

The workers involved in the lawsuit so far -- about 31
individuals so far -- have alleged that the manufacturer of auto
safety glass has not properly paid workers for overtime work or
did not completely relieve them of duties for unpaid meal breaks
and other times.

Earlier in March, the auto glass manufacturer was given 14 days
to provide the plaintiffs' attorneys the workers' and former
workers' names, job positions, last-known mailing addresses,
last-known telephone numbers, email addresses and other contact
information.

An attorney for Fuyao has denied allegations that workers were
not properly paid by the company.

Workers have 90-days to join the lawsuit, said Bob DeRose, a
Columbus attorney who represents the workers.  Once the notice
period ends, Fuyao can move to decertify the class if it proves
that the workers were not similarly treated, he also said.

"If that happens then everyone has an individual trial,"
Mr. DeRose added.

A forklift operator working at Fuyao's West Stroop Road plant was
killed in an early morning accident on the job.  Cincinnati-based
investigators of the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health
Administration are investigating the incident. [GN]


GALLIANO MARINE: Halle Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KYLE HALLE, the Plaintiff, v. GALLIANO
MARINE SERVICE, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 2:15-cv-05648-EEF-MBN (E.D.
La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify class under Sec.
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ILD4Y39f

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Moulton, Esq.
          BRUCKNER & BURCH LLC
          8 Greenway Plaza No. 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 1 713 877 8788

The Defendant is represented by:

          David Korn, Esq.
          HAGAN, NOLL & BOYLE, LLC
          Two Memorial City Plaza
          820 Gessner, Suite 940
          Houston, TX 77024
          Telephone: (713) 343 0478
          Facsimile: (713) 758 0146
          E-mail: David.korn@hnbllc.com


GETSWIFT: Faces 2nd Class Action Over ASX Announcements
-------------------------------------------------------
Jemima Whyte, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that a second class action filed against last-mile logistics
group GetSwift has included both managing director Joel Macdonald
and executive chairman Bane Hunter in its claim, which also
alleges the company breached continous disclosure and that it
engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct.

The action, filed by lawyers Corrs Chambers Westgarth and funded
by Vannin Capital, is the second to be filed against the company,
though it is the first to include Mr Hunter.  Both actions are
listed for hearing on March 29.

In a statement to the Australian Securities Exchange, GetSwift
said it would contest the action and would ask the court to
consider how to advance the competing proceedings between two
plaintiff law firms and two litigation funders.

The first class action, filed by lawyers Squire Patton Boggs and
funded by International Litigation Partners, was filed in
February and expanded its statement of claim.  Both actions are
on an open-claim basis, which means shareholders who acquired
shares during that period will be automatically included.  It is
not clear whether some investors will exercise their right to opt
out of the action.

A spokesman for Vannin said: "The claim focuses not only on the
announcements scrutinised by the ASX, but also on the
announcements concerning commercial contracts with NA Williams,
Amazon and Yum! -- matters we have been investigating for some
considerable time.

"We allege that both Hunter and Macdonald are liable for losses
attributable to misrepresentations conveyed to the market by
those announcements."

In a statement, the Vannin spokesman said investors should not be
forced into being represented in the first action.

"Aggrieved shareholders should not be forced into being
represented in a class action by the first law firm to file a
claim," the statement said.

"What a terrible precedent that would set. It would just
encourage hastily drawn claims, which need to be amended.

"Where there is a choice available, shareholders should be able
to pick the claim, legal representation, the funding program and
lead applicant they are most comfortable with."

The class action and an Australian Securities and Investments
Commission investigation of the company were triggered by an
investigation in The Australian Financial Review into GetSwift's
market announcements and failure to disclose contract losses.
Quinn Emmanuel is providing legal representation for GetSwift in
both matters.

GetSwift shares fell 3 per cent on March 27 to close at 48õ.
[GN]


GIGA WATT: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Giga Watt Tokens ("WTT Tokens") pursuant to Giga Watt, Inc. and
GigaWatt Pte. Ltd.'s Initial Coin Offering between approximately
May 19, 2017 and July 31, 2017. You are hereby notified that Levi
& Korsinsky initiated the class action Balestra v. Giga Watt,
Inc. (2:18-cv-00103) in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Washington. To get more information go to:

http://www.zlk.com/pslra-sbm-cc/giga-watt

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. -- jlevi@levikorsinsky.com -- or
by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There
is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that Giga Watt, Inc. and GigaWatt Pte. Ltd.
violated Sections 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
other securities laws by engaging in interstate commerce for the
purposes of offering, selling, or delivering unregistered
securities.

If you purchased WTT Tokens pursuant to the ICO you have until
May 22, 2018 to request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation, and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         Tel: 212-363-7500
         Toll Free: 877-363-5972
         Fax: 212-363-7171
         Website: www.zlk.com
         E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Faces Employees' Discrimination Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Kate Conger, writing for Gizmodo, reports that if you ask Google
whether it has a discrimination problem, the company might point
you to its industry-leading diversity efforts or its program for
responding to complaints.  But employees who challenge that
narrative by asserting that it has created anything but a
healthy, supportive environment are being labeled troublemakers
and, in some instances, pushed out of the company.  Today, Google
faces so many of these troublemakers that it can no longer simply
shrug them off, even if it's every instinct is to do just that.

Google is the target of several high-profile lawsuits from former
employees, all alleging discrimination.  There are two class-
actions, one alleging Google routinely paid its female employees
less than its male ones and the other claiming Google
discriminated against its white, male, conservative employees.
There's a sexual harassment suit from a female engineer who said
she discovered a male co-worker hiding under her desk, and a
retaliation and wrongful termination case brought by an engineer
who advocated for diversity on Google's internal mailing lists
and message boards.  A former recruiter is also suing, claiming
Google fired him because he blew the whistle about YouTube's
alleged refusal to hire white and Asian men.

It's not only Google's former employees who are taking aim at the
company.  The US Department of Labor is investigating Google for
pay discrimination -- despite Google's assertion that there is no
wage gap at the company -- and a group of Google shareholders are
pushing a resolution that asks Google to produce a report
assessing the risks of its alleged wage discrimination,
particularly when it comes to recruiting and retaining female
employees.

"We think there is room for improvement and can't give a rubber
stamp to an incomplete analysis," Natasha Lamb, a partner at one
of the firms backing the shareholder resolution, Arjuna Capital,
told Gizmodo of Google's wage gap study.

Any large tech firm gets sued a lot--they're ripe targets for
patent trolls, disgruntled customers, and competitors who think
they've ripped off their product.  During its recent legal battle
with Waymo, Uber revealed it was juggling hundreds of other
lawsuits simultaneously; Google is currently a named defendant in
nearly 300 active cases in federal courts.

Viewed singly, harassment lawsuits are often dismissed by cynics
who declare that the plaintiff is seeking fame or a quick payday.
But take the lawsuits en masse and top them off with the concerns
of shareholders and the federal government, and it becomes clear
that Google doesn't have one or two resentful former employees --
it has a systemic discrimination problem that's been boiling over
in the aftermath of James Damore's now-infamous memo, and a vocal
set of workers who are fed up enough to do something about it.

Since the memo's publication, Google employees have faced doxing,
threats, and harassment.  They say their coworkers are
weaponizing the company's HR department, baiting them into
discussions about diversity and then reporting them to HR.
Management isn't responding to their concerns, employees said,
leaving them to fend for themselves in the face of
discrimination.

Google is hardly the only tech company facing discrimination
lawsuits from its former employees -- Microsoft, Apple, Facebook,
and Amazon are all sitting on the same uncomfortable court bench.
It's not as though Google hasn't invested in diversity, either.
The company is doing all of the things that tech companies do --
publishing a diversity report, funding efforts to improve STEM
education, recruiting from historically black colleges and
universities, and making resources available internally to report
harassment.  When employees were threatened after the publication
of Damore's memo, Google connected them with the company's
security team.

But the slew of workers coming forward in the courts and the
press demonstrates that Google doesn't have its culture sorted
out.  And if things are this messy at Google, which was one of
the first major tech companies to publish a diversity report and
is widely viewed as one of the friendlier corporations in Silicon
Valley, you have to wonder if the entire industry's tactics for
combatting workplace sexism and racism--putting out data that
demonstrates a lack of diversity in the workforce while placing
the onus on employees to speak up when they're harassed at work--
are failing.

"They tell their employees a huge amount of spin in order to get
their employees to believe that Google is fundamentally good and
intentional discrimination could never happen there,"
Kelly Ellis, a former engineer at Google and one of the
plaintiffs in the class action wage discrimination lawsuit
against the company, tells Gizmodo.  "People are more resistant
to acknowledging there is a problem because of Google's
reputation for good.  I don't think they actually are good."

The class action lawsuit states that Ms. Ellis and other female
Google employees were routinely under-paid, under-promoted, and
assigned to lower-tier work than their male colleagues.
Jim Finberg, the lead attorney in that case, scoffs at
comparisons between his class action and the one brought against
Google by Mr. Damore that asserts the company discriminates
against white, conservative men.  "I generally read non-fiction,"
he says of the complaint.

Mr. Finberg gives some credit to the #MeToo movement for
encouraging women to speak up about pay disparity.  "The idea
that, for years, people were afraid to come forward and talk
about harassment is the same -- for years, people didn't talk
about compensation," he says.  "When they find out they are paid
less, the knowledge itself is empowering."

Google declined to comment on the record for this story,
referring Gizmodo to a statement made to the New York Times
earlier in March.  "Creating a more diverse workplace is a big
challenge and a priority we've been working to address.  Some
people won't agree with our approach, and they're free to express
their disagreement.  But some conduct and discussion in the
workplace crosses a line, and we don't tolerate it.  We enforce
strong policies, and work with affected employees, to ensure
everyone can do their work free of harassment, discrimination and
bullying," a company spokesperson told the Times.

Ms. Ellis has spoken publicly before about her experiences with
harassment at Google, but she says it took her longer to
recognize discrimination in her pay.  "Even women ourselves might
have been questioning, 'Could this really be a systemic
problem?'" she says of the wage gap.  "I always thought I was an
outlier case and it was a one-off, but slowly I realized as I met
other women who experienced something similar."

Google faces twin conflicts, one over discriminatory speech
within the company and another over the impact those
conversations have on hiring, promotion, and culture.  The
emphasis on speech is partially propelled by the current
political winds, but it's also an important part of the culture
at Google, where employees are encouraged to engage in open
debate.  Mr. Damore has regularly cited Google's openness as an
explanation for why he felt comfortable circulating his memo
internally, and a former Googler told Gizmodo that the company's
popular mailing lists often felt like employee playgrounds.  A
mailing list Mr. Damore created for discussion of his memo, "pc-
harmful-discuss," remains active and unmoderated. Recently, the
list was used to solicit funds for Damore's lawsuit, a source
said.

Now Google is struggling with the consequences of its open
culture, which empowered Mr. Damore and the employees who spoke
out against his views.  What's okay to say to your coworkers?
What isn't? And what happens when the coworker crossing
boundaries is responsible for your performance review?

Google is considering introducing moderation to some of its
mailing lists and internal forums, but no final decision has been
made.  Conservative employees of the company have argued that
Google -- and Silicon Valley more broadly -- are engaged in
ideological censorship and have closed themselves off against
certain political viewpoints.  Moderating or shutting down
mailing lists could further enflame that argument, although it
could also appease employees who say Google isn't doing enough to
combat discrimination in the workplace.

Tim Chevalier, one of the former Google engineers currently suing
the search giant, says that the company has erred on the side of
trying to remain neutral, leaving its minority employees to push
back against discrimination without official support.  His
lawsuit states that, when Mr. Chevalier was fired, Google's human
resources team presented him with three posts he'd made on
internal platforms that they claimed constituted discrimination
against white men and cited them as the reasons for his
dismissal.

Mr. Chevalier said the posts were intended to push back against
racist and sexist comments made by colleagues.  He's one of
several Google employees who say their coworkers routinely
reported conversations promoting diversity and inclusion to HR in
an effort to stifle their advocacy.  "They push this stuff about
diversity of opinion, where it seems like they want equal time
for their views, but they kind of want special rights,"
Mr. Chevalier tells Gizmodo of Google employees who used internal
mailing lists to post racist and sexist comments.  "They want a
special right to speak without being criticized."

Despite the clashes, many Google employees still view the
company's forthright culture in a positive light. There's
something there that's worth saving--but the conversation needs
guardrails, which Google has been hesitant to implement.

"There's a lot of ways to address the diversity problem that
technology companies have.  One way might be to allow for robust
discussion around diversity issues in the workplace.  But you
can't allow people to have a freewheeling discussion about race
and gender issues while also ignoring power dynamics in the
workplace," David Lowe, a labor and employment lawyer who
represents Mr. Chevalier, explains to Gizmodo.  "If you're going
to allow those conversations to happen, employees need to be
supported in how they react."

One of Mr. Chevalier's posts that Google took issue with compared
Mr. Damore's writing to that of Eliot Rodger and Marc Lepine --
mass shooters who wrote manifestos about their decisions to
target women.  Their actions were distinct, Chevalier argued, but
their words were similar.  "The effect is the same: to intimidate
and control women, whether an individual wife or girlfriend or
all of this person's female coworkers," he wrote. The other two
posts included memes intended to point out white privilege that
Chevalier used to respond to comments made by his coworkers.

According to Messrs. Lowe and Chevalier, that's exactly the kind
of pushback that Google should foster -- to support its employees
and to build better products.

"If you're wanting to have open discussions about diversity but
people get fired for challenging the status quo, that's not a
safe discussion," Mr. Chevalier says.  "If you create an
environment where it's unsafe to talk about racism or sexism, you
don't have anyone to point out discrimination in products.  If
they don't have anyone there who feels safe speaking out when
racism is affecting a product, they are going to produce products
that perpetuate existing biases."

"We're saying you can't retaliate against somebody for pushing
back against comments that are perceived as harassing or
discriminatory," Mr. Lowe explains. "I think the thing all these
cases have in common, they reflect at heart the problems that
have been created in tech companies by allowing their workforces
to become dominated by white male employees."

Ms. Ellis sees a connection between the claims Mr. Damore
advanced in his memo and the pay gap she experienced at Google.
It's not just a difference in salary, but in job titles,
opportunities for promotion, and work assignments, she said.

Google categorizes its employees on a level system, ranking them
in seniority. In order to move up a level -- which will net an
employee a higher income -- employees go through peer reviews and
are asked to demonstrate that they've worked on projects
qualifying them for the higher level position.  Despite having
several years' experience in the industry, Ms. Ellis said she was
placed at a relatively low level when she started at Google,
prompting coworkers to ask if she'd recently graduated college.

"A lot of Googlers were vocally supportive about the contents of
that memo.  It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that women are
discriminated against," Ms. Ellis says.  "If [Google's] policy is
hands off, they are admitting, 'It's okay with us to have people
interviewing candidates or reviewing peers for promotion who
believe women just aren't good at writing software.'" [GN]


HARRY CANTRELL: Louisiana Certifies Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Robert Davis, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana has
certified a class-action motion filed March 16 against an Orleans
Parish Criminal District Court judge over the amount of money set
for bail.

The plaintiffs argued that Magistrate Judge Harry Cantrell
routinely violated the due process and equal protection clauses
under the 14th Amendment. They also contended that he has a
considerable conflict of interest given his requirement to use
for-profit bail bonds.

Under Louisiana law, 1.8 percent of each bond collected from a
commercial security is allocated to the court for its
discretionary use, according to background information in the
opinion

Cantrell argued the plaintiffs' claims are moot because he
followed the bail setting-protocols, and the conflict-of-interest
claim is already before Judge Sarah S. Vance, also in the Eastern
District Court, according to information in the opinion.

The plaintiffs claimed Cantrell's actions created a modern-day
"debtor's prison" because of his unwillingness to consider the
plaintiffs' ability to pay their bonds and whether a lower bond
amount or an alternative condition of release might be more
appropriate.

For a court to certify a class action motion, the plaintiffs must
meet four key requirements: numerosity, commonality, typicality
and adequacy of representation, the court said. The court found
that the plaintiffs meet all of the aforementioned requirements.

Cantrell's argument that the plaintiffs' claims are moot fell on
deaf ears in the court. He cited the case of United States v.
Concentrated Phosphate Export Association, which states "a case
might become moot if subsequent events made it absolutely clear
that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be
expected to recur."

The court argued that they have seen no formal recorded statement
citing evidence that Cantrell's actions will change. The court
encouraged him to continue pursuing settlements for the issues
and to conform his bail bonds requirements in accordance with
constitutional law. [GN]


HIGHER ONE: July 10 Securities Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
All Persons Or Entities Who Purchased The Securities Of Higher
One Holdings, Inc. ("Higher One") Between August 7, 2012 Through
August 6, 2014, Both Dates Inclusive, This Is A Notice Of
Penedency And Proposed Settlement Of A Class Action.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

BRIAN PEREZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated,

Plaintiff

HIGHER ONE HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:14-cv-755-AWT
Class Action


TO:    ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED THE SECURITIES OF
HIGHER ONE HOLDINGS, INC. ("HIGHER ONE") BETWEEN AUGUST 7, 2012
THROUGH AUGUST 6, 2014, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut, that a hearing will be
held on July 10, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Alvin
W. Thompson, United States District Judge of District of
Connecticut at the Abraham Ribicoff Federal Building, 450 Main
Street, South Courtroom, Hartford, Connecticut 06103 for the
purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement  of
the claims in the above-captioned Action for consideration
including the sum of seven million five hundred thousand dollars
($7,500,000.00) should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the Plan of Allocation is
fair and reasonable, and should be approved; (3) whether Lead
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees of up to
30% plus interest of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of out-
of-pocket expenses of not more than seventy-five thousand dollars
($75,000.00), and a compensatory award for Plaintiffs of not more
than three thousand dollars ($3,000.00), in aggregate, or one
thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500.00) each to Plaintiffs, all
to be paid from the Settlement Fund, should be approved; and (4)
whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice against
the Settling Defendants, Defendant Christopher Wolf ("Wolf"), and
former Defendant Patrick McFadden ("McFadden") as set forth in
the Stipulation of Settlement dated February 6, 2018 (the
"Stipulation") filed with the Court.

You are receiving this Notice because the Court has certified a
class of investors for settlement purposes only ("Settlement
Class") and you may be a member of the certified class
("Settlement Class Member").  The proposed Settlement Class will
consist of all persons or entities who purchased Higher One
Holdings, Inc. ("Higher One") securities between August 7, 2012
through August 6, 2014, both dates inclusive (the "Settlement
Class Period").  Excluded from the Settlement Class are the
Settling Defendants, Defendant Wolf, and former Defendant
McFadden, members of their immediate families, any officer or
director of Higher One during the Settlement Class Period, and
any entity in which any Settling Defendant, Defendant Wolf, or
Defendant McFadden have a controlling interest, and the
successors, heirs, and assigns of any excluded persons and
entities referenced above.

If you purchased Higher One stock during the Settlement Class
Period, your rights may be affected by this Action and the
Settlement thereof, including the release and extinguishment of
claims you may possess relating to your ownership interest in
Higher One securities.  If you have not received a detailed
Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and Settlement Fairness Hearing
("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form, you
may obtain copies by contacting the Claims Administrator at:

          Perez v. Higher One Holdings, Inc.
          c/o JND Legal Administration
          P.O. Box 91346
          Seattle, WA  98111

This case has been litigated since May 27, 2014. Plaintiffs
allege, that in violation of the U.S. federal securities laws,
Higher One's stock price was inflated during the Settlement Class
Period.  Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
omissions during the Settlement Class Period regarding Higher
One's marketing and disclosure practices, compliance with the
Federal Trade Commission Act, and compliance with a previously-
issued consent order and settlement obligations.  Plaintiffs
further allege that partial disclosures and events revealed
Defendants' fraud, thereby injuring Plaintiffs and the Settlement
Class of investors. Defendants deny these allegations. The
Settlement will resolve the lawsuit and claims as to the Settling
Defendants and the Released Parties.  Plaintiffs and the
Settlement Class are represented by Lead Counsel who may be
reached by contacting: Matthew L. Tuccillo, Pomerantz LLP, 600
Third Avenue, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10016 (212) 661-1100.

If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim and Release Form postmarked no later than May 26, 2018,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.  Unless you
submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any
Judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim.

If you want to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion, in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, so that
it is postmarked no later than June 19, 2018.  If you decide to
exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, and wish to file your
own individual lawsuit, Defendants may argue that you face a time
bar under applicable statutes of limitation or repose, risks that
you should discuss with an appropriate legal advisor.  All
members of the Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion
from the Settlement Class will be bound by any Judgment entered
in the Action pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation.

If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not exclude yourself,
you can object to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses and compensatory award to Plaintiffs in
the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received
no later than June 19, 2018.

Any questions regarding the Settlement should be directed to Lead
Counsel for the Settlement Class.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, THE
DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

Dated: March 27, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT [GN]


HOMES OF OPPORTUNITY: Belmont Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Susan Belmont, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Homes of Opportunity, Inc. and Lawrence A. Maniaci, Case No.
4:18-cv-10854 (E.D. Mich., March 14, 2018), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act for Defendants' failure to pay overtime.

Plaintiff Susan Belmont worked for Defendant Home of Opportunity,
Inc. during the relevant time as a Residential Service Manager at
the Maxlow home, which is one of Defendants' nearly thirty
residential homes in Oakland, Macomb, Wayne County, Michigan.
Belmont has been in the Defendants' continuous employ since
January 4, 2007.

Defendant Homes of Opportunity, Inc. is incorporated in the State
of Michigan, with its principal place of business in the City of
St. Clair Shores, County of Macomb, Michigan. HOOINC at all
relevant times is an enterprise primarily engaged in the care of
the sick, the aged, or the mentally ill or defective who reside
on its premises. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Megan A. Bonanni, Esq.
      Robin B. Wagner, Esq.
      PITT, McGEHEE, PALMER, & RIVERS, PC
      117 West Fourth Street, Suite 200
      Royal Oak, MI 48067
      Tel: (248) 398-9800
      E-mail: mbonanni@pittlawpc.com
              rwagner@pittlawpc.com


INDIANA: Property Owners File Class Action Over Condemnation
------------------------------------------------------------
Aprile Rickert, writing for News and Tribune, reports that a
federal class action lawsuit seeks monetary compensation for 34
groups of people owning property in five Southern Indiana
counties, formerly used by CSX Railroad.

The complaint, filed on March 23 in the U.S. Court of Federal
Claims on behalf of the plaintiffs, charges the federal
government violated plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment rights.  It
states that landowners along roughly 62 miles of former railway
whose properties were taken through condemnation by the
government for rail-trails conversion in Clark, Floyd, Lawrence,
Orange and Washington counties be compensated for the seizure.

The rail line was originally built by the New Albany and
Salem Railroad around 1954, according to the complaint.  It was
later merged into CSX Transportation (CSXT) in the late 1980s.
By 2010, the railway was no longer in use and, in 2017, the
railway petitioned the federal Surface Transportation Board to
abandon the railroad right-of-way.

This petition was granted, and a conversion from the former
railway into public use paths was authorized under the National
Trails System Act.  On Feb. 28, an order was issued by the
Surface Transportation Board to take the land, and that CSX, the
Indiana Trails Fund and involved municipalities, including the
City of New Albany, could begin negotiations for use of the
trail, according to a news release.

Under Indiana law, the railway's use of the easements was
terminated after the line shut down, with the land reverting to
the original landowners.

"The New Albany and Salem Railroad's successor, CSXT, had no
right to sell or transfer an easement across these owners' land
to anyone," the federal complaint states.

But the conversion was granted under an amendment by Congress to
the National Trails System Act, a provision that the Surface
Transportation Board could "take owners' 'reversionary' interest
in the land [and] allow the railroad to sell the owner's land to
a non-railroad for public recreation . . .," according to the
complaint.

However, when the government takes private property for public
use, landowners must be paid, the complaint states.  This
includes compensation for the land itself, any legal fees
incurred in getting the money and interest for any delay in
compensation.

Lindsay Brinton, attorney for the plaintiffs, said she expects
more plaintiffs to be added. Brinton's law firm, Arent Fox LLP,
will conduct a meeting in New Albany for landowners to learn of
their rights at April 11, at the Best Western Plus, 411 W. Spring
Street.

Meetings also are scheduled for noon April 12 at the Orleans
Public Library, 174 N. Maple Street, Orleans, and at 6 p.m. at
the Cobblestone Hotel, 1015 E. Hackleberry Street, Salem. [GN]


ISLAND HOSPITALITY: Perez Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE MAURICIO PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT III, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; ISLAND HOSPITALITY
MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC698079 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., March 15, 2018), seeks to recover, among other
things, alleged unpaid compensation arising from the Defendants'
failure to provide employees meal and rest periods, unpaid
minimum and overtime wages, and unreimbursed business expenses.

Island Hospitality Management III, LLC, and Island Hospitality
Management, LLC are corporations organized and existing under the
laws of the state of Delaware, and conduct business in the state
of California.  The Companies maintain offices and facilities,
conduct business, and engage in alleged illegal practices in the
County of Los Angeles.  The true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff.

Island Hospitality provides hotel management solutions.  The
Company's services include sales and marketing support, revenue
management, human resources, operational systems, preventative
maintenance, purchasing, and accounting and financial reporting
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Launa Adolph, Esq.
          Deanna S. Leifer, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  ladolph@maternlawgroup.com
                  dleifer@maternlawgroup.com


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS: Sex Abuse Survivors File Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avery Haines, writing for CTV W5 News, reports that Christian and
Katja Gutierrez's apartment is decked out for Christmas: the
tree, the lights, the figurines on the mantle, all set up in
full-blown holiday mode.

Christmas ended months ago, but the young Calgary couple can't
bring themselves to take the decorations down just yet. And it's
because they've only celebrated four Christmases in their entire
lives.

The same goes for birthdays, Valentine's Day and Thanksgiving. In
fact, pretty much every holiday is a new experience.

Until four years ago, Christian and Katja were Jehovah's
Witnesses -- a Christian sect with a very strict set of rules to
live by -- including not celebrating holidays.

Leaving the religious organization has had devastating
consequences on Christian and Katja. They are being shunned by
almost every family member and friend they ever had.

The Christmas tree is an act of defiance against an organization
that they say stole so much of their lives. So, too, is the fact
that they have invited a W5 team into their home to share
publicly what happened to them in their childhood.

One of the biggest sins in the eyes of the Jehovah's Witness
organization is to speak out against the religion. And yet Katja
and Christian are doing that and more.

Both sat in front of our cameras and shared haunting details of
their sexual abuse, including allegations that the elders in
their religion protected the men who harmed them.

Christian is the representative plaintiff in a $66-million class
action lawsuit that has been filed against the Jehovah's
Witnesses in Canada. It's on behalf of him and other child sex
abuse survivors, who accuse the sect of shielding sexual
predators from justice.

The lawsuit, which has yet to be certified by the court, is just
the latest in what has become increasing international pressure
on the religious sect to change doctrine that critics say
protects pedophiles.

It's called the Two Witness Rule. Citing scripture, the Jehovah's
Witnesses require that there be at least two witnesses to acts of
child sex abuse before any discipline can be taken against
alleged molesters, unless there is a confession.

Through an investigation that spans from Canada, the U.S.,
England and Australia, W5 exposes how the organization
discouraged sexual assault allegations from being reported to
police.

We also reveal that the Jehovah's Witnesses keep a secret
database, documenting every single allegation of sexual abuse
against members that has ever been made.

The $66-million class action lawsuit filed in Canada will seek to
make that database public, setting the stage for what could be
the first detailed look at just how the organization deals with
accused predators in Canada.

Kathleen Hallisey, Esq. -- kathleenhallisey@boltburdonkemp.co.uk
-- a London based lawyer, who was the first in the UK to take on
the Jehovah's Witnesses and win an historic sexual abuse case
told W5, "If you have a policy that requires a second witness to
child abuse, it means that virtually every allegation is going to
go no further. And that puts the child at risk. And it protects
the abuser."

Hallisey goes on to say, "I would describe it as a scandal. And a
global cover-up. And a protection of abusers."

With his wife by his side, Christian Gutierrez speaks in a soft
voice. "I want justice. I want this to stop. I want this to end
now. I would like the [Jehovah's Witnesses] to change their
policy. It's just a simple policy." [GN]


KUM GANG: "Palax" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
MELVIN PEREZ, LEONARDO PALAX, and PASCUAL GARCIA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
KUM GANG INC. D/B/A KUM GANG SAN and JI SUNG YOO, as an
individual, the Defendants, Case No. CV-18-2095 (E.D.N.Y., April
9, 2018), seeks to recover damages for egregious violations of
state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiffs'
employment at Kum Gang Inc. located at 138-28 Northern Boulevard,
Flushing, New York 11354.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked 48 hours per
week from November 2013 to the present, but Defendants did not
pay Plaintiff time and a half for all hours worked over 40, a
blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the
Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          69-12 Austin Street
          Forest Hills, NY 113 7 5
          Telephone: (718) 263 9591


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Judge Approves $125MM Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Thomas, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that a federal judge has approved a $125 million settlement of
multiple class-action suits brought by the shareholders of
LendingClub.

On March 16, U.S. District Judge William Alsup of the Northern
District of California approved the settlement, which resulted
from the San Francisco-based digital lender's mediation efforts
that began in November 2017.  The lawsuits were filed after
"numerous discrepancies, weaknesses, and improprieties" in the
company's business operations came to light.

Under the agreement, the company will pay $77.25 million while
its insurance will cover the additional $47.75 million.  The
company's portion will be paid from liquid assets of $650
million.

The settlement agreement establishes a gross settlement fund, the
order said.  Attorneys representing shareholders in the federal
and state action plan to seek $16 million in attorney's fees and
$650,000 in litigation expenses. It is estimated that
administration expenses may cost up to $1.25 million.

"The net settlement fund that remains after these deductions will
then be distributed on a pro rata basis to class members who
compete and timely submit a valid proof-of-claim and release
form," the court said.

Any remaining balance will be dividing among unauthorized
claimants until the settlement funds drop below $5,000 at which
point, the remainder will be donated to "Second Harvest Food
Bank" or another nonprofit organization approved by the court.

LendingClub said in February that the settlement will have no
"material impact" on the company's 2018 business operations.  The
company runs an online peer-to-peer marketplace linking borrowers
with lenders who fund the loans.

The customers are often looking to consolidate credit-card debt
at a lower interest rate.

According to a report on its fourth-quarter numbers, the
company's revenues were up by 20 percent from last year to $156.5
million. The company also achieved 23 percent annual growth in
originations to over $2.4 billion.

"We're encouraged to have reached an agreement that will put this
matter behind us and substantially reduces our financial risk
going forward," LendingClub CEO Scott Sanborn said in a statement
in February. [GN]


LIQUOR CONTROL: Court Dismisses Competition Act Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Szentesi, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that the
Ontario Superior Court recently dismissed a Competition Act class
action against the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, The Beer
Store and three of its shareholders Labatt, Molson Coors and
Sleeman.

In Hughes v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario, the plaintiffs, a
restaurant called The Poacher and its owner, had commenced a $1.4
billion damages action alleging, among other things, that the
defendants divided the market for beer contrary to s. 45(1)(b) of
the Competition Act. Section 45(1)(b) makes it a criminal offence
for two or more competitors to allocate sales, territories,
customers or markets for the production or supply of a product.

More specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that a 2000 Beer
Framework Agreement between the LCBO and The Beer Store, which
provided that the LCBO would not sell beer in packages greater
than six containers in some of its stores or beer exclusively
sold by The Beer Store, constituted an illegal market allocation
agreement on which they could sue and recover damages under s. 36
of the Competition Act.  Under s. 36, civil plaintiffs may
commence damages actions or class actions for the violation of
any of the criminal offences of the act or the failure to comply
with a competition tribunal or court order under the act.

In reply, the defendants argued that the Beer Framework Agreement
was insulated by the regulated conduct defence based, among other
things, on 2015 amendments to the Liquor Control Act that
declared that the LCBO is deemed to have been directed and The
Beer Store is deemed to have been authorized to enter into the
agreement.

The RCD, which is former common law doctrine now partially
codified under s. 45(7) of the Competition Act, is routinely
invoked in competition law cases where there is a question as to
whether conduct that would otherwise violate the Competition Act
is shielded by federal or provincial legislation.

The case law to date has held that in order for the RCD to apply,
all of the following requirements must be met: (i) there is valid
provincial or federal legislation; (ii) conduct is legislatively
mandated or authorized; (iii) the authority to regulate has in
fact been exercised; and (iv) the regulated scheme has not been
hindered or frustrated by the conduct (or used as a shield to
engage in anti-competitive conduct).

There remain, however, a number of uncertainties about the scope
and application of the RCD.  These include whether the RCD is a
defence or exception, the level of legislative authorization
needed to invoke the RCD (i.e., whether conduct must be mandated
or may be merely authorized) and whether the doctrine applies
equally to the civil reviewable matters sections of the
Competition Act as it does to criminal offences.

In this case, the court held that the RCD did indeed apply to
insulate the marketing agreement between the LCBO and The Beer
Store based on the LCBO's legislative powers under the Liquor
Control Act to authorize The Beer Store to operate its stores,
control the sale and delivery of beer and establish specific
terms and conditions relating to the sale of beer.  The court
also found that the 2015 amendments to the Liquor Control Act
made it expressly clear that the defendants could agree to
allocate sales of six-packs, 12-packs and 24-packs of beer.

In coming to its decision, the court made a number of interesting
points.

First, the court held that in order for the RCD to apply, conduct
that may otherwise violate the Competition Act may be
legislatively mandated, directed or authorized.  This is not new
law.  However, it is noteworthy in that it reaffirms one of the
key uncertainties relating to the RCD -- namely, whether conduct
must be expressly mandated or merely authorized in order to
apply. In this regard, this case follows some earlier ones, which
are sometimes referred to as the "high water mark" of RCD
jurisprudence, in which conduct was not required to be expressly
mandated in order for the doctrine to apply (particularly, the
Jabour case: Canada (Attorney General) v. Law Society (British
Columbia), 1982 CarswellBC 133 (S.C.C.)). In Jabour, benchers of
the Law Society of British Columbia were merely broadly
authorized to determine conduct unbecoming lawyers (in this case
certain types of advertising, which was enforced through
discipline and not any specific rule).

Second, the court held that in order for the RCD to apply,
separate and formal legislative action is not required if a
regulator already has the regulatory authority to take actions
that might otherwise violate the Competition Act (in this case,
the LCBO's authority to enter into contracts such as the Beer
Framework Agreement).

Third, the court held that conduct that might otherwise be
criminal can be validly authorized by retroactive legislation.
This is quite interesting and on my recollection of RCD case law,
this is new law.  Given, however, that the RCD is largely a
doctrine of statutory interpretation, this holding is arguably
consistent with the requirement that in order for the RCD to
apply conduct must be either mandated or authorized by valid
legislation.

Finally, and perhaps most interesting, is that the court held
that the RCD applied equally to civil actions commenced under s.
36 of the Competition Act as to criminal prosecutions under s. 45
(the conspiracy section of the Act).  The court came to this
conclusion by analyzing the French version of s. 45(7) (which
codifies the RCD for s. 45), which refers to both criminal and
civil proceedings.

Overall, the Hughes case is interesting both as an example of the
types of regulated activities that may be immune from Competition
Act challenge and as well as a reminder for counsel that the
potential application of the RCD must be carefully reviewed in
cases that involve regulated entities.  This case is, as well, a
useful precedent for defendants to argue that activities that may
otherwise be illegal under the Competition Act (or subject to
civil liability) should be shielded based merely on legislative
authority, where no specific rule exists mandating activities.
[GN]


LOS ANGELES, CA: Approval of "Garcia" Class Wide Accord Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled EDGAR GARCIA, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-03549-FMO-VBK (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff will move on May 10, 2018 for final approval of a class
wide settlement on behalf of settlement class:

   "all former or current non-exempt employees of the County of
   Los Angeles employed in a Detention Services Officer, Senior
   Detention Services Officer, or Group Supervisor Nights
   position in the County's Probation Department from March 30,
   2013 to the Date of Preliminary Approval who have timely
   submitted a completed Claim and Release Form."

Settlement Amount:

   The Defendant will pay a Maximum Settlement Amount of
   $1,275,000 in full satisfaction of the claims arising from
   this Action. The Maximum Settlement Amount will be distributed
   as follows:

   The Plaintiff will receive an incentive award in an amount not
   to exceed $5,000.

   The Parties have allocated $425,000 for Plaintiff's attorney's
   fees and costs in litigating this action, subject to Court
   approval, and without objection from Defendant.

   The Parties have allocated an amount not to exceed $16,500 to
   be paid to the mutually agreed upon class action claims
   administrator, ILYM Group, Inc.

   The remaining funds, referred to as the "Payout Fund," will be
   distributed to the Settlement Class Members subject to
   applicable withholdings.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oO7QuCxW

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Solomon E. Gresen, Esq.
          Jack Risemberg, Esq.
          RGLAWYERS, LLP
          15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1610
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 815 2727
          Facsimile: (818) 815 2737


LYFT INC: Accused by "Spreter" Class Suit of Violating TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Spreter, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-00540-BEN-JMA
(S.D. Cal., March 15, 2018), arises from the alleged illegal
actions of Lyft in negligently and intentionally contacting the
Plaintiff on his cellular telephone, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading his privacy.

Lyft, Inc., is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in San Francisco, California.  Lyft operates an on-
demand transportation service and mobile application called
"Lyft."  The Company connects available drivers with passengers
seeking transportation through the mobile application
platform.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


MALAYSIA: Appeals Court Tosses Class Action Over IPIC Payment
-------------------------------------------------------------
V Anbalagan, writing for Free Malaysia Today, reports that the
Court of Appeal has thrown out a class action by 10 opposition
youth leaders who sued Prime Minister Najib Razak, the Malaysian
government and 1MDB for paying US$1.2 billion (RM4.75 billion) to
Abu Dhabi-based International Petroleum Investment Company
(IPIC).

A three-man bench chaired by Ahmadi Asnawi said the respondents
did not have legal standing to file the suit against the three
appellants.

"There is also no contract between the parties (youth leaders)
and the appellant (Najib, government and 1MDB)," he said in
allowing the appeal to strike out the suit filed in July.

Ahmadi added that the youth leaders could not include the
government as party to the suit as the state did not come within
the ambit of the Government Proceedings Act.

Others on the bench were Idrus Harun and Kamardin Hashim.

Ahmadi also ordered the youth leaders to pay RM10,000 each to the
three appellants although their lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri
Abdulla only offered RM2,600 to each of them.

On Jan 9, High Court judge Hue Siew Kheng dismissed Najib, the
government and 1MDB's applications to annul the suit on grounds
the youth leaders had the legal standing to bring the suit as the
payment involved public funds.

The judge also held that the litigants had an arguable case and
the matter must go for trial.

Hue said Najib, the government and 1MDB also failed to provide
sufficient materials for the court's consideration to annul the
suit since Second Finance Minister Johari Abdul Ghani had said he
was very confident state investor 1MDB would win the arbitration
case with IPIC.

On March 26, lawyer Mohamed Hafarizam Harun appeared for Najib,
counsel Tan Hock Chuan for 1MDB while Senior Federal Counsel
Alice Loke Ying Ching represented the government.

Last year, the High Court struck out three 1MDB related suits
brought by former minister Zaid Ibrahim, Petaling Jaya Utara MP
Tony Pua, and former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad together
with ex-Umno members Khairuddin Abu Hassan and Anina Saadudin.

The youth leaders, who identified themselves as Gerakan Anakmuda
Tolak Najib (Ganti), sought a court order that the settlement
agreement on May 11, 2016 between IPIC and 1MDB at the London
International Court of Arbitration be declared invalid.

They also sought to compel Najib, the government and 1MDB to
provide detailed accounts of all money paid to IPIC and its
subsidiary, Aabar Investment PJS.

It claimed the consent award agreed on between IPIC and Aabar
Investment PJS in London was wrong and fraudulent.

The group said it was forced to sue Najib and two others as no
action had been taken on those who made the "fraud payments" to
the British Virgin Island-registered Aabar Investment PJS Limited
or Aabar BVI, which IPIC claimed was not its subsidiary.

IPIC's subsidiary is Aabar Investment PJS, without the Ltd.

On April 24, 2016, 1MDB said in a statement that IPIC had agreed
on a settlement following arbitration at the London Court of
International Arbitration.

"As per the settlement, 1MDB will, among others, make certain
payments to IPIC and will assume responsibility for all future
interest and principal payments for two bonds issued by the 1MDB
group of companies due in 2022," the company said.

1MDB previously claimed it had paid IPIC's subsidiary, Aabar BVI,
a total of RM3.51 billion between 2012 and 2014.

However, IPIC disputed this in 2016, claiming it never received
the money.

According to filings with the London Stock Exchange, IPIC said it
would receive US$1.2 billion in two equal payments on July 31 and
Dec 31.

The state investor had settled the amount.

Pasir Pinji assemblyman Howard Lee and PPBM youth executive
council member Mahathir Mohd Rais, two of the youth leaders who
filed the suit, were present to follow the proceedings.

Lee said they had given instruction to Haniff to file an appeal
in the Federal Court.

"We started the legal battle in the High Court and will go up to
the Federal Court now to determine whether taxpayers could sue a
company sustained by public funds," he told reporters. [GN]


MARTEN TRANSPORT: Certification of Classes & Subclasses Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled THE ESTATE OF DONALD HARRINGTON, EDWIN
AYALA, ERIC SCOTT POWELL, EMILIO VAZQUEZ, PATRICK GATSON, ANTHONY
BRYANT, JAMAR EVANS, and JAMES WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves,
all others similarly situated, and the general public, and as an
"aggrieved employee" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees"
under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, the
Plaintiffs, v. MARTEN TRANSPORT, LTD., a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-01419-
MWF-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on August
27, 2018, for an order certifying these classes and subclass:

Driver Class:

   "all of Defendant's current and former California-based driver
   employees at any time during the period beginning December 1,
   2010 to the present. "California-based" refers to employees:
   (i) who had a residential address in California, and/or (ii)
   who were associated with a terminal located in California at
   any time during the period beginning December 1, 2010 to the
   present";

Driver Meal Break Subclass:

   "all members of the Driver Class who spent more than five
   continuous hours driving and/or on duty in California in a
   given workday";

FCRA Class:

   "all of Defendant's driver employees in the United States who
   received an offer letter from Defendant for employment and
   were subjected to a background check at any time during the
   period beginning December 1, 2009 to the present. "Background
   check" refers to any reports prepared by a "Consumer Reporting
   Agency" per Defendant's request; and

2-Year FCRA Subclass:

   "all members of the FCRA Class who were subjected to a
   background check after December 1, 2012."

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BpZq04so

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Spivak, Esq.
          Caroline Tahmassian, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Ventura Blvd, Suite 312
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 582 3086
          Facsimile: (818) 582 2561
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
                  caroline@spivaklaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Louis Benowitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LOUIS BENOWITZ
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Penthouse Floor
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 844-5141
          Facsimile: (310) 492-4056
          E-mail: Louis@benowitzlaw.com


MARTIN, FL: Randolph et al. Sue Sheriff for Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
DIANA RANDOLPH, DANA LIBERANTE and LISA EWELL, and all other
similarly-situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. WILLIAM D.
SNYDER, in his official capacity as SHERIFF OF MARTIN COUNTY, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-14120-RLR (S.D. Fla., April 6, 2018),
seeks to recover overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has been employed since February 15, 2007. Ewell's
position is that of Corrections Deputy with duties that included
the care, custody, and control of inmates. The Defendant failed
to pay Plaintiffs the mandatory wages as required under federal
law. The Plaintiffs regularly worked over 40 hours in a given
work week. The Plaintiffs are non-exempt employees under the
FLSA. The Plaintiffs were not paid time and one half their hourly
rate for all hours worked over 40 in a work week. The Plaintiffs
and those similarly situated were not permitted to clock in and
were not paid for the mandatory pre-shift briefing and the
mandatory post shift briefing each shift worked. As a result
Plaintiffs and those similarly situated incurred overtime which
was also not paid. They estimate the weekly overtime is two and
one half hours. The Plaintiffs' job duties were such that they
themselves were individually engaged in commerce.

Martin County is a county located in the Treasure Coast region in
the state of Florida, in the United States. As of the 2010
census, the population was 146,318. Its county seat is
Stuart.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cathleen Scott, Esq.
          SCOTT WAGNER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          Jupiter Gardens
          250 South Central Boulevard, Suite 104-A
          Jupiter, FL 33458
          Telephone: (561) 653 0008
          Facsimile: (561) 653 0020
          E-mail: CScott@scottwagnerlaw.com
                  mail@scottwagnerlaw.com
                  www.ScottWagnerLaw.com


MAYNE PHARMA: Briefing for Class Certification Bid Continued
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Glen Ellyn Pharmacy, Inc., the Plaintiff,
v. Mayne Pharma, Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
06654 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer entered an
order continuing Plaintiff's amended motion for class
certification for briefing.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on April 11,
2018, Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal is granted;
but within seven days the party that wants that under seal filing
should explain their reasons in writing. The Plaintiff's amended
motion for class certification is entered and continued for
briefing. Response is to be filed by or on May 18, 2018. Reply to
be filed by or on June 15, 2018. Status and ruling is set for
July 6, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.  Status hearing is set for June 13,
2018 is stricken.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AfJ6geF7


MDL 2804: Canyon County Invited to Join Opioid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Foy, writing for Idaho Press-Tribune, reports that two
separate groups have invited Canyon County to join class action
lawsuits against opioid distributors and manufacturers and large
pharmaceutical companies.

Canyon County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Sam Laugheed explained
the two proposals at the monthly Canyon County elected officials
meeting on March 26.  One lawsuit is led by Dan Chadwick, former
director of the Idaho Association of Counties, and the other by
former Chief Justice of the Idaho Supreme Court
Jim Jones in conjunction with the law firm Parsons, Behle and
Latimer.

They plan to file tort claims for public nuisance and negligence
on behalf of several groups and local governments across the
country, according to Mr. Laugheed.

City and county officials across the country have begun to sue
pharmaceutical companies for damages caused by opioid abuse in
their areas.  In March, the Associated Press reported that
officials of Summit County in Northern Utah filed a lawsuit in
Utah district court against 25 companies and individuals.

Purdue Pharma, a private pharmaceutical company based in
Stamford, Connecticut, is currently one of the planned
defendants, according to Laugheed.

Canyon County Sheriff Kieran Donahue said joining the lawsuit
could possibly serve as a deterrent to opioid sale and abuse in
the county, if it succeeded.

"Anything you do that could slow down that onslaught would be
helpful," Mr. Donahue said.

Mr. Laugheed and Bryan Taylor, prosecuting attorney for Canyon
County, said joining the lawsuit would draw on significant time
and personnel resources from the staff in the county clerk and
sheriff's office. Canyon County would need to provide data that
quantified the damages caused by opioid abuse in Canyon County.

County Clerk Chris Yamamoto expressed concern regarding the
effectiveness of a successful lawsuit.

"I think we need to stay out of this," Mr. Yamamoto said.

Officials present at the meeting on March 26 unanimously voted to
invite both groups to present more information in public hearings
before the board of commissioners.  Both hearings have yet to be
scheduled. [GN]


MDL 2804: Bay City Opioid Case Tied in to National Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
John Henderson, writing for News Herald, reports that Bay
County's and Panama City's opioid lawsuit against pharmaceutical
companies is now part of a massive national legal case before a
judge in Ohio.

Judge Dan Aaron Polster of the Northern District of Ohio has been
assigned the task of resolving more than 400 federal lawsuits
brought by cities, counties and Native American tribes against
central figures in the national opioid tragedy, including makers
of the prescription painkillers, companies that distribute them
and pharmacy chains that sell them. According to a March 6 story
in the New York Times, Polster is urging of lawyers to
efficiently settle the case in a way that will provide meaningful
solutions to the crisis rather than focusing on a trial and
"finger-pointing."

"It is not class-action; it's multi-district litigation," said
attorney Cliff Higby, Esq. who is one of the lawyers representing
the county and city in the case. "Everybody has claims that are
standing on their own."

With 121.2 prescriptions issues per 100 people in 2016, Bay
County has the second highest per capita rate of opioid
prescriptions in the state, led only by neighboring Washington
County. County leaders said the high number of prescriptions has
resulted in the county shelling out funds for incarcerating
people, medical treatment, law enforcement and other associated
costs.

"All the other cities and counties are going to have similar
claims to Bay County, including excess burden on the financial
resources of the county due to the nuisance and the epidemic of
opiote drugs," Higby said.

Higby said the main argument is that opioid distribution
companies have been negligent in the distribution of opioids.

"They are regulated by the federal controlled substance act and
they have a duty to monitor the flow of opiate drugs into
communities and to regions, and they have been failing in that
regard," he said. [GN]


MDL 2804: "Ambrosio" Suit vs Purdue Pharma Consolidated in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Melissa Ambrosio, individually
and as next friend of Baby G.A., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff. v. Purdue Pharma L.P.;
Purdue Pharma Inc.; The Purdue Frederick Company Inc.; McKesson
Corporation; Cardinal Health Inc.; AmerisourceBergen Corporation;
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.; TEVA Pharmaceuticals USA
Inc.; Cephalon Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Janssen Pharmaceuticals
Inc.; Ortho McNeil Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Janssen
Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutical Inc.; Endo Health
Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Allergan PLC, formerly
known as: Actavis plc.; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Actavis
Inc.; Watson Laboratories Inc.; Actavis LLC; Actavis Pharma,
Inc., formerly known as: Watson Pharma, Inc., the Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-02201, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on
April 9, 2018. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:18-op-45375-DAP to the proceeding.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
          COOPER LAW FIRM
          1525 Religious Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 309 0009
          Facsimile: (504) 309 6989
          E-mail: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com


MDL 2804: New Castle Suit vs Purdue Pharma Consolidated in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled THE CITY OF NEW CASTLE, CITY OF
ALIQUIPPA, and UNION TOWNSHIP, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. PURDUE PHARMA, L.P.
PURDUE PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; TEVA
PHARMACEUTCIALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICA, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH
SOLUTIONS INC.; and ALLERGAN PLC, the Defendants, Case No.
180301961, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) on April 9, 2018. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-01472-RK to the
proceeding.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com


MDL 2804: San Antonio Considers Whether to Join Opioid Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Roseanna Garza, writing for Rivard Report, reports that as the
City of San Antonio considers whether to join a class action
lawsuit against opioid manufacturers and distributors for their
alleged role in a crisis that has been devastating locally, City
officials must weigh the benefits and the costs of what can
become lengthy, and costly, legal action.

Pharmaceutical company representatives say placing the blame on
any single entity misses the complexity of such cases.  But a
lawyer who has represented individuals and localities in similar
lawsuits says the City itself may even underestimate current (and
future) costs associated with opioid addiction and abuse.

Bob Hilliard, a double-board-certified, personal injury trial
lawyer in Texas who was lead counsel and signed settlements with
Toyota, General Motors, Coca Cola, and other large corporations,
said that while the City, which does not operate jails or
hospitals, may appear to have less of a stake in the lawsuit
compared to the County, "there are still costs associated with
addiction, abuse, and overdose" that the City incurs, including a
"significant burden on the budgets of local governments.

"It is necessary to consider the number of individuals in [San
Antonio] that are victim to opioid abuse and the marketing
mechanisms of the manufacturers within your city," Mr. Hilliard
said.

Last October, Bexar County commissioners voted to sue opioid
manufacturers and distributors, aiming to recoup the enormous
costs the County incurred.  That expense includes caring for,
treating, and sometimes burying the addicted; supporting their
children, who may become involved with Child Protective Services
and welfare systems; and paying first responders and city
officials who deal with overdoses and more.

District Attorney Nico LaHood chose two San Antonio firms to
represent Bexar County in the county's lawsuit: Phipps Anderson
Deacon and Watts Guerra.

The City is considering whether to join the County in suing
opioid drug manufacturers and distributors.  The city attorney's
office is currently reviewing proposals from area law firms to
determine whether it would be financially and legally sound to
file a suit.

City Council has had several discussions regarding the opioid
crisis and options to sue.  San Antonio's Opioid Task Force,
which met for the first time Aug. 8, 2017, is a City/County
collaboration to reduce the number of drug overdose deaths in
Bexar County.  The bimonthly meetings have provided a platform
for relevant organizations and officials in the City and County
to discuss the lawsuits, best practices, and create a
collaborative plan to combat the issue locally.

Councilman Manny Pelaez (D8) said in a conversation with the
Rivard Report on March 24 that council members are "curious"
about the lawsuits coming out of other cities and counties
against opioid manufacturers and distributors, and that "the
general consensus is that [City Council] would rather get it
right," even if it means taking more time.

"I am not adverse to joining this litigation," Mr. Pelaez said.
"What I have been cautioning is that we need to have [our] eyes
wide open walking into it."

Across the U.S., states, counties, and municipalities are filing
suits over the opioid epidemic, aiming to hold makers,
wholesalers, distributors, and marketers accountable for their
alleged role in the crisis that the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention reports took more than 42,000 American
lives in 2016 alone.

The lawsuits have taken different approaches: Some accuse
manufacturing companies of misleading healthcare professionals
and the public via deceptive marketing tactics in an attempt to
increase sales of opioids while failing to properly warn about
the risks for addiction; some blame the wholesaler or
distributor; and some suits even name the clinics that provided
the pills.

While some suits have been settled, pharmaceutical companies and
healthcare organizations continue to deny any claims of
wrongdoing and say they are committed to helping solve the opioid
epidemic.

In an email to the Rivard Report, John Parker, senior vice
president of the Healthcare Distribution Alliance, a national
organization representing primary pharmaceutical distributors
involved in current lawsuits, said that pinpointing blame does
not take into consideration how complex these cases are.

"Given our role, the idea that distributors are responsible for
the number of opioid prescriptions written defies common sense
and lacks understanding of how the pharmaceutical supply chain
actually works and is regulated," Mr. Parker said.  "Those
bringing lawsuits would be better served addressing the root
causes, rather than trying to redirect blame through litigation."

Mr. Parker noted that distributors are "logistics experts," and
do not manufacture, prescribe, dispense, or drive demand for
opioids, and they cannot make medical determinations about
patient care or provider prescribing.  Distributors report every
opioid order to the Drug Enforcement Agency, which is responsible
for setting the annual production of controlled substances in the
market.

"The misuse and abuse of prescription opioids is a complex public
health challenge that requires a collaborative and systemic
response that engages all stakeholders," Mr. Parker said.

Most cities that file or join lawsuits against opioid
manufacturers do so by hiring outside counsel, as opposed to
handling them through their staff attorneys, Mr. Hilliard said.
He explained that the benefits of using outside litigation
include access to lawyers who may have "more experience and more
expertise in complex litigation," and that city attorneys "are
often already overworked and overtaxed."

Mr. Pelaez said that "securing competent counsel" would be the
City's most important step if it decided to move forward with a
lawsuit. This means working with a lawyer who has had success in
mass tort litigation for municipalities against pharmaceutical
manufacturers, he said.

Bexar County leads the state in babies born with drug withdrawal
symptoms and has the third-highest per-capita rate of overdose
deaths in Texas, with 108 fatal overdoses in 2015.

"We very much have real damages," Mr. Pelaez said on March 24.

However, San Antonio and Bexar County have opioid prescribing
rates that consistently rank below the state and national
averages since 2006.  And while Bexar County has the third-
highest per capita rate of overdose in Texas, the state has
remained among those with the lowest rates of overdose deaths,
despite a "statistically significant increase" from 2015-16.

Hilliard said that "any potential settlement will be
proportionate based on expert reports from economists [regarding]
the impact of each affected area."

The lawsuits bear many resemblances to the litigation against Big
Tobacco, which ended with a $246 billion settlement in 1998, in
what is still the largest civil litigation settlement in U.S.
history, and resulted in policy change, Mr. Hilliard said.  He
noted that when comparing opioid and tobacco litigation, "there
are more similarities than there are differences."

"A difference might be the prescription nature of the drugs at
issue," Mr. Hilliard said.  "But they're marketing to doctors who
then turn around and relay that information to their patients. It
may be once-removed, but it is still happening."

He said that pharmaceutical companies will argue that doctors
have the knowledge and expertise to decide, based on their best
medical opinion, that someone needs an opioid prescription, which
does not account for the non-prescribed or illegally made opioids
that are available on the streets.

A single lawsuit against an opioid manufacturer or distributor
could take anywhere from two to six years, depending on whether a
settlement occurs early in the process.  Mr. Hilliard said that
throughout Texas, lawsuits made by cities and counties will
"likely get transferred into the opioid [multi-district
litigation]," where large numbers of similar cases are
consolidated to enhance efficiency and reduce cost.

This would cut the settlement time frame down, with decisions
made within 16 months.

"If [San Antonio] doesn't bring a claim at all, [it] won't be
entitled to the recovery that is likely to result," Mr. Hilliard
said. [GN]


MERCEDES-BENZ: Vehicles Have Defective Sunroof, Enea Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
GIORGIO ENEA, an individual; on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC;
DAIMLER AG; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case
No. RG1889994 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 6, 2018), seeks to recover
compensatory damages, punitive damages, and restitutionary
disgorgement under the Breach of Warranty, and Unfair Business
Practices, arising out of Defendants' manufacture, design, and
distribution of Mercedes-Benz branded automobiles with defective
sunroofs.  The Mercedes Benz vehicles were defective in that the
large moon or sunroofs, often referred to as panorama roofs were
prone to spontaneous 10 exploding, shattering, and/or cracking
sunroofs.

The Plaintiff leased a new 2015 Mercedes Benz, with a sunroof
manufactured by Defendants. The sunroof was defective, and on
June 27, 2017, while 13 Plaintiff was driving, the sunroof
spontaneously shattered, spraying glass throughout the car and 14
onto Plaintiff. The incident involving Plaintiff was the product
of a common and known defect in 15 the sunroof installed in
Mercedes Benz vehicles.

Mercedes-Benz is engaged in the marketing and distribution of
Mercedes-Benz, smart, and Sprinter vehicles in the United States.
It offers sedans, coupes, SUVs and wagons, convertibles and
roadsters, and hybrid and electric vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          Graham Lambert, Esq.
          HAFFNER LAW PC
          445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2325
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 514 5681
          Facsimile: (213) 514 5682
          E-mail: Ghh@haffnerlawyers.com
                  gl@haffnerlawyers.com


METLIFE INC: Judge Conditionally Certifies Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Rob Lenihan, writing for Business Insurance, reports that a
federal judge in New York granted conditional certification of a
nationwide class of claims specialists for unpaid overtime
brought against MetLife Inc. in a lawsuit seeking over $50
million in lost wages and liquidated damages, the plaintiffs'
attorney said on March 23.

U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan in New York on March 22
granted conditional certification to the class in the case of
Debra Julian et al. v. MetLife Inc. et al., New York-based
Sanford Heisler Sharp L.L.P., the law firm representing the
class, said in a statement.

The class action asserts that MetLife ceased paying overtime to
its long-term disability claims specialists in November 2013,
after "reclassifying" them without any actual change in their job
duties, the law firm said.

A MetLife spokeswoman said in an email statement that "MetLife
believes these claims are without merit and plans to defend
itself vigorously."

The action was brought by plaintiffs Debra Julian, a former long-
term disability claims specialist in New York, and Stephanie
McKinney, a former long-term disability claims specialist in
Connecticut.  The plaintiffs are represented by Sanford Heisler
Sharp and Krakower DiChiara L.L.C. in Park Ridge, New Jersey.

MetLife formerly paid its LTD claim specialists hourly wages and
overtime pay but stopped doing so after the reclassification.
The complaint charges that MetLife made the classification change
as a "cost-cutting measure."

The plaintiffs allege that MetLife's LTD claim specialists' job
principally involves gathering information about disability
claimants, entering the information into MetLife's computer
systems, and consulting with supervisors and specialized staff.
LTD claim specialists regularly work between 45 and 60 hours
weekly, without appropriate compensation for their overtime
hours, the complaint said.

"Judge Nathan's conditional certification is a welcome first step
in addressing MetLife's flagrant compensation practices,"
Michael Palmer -- mpalmer@sanfordheisler.com -- co-chair of
Sanford Heisler Sharp's wage and hour practice, said in a
statement.  "Despite consistently having to work more than 40
hours per week, LTD claim specialists are denied overtime pay.
With this ruling, the class action can now proceed on behalf of
hundreds of workers."

The opposing parties have been given 10 days to propose and
justify any redactions to the memorandum opinion. [GN]


METRO SECURITY: Smith Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DANIEL SMITH, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. METRO SECURITY,
INC. and LLOYD JARREAU, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00953-
EEF-JVM (E.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order
conditionally certifying a FLSA Collective Class of:

"individuals who, within the three-year period preceding the date
of the Court's Order, were employed as Post Supervisors for Metro
Security, Inc., and who were not paid an overtime premium for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, and who did not
receive minimum wage in workweeks in which the Post Supervisor
worked 63 or more hours."

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


MICHIGAN: Court Grants Renewed Class Cert. Bid in "Hill" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled HENRY HILL, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. RICK
SNYDER, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:10-cv-14568-MAG-RSW
(E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Mark A. Goldsmith entered an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion for
      partial summary judgment, declaratory judgment and
      permanent injunction;

   2. denying Defendants' cross-motion for partial summary
      judgment;

   3. granting Plaintiffs second renewed motion for class
      certification.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qypxgEx0


MIDWEST SUPPLY: "Wells" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
MELVINA WELLS, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff v. MIDWEST
SUPPLY AND MAINTENANCE COMPANY INC., and CHARLOTTE CALLAGHAM,
a Michigan for-profit company and owners and officer of said
Michigan for-profit company, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-
11105-GAD-SDD (E.D. Mich., April 6, 2018), seeks to recover
benefits due to Plaintiff from Defendants under the FLSA as a
result of Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages to Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees.

The case is a civil action seeking relief under the provisions of
the FLSA. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants whose
rights under the FLSA have been violated. The Plaintiff seeks a
declaration that her rights under the FLSA have been violated.

The Plaintiff worked as a janitor for Defendants, providing
cleaning services to Defendants' corporate clients. The Wells was
an employee of Defendants from approximately July 2017 through
August 2017. The Defendants employ at least 200 janitorial
employees at any given time. However, there is significant
employee turnover at Defendant Midwest Supply. Wells was employed
with Defendants, her wage rate was $9.00 per hour. The Plaintiff
was a non-exempt hourly employee who was entitled to the
protections of the FLSA.

Midwest Supply is a professional cleaning company that serves
commercial clients in Michigan. The company specializes in
providing customized janitorial programs for offices, high-tech
companies, retail stores, hotels, hospitals, health and fitness
clubs and industrial buildings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO CORP: Stays on Defense in Dicamba Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Bryce Gray, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that
with the 2018 growing season gearing up, eyes on wide swaths of
the nation's farmland are sure to look out for continued damage
from dicamba -- the divisive weedkiller blamed for damaging
millions of acres of soybeans and other plants over the last
couple of years.

But much attention will also be on a Missouri courtroom, where
Creve Coeur-based biotech giant Monsanto is facing off in a
proposed class action lawsuit with farmers who allege they were
harmed by the hard-to-control herbicide notorious for its
tendency to evaporate -- or volatize -- and move to other nearby
areas. A conference in Cape Girardeau on March 28 set a schedule
for the U.S. District Court's proceedings in the cases, where
more than a dozen complaints are already in front of a federal
judge.

The controversy surrounding the hot-selling technology adds to
Monsanto's busy legal docket, with antitrust hurdles from the
company's proposed acquisition by Bayer swirling in the
background, along with a separate class action suit over the
carcinogenic potential of glyphosate -- the active ingredient in
Roundup.

The dicamba cases echo various complaints that have circulated
since Monsanto's release in 2015 of its Xtend crop varieties
genetically modified to tolerate the chemical. The trait enables
farmers with Xtend cotton or soybeans to spray the crops with
dicamba for weed control -- leaving their plantings unharmed but
threatening other, non-tolerant crops and vegetation through
either volatility or physical drift.

Until last growing season, Xtend seeds had been on the market
without the corresponding type of less-volatile dicamba spray,
which had not secured regulatory approval. Its absence created a
situation in which many farmers with dicamba-tolerant seeds chose
to illegally use older versions of the chemical that are more
prone to off-target movement. But even with the new, lower-
volatility sprays available for the 2017 growing season,
incidents of reported dicamba damage continued -- and actually
increased -- spanning about 3.6 million acres of U.S. soybeans.

Senath, Mo.-based Cow-Mil Farms, Inc., alleges in its lawsuit
that reported dicamba damage has been both a predictable and
profitable result of Monsanto's rollout of the Xtend product
package.

"To Monsanto, it was foreseeable that farmers would spray dicamba
on a seed designed to resist it, that old dicamba is volatile and
would drift, that the Xtend seeds would eventually dominate the
market, and that the farming communities in the affected states
(including Plaintiffs and the Class) would suffer massive
destruction to their crops," says the complaint filed in the
case.

Citing both farmers and weed scientists, other arguments outlined
in the complaint include allegations that Monsanto sales
representatives privately condoned unauthorized use of the
herbicide and suggestions that damage is expected to continue,
even with the availability of new "allegedly lower-volatility"
dicamba formulations made by Monsanto and other companies, such
as BASF.

"It's going to move off target," said Don Downing, a lead lawyer
behind the cases, from the St. Louis law firm Gray, Ritter and
Graham. "There's no question, at least in the minds of the
scientists at the universities."

Downing said the scope of the proposed plaintiff class was still
coming into focus, but estimated that they numbered "in the
hundreds."

Downing has a background highlighted by blockbuster settlements
from biotechnology-related lawsuits. He was the co-lead counsel
in a 2011 settlement for $750 million between Bayer and U.S.
long-grain rice farmers after exports were embargoed because the
domestic supply was contaminated by an unapproved variety of
seed. More recently, Downing helped spearhead the $1.5 billion
settlement reached between Syngenta and corn farmers over a
similar ban on exports, triggered when the domestic corn supply
was contaminated by GMO varieties not approved overseas.

He says the dicamba cases have some parallels, in that "innocent
bystanders" have allegedly been harmed by certain biotechnology
products. But dicamba damage, he says, is different for farmers
than the loss of an export market.

"Here you've got actual physical particles coming onto their land
and damaging their crops," Downing said.

He said that had led to a loss of choice for growers, with many
feeling pressured to adopt the Xtend system for self-defense.

"They wanted to stay with their old seed, but they felt compelled
to purchase it," said Downing. "And they had to pay a premium for
it."

Monsanto, meanwhile, steadfastly denies that it is liable for any
damages alleged in the cases.

Particularly when it comes to damage linked to older, illegal
versions of dicamba, the company notes in court filings that it
did not manufacture, distribute or sell the herbicides in
question.

As for the continued dicamba complaints reported last year --
when Monsanto's own form of the chemical was among those on the
market -- the company suggested that there may not be sufficient
evidence that crop yields were harmed, pointing to strong or even
record harvests for soybeans per acre, including in states such
as Arkansas, where the most dicamba complaints were recorded.

The company said it had "seen an enthusiasm from growers about
not only the weed control last year, but the yields they were
seeing," according to Scott Partridge, Monsanto's vice president
of global strategy.

With weeds developing resistance to Roundup, Partridge said Xtend
products were a needed tool for farmers -- a sentiment plenty of
growers expressed amid bumper crops last year.

"Demand for dicamba-tolerant seeds is going to double," said
Partridge, noting that Monsanto anticipated adoption of Xtend
soybeans to leap to 43 million acres in the U.S. this year from
nearly 21 million acres in 2017, with cotton jumping to 7 million
acres from 5 million. "That rate of adoption is phenomenal, and
again it speaks to the value of the product."

Some investment analysts following the merger said they had
stopped tracking the dicamba lawsuits, because they didn't think
it would affect the outcome of the deal. Monsanto also said it
did not believe the class action would jeopardize the pending
sale or Bayer's outlook.

"(Bayer) understands the scientific aspect of this," said
Partridge. "We're anxious to get on with it." [GN]


MONSTER INC: Cable Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Churney, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a Cook
County judge has given a preliminary nod to a class action
settlement, which could make audio-video cable manufacturer
Monster pay around $30 million to buyers of one of its cable
products, after determining a man who had filed a separate
lawsuit against Monster made misrepresentations while objecting
to the proposed settlement.

In September 2015 in Cook County Circuit Court, Amy Joseph, an
Illinois resident, filed a class action against Monster Inc. and
the Best Buy retail chain.  Monster, which is headquartered in
Brisbane, Calif., makes consumer electronics, mostly audio and
video cables.  Best Buy, based in Richfield, Minn., runs more
than 1,000 stores that sell electronic products in the U.S. and
Canada.

The suit alleged Monster's packaging information for its high
definition multimedia interface television cables misled
consumers into buying a more expensive cable than necessary.
Specifically, Monster made consumers believe a more costly cable
with capacity for greater bandwidth was required for their home
theater systems, when a cheaper cable with less bandwidth was
just as good.

As far as Best Buy, the suit alleged the retailer reaffirms
Monster's misrepresentations through store and website
advertisements.

In August 2015, Benjamin A. Perez had filed for a similar class
action in U.S. District Court for Northern California, saying he
bought a cable at a Best Buy in Orange, Calif. Joseph asked Perez
if Perez was interested in combining their suits, but Perez
declined, according to court papers.

Joseph and Robert O'Brien, a Californian who had opted to join
Joseph as a plaintiff, agreed with defendants to settle in July
2016.  Mr. Perez, however, objected, saying he was a member of
the class and alleging the proposed settlement was a result of
collusion.  To support his allegation, Mr. Perez claimed Joseph
copied his suit and reached the settlement without the discovery
process, among other allegations.  Plaintiffs and defendants
denied this accusation, saying they had engaged in informal
discovery.

Joseph, O'Brien, Monster and Best Buy said Mr. Perez had no
standing to try to block the settlement.  They further alleged
Perez made misrepresentations and should be sanctioned.

On March 6, Cook County Circuit Judge Franklin Valderrama granted
preliminary approval to a settlement.  The agreement allows
consumers who bought the cable in question to choose between cash
payment or online store credit.  The amount to each consumer is
based on the bandwidth of the cable bought, ranging from $10 to
$35 for each cable purchased.  There could be upwards of three
million people who qualify.

Monster will also change the labeling on cable packages.  The
settlement would probably be paid by Monster, as Best Buy has an
indemnification agreement with Monster, court papers said.

Plaintiffs' attorneys will receive up to $325,000.

Three days after his preliminary ratification of the settlement,
Judge Valderrama ruled Mr. Perez made false statements in
connection with his objection.   For example, Mr. Perez said he
bought the type of cable described in his suit at a particular
store, but records showed the store did not carry that cable at
the time Perez claimed he bought it, Judge Valderrama noted.

As a result, Judge Valderrama found sanctions were warranted
against Perez.  A status hearing is April 30.

Nonetheless, Judge Valderrama was unhappy with the course the
suit has taken.

"Interestingly, the matter presently before the Court is not the
resolution of this protracted class action lawsuit which involves
different jurisdictions, numerous parties and myriad issues in
need of resolution," instead, the "motion for sanctions has
regrettably become one of the driving forces in this case,
needlessly consuming a considerable amount of time and resources
from the parties and this Court," Judge Valderrama observed.

Joseph and O'Brien have been represented by attorney Tom
Zimmerman and others from the Zimmerman Law Offices, of Chicago.
They are set to receive up to $325,000 in attorney fees from the
settlement, according to Judge Valerrama's opinion.

Monster and Best Buy have been defended by Fox Rothschild, which
is headquartered in Philadelphia, with offices in Chicago and
elsewhere.  The San Francisco firm of Sacks, Ricketts & Case has
also represented the companies.

Mr. Perez has been represented by the Bursor & Fisher firm, which
has offices in New York and Walnut Creek, Calif. [GN]


MULESOFT INC: Sciabacucchi Balks at Salesforce Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW SCIABACUCCHI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MULESOFT, INC., GREG
SCHOTT, ANN WINBLAD, GARY LITTLE, RAVI MHATRE, MARK BURTON, STEVE
COLLINS, MICHAEL CAPELLAS, MARCUS RYU, YVONNE WASSENAAR,
SALESFORCE.COM, INC., and MALBEC ACQUISITION CORP., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00530-UNA (D. Del., April 9, 2018),
seeks to enjoin Defendants and all persons acting in concert with
them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing a proposed
merger transaction, and in the event Defendants consummate the
proposed transaction, rescinding it and setting it aside or
awarding rescissory damages.

This action stems from the proposed transaction announced on
March 20, 2018, pursuant to which MuleSoft, Inc. will be acquired
by salesforce.com, inc. and Malbec Acquisition Corp.

On March 20, 2018, MuleSoft's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Salesforce. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
Salesforce commenced an exchange offer set to expire on May 1,
2018, and MuleSoft's stockholders will receive $36.00 in cash and
0.0711 shares of Salesforce common stock per MuleSoft Class A and
Class B common share.

On April 2, 2018, defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The
Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect to
the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation
Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges
herein that defendants violated Sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
Solicitation Statement.

MuleSoft, Inc. is a software company headquartered in San
Francisco, California that provides integration software for
connecting applications, data and devices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324 6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631 1305
          E-mail: rm@maniskas.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra Long, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295 5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654 7530
          E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com


MULESOFT INC: Robinson Balks at Salesforce Merger
-------------------------------------------------
CHRIS ROBINSON, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MULESOFT, INC., GREG
SCHOTT, MARK BURTON, MICHAEL CAPELLAS, STEVEN COLLINS, GARY
LITTLE, RAVI MHATRE, MARCUS RYU, YVONNE WASSENAAR, ANN WINBLAD,
MALBEC ACQUISITION CORP., and SALESFORCE.COM, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02095-WHA (N.D. Cal., April 6,
2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any steps to
consummate a proposed merger transaction unless and until
material information is included in an amendment to the
Recommendation Statement or otherwise disseminated to MuleSoft's
shareholders, and in the event the Proposed Transaction is
consummated without the material omissions being remedied, the
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages resulting from the Defendants'
violations.

The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of the public
stockholders of MuleSoft, Inc. against MuleSoft's Board of
Directors for their violations of Section 14(e) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the Board's
attempt to sell the Company to salesforce.com, inc. through its
wholly-owned subsidiary Malbec Acquisition Corp. The Defendants
have violated the Sections of the Exchange Act by causing a
materially incomplete and misleading Schedule 14D-9
Recommendation Statement to be filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 2, 2018. The Recommendation
Statement recommends that MuleSoft stockholders tender their
shares in favor of a proposed transaction whereby MuleSoft is
acquired by Salesforce. The Proposed Transaction was first
disclosed on March 20, 2018, when MuleSoft and Salesforce
announced that they had entered into a definitive merger
agreement pursuant to which Salesforce will acquire all of the
outstanding shares of common stock of MuleSoft for $36.00 and
0.0711 shares of Salesforce common stock per share. The deal is
valued at approximately $6.5 billion and is expected to close by
July 31, 2018.

MuleSoft has created a product that makes it possible for
companies to collect and analyze information from various parts
of their information technology infrastructure. Since introducing
the product, called Anypoint Platform, MuleSoft's revenues have
grown dramatically. The Company has predicted that in 2021, the
Company will bring in $1 billion in revenue. Despite MuleSoft's
prospects, the Board agreed to sell the Company to Salesforce in
a process that lasted just a few weeks. No market check was
conducted. And given the possibility of $1 billion in revenues in
just a few short years, the Merger Consideration does not
maximize stockholder value. Indeed, the Illustrative Present
Value of Future Share Price Analysis conducted by Goldman Sachs &
Co. LLC, MuleSoft's financial advisor, found an implied value for
MuleSoft as high as $46.49 per share for 2021. Furthermore, the
Recommendation Statement is materially incomplete and contains
misleading representations and information in violation of
Sections 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the
Recommendation Statement contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning the sales process, financial
projections prepared by MuleSoft management, as well as the
financial analyses conducted by Goldman Sachs.

MuleSoft, Inc. is a software company headquartered in San
Francisco, California that provides integration software for
connecting applications, data and devices.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 534 2590
          Facsimile: (310) 247 0160
          E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com


NATRONA COUNTY, WY: 160+ People Join Suit Over School Closure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Seth Klamann, writing for Casper Star Tribune, reports that more
than 160 people have signed on to join a lawsuit filed by Mills
against the Natrona County School District over the closure of
the last school in the town's area.

The group -- at least 163 strong -- is seeking to become part of
a class-action suit against the district, which is set to shutter
Mountain View Elementary in June, a year after it closed Mills
Elementary.  The initial lawsuit challenging the impending
closure was filed in January, and within that complaint, the town
reserved the right to turn the case into a class-action suit.

The district has asked a judge to dismiss Mills' lawsuit,
alleging that the town cannot sue on behalf of its residents and
that it, as a municipality, will not suffer any actual harm from
the closure of Mountain View.  Making the case a class-action
suit would bring those citizens into the litigation.

The signatures are attached to a March 23 filing seeking to do
just that. In February, the town had asked a judge to keep
Mountain View open until the litigation had run its course,
arguing that it would cost the district relatively little to do
so. But, the town's attorneys have argued, closing the school and
then reopening it would harm Mountain View and Mills at large.

But the district's private attorneys argued against the request.
They wrote in a court filing earlier in March that it would cost
the district $750,000 to keep the school open and reverse the
enrollment and replacement moves officials have completed or are
working toward.

A message seeking comment from the school district's private
attorney was not returned on March 26.

At least three Mountain View educators signed onto the petition,
as did six students.  Unsurprisingly, most people who signed on
are parents, Mills residents or relatives of students.

"Kids go to school, would like to enroll in neighborhood school,"
one woman wrote on the signup sheet.

Another unsurprising presence is that of Mills Mayor
Seth Coleman, who accused the school board's previous chairman,
Kevin Christopherson, of trying to "bribe" Mr. Coleman by
promising that Mountain View would be given priority to reopen if
the town would buy Mills Elementary.

Mr. Christopherson has denied that the email was a bribe.

The town filed the suit, claiming that the district had acted
unlawfully when its board voted in October to close Mountain View
and three Casper schools.  Officials cited falling state funding
and dropping enrollment, particularly at Mountain View, as
evidence that the schools had to be closed.

District officials have argued that while some in Mills claim
Mountain View is a neighborhood school, the enrollment numbers
suggest otherwise.  Michael Jennings, the district's executive
director for human services, wrote in a court filing that 191
students live within a one-mile radius of Mountain View. Of that
group, only 41 attend the school.

Mr. Jennings added that only 138 students are taught in the
building, which has the capacity to hold 320 kids.

A hearing is scheduled to hear various arguments in April, Mills'
attorney said earlier in March. [GN]


NISSAN EXTENDED: "Arkliss" Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled FABIAN ARKLISS, for himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NISSAN EXTENDED
SERVICES NORTH AMERICA, INC., and DIFEO NISSAN PARTNERSHIP d/b/a
HUDSON NISSAN, the Defendants, Case No. 2018 L 001227, was
removed from the Court of New Jersey, Bergen County Division, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark)
on April 6, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-05681 to the proceeding.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se:

Attorneys for Nissan Extended Services North America, Inc.:

          Jeremy Hale Ershow, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          919 Third Avenue, 38th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 891 1600
          E-mail: jershow@jenner.com


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: "Nguyen" Class Certification Bid Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled HUU NGUYEN, the Plaintiff, v. NISSAN NORTH
AMERICA, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-05591-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh entered an order denying
Plaintiff's motion for class certification of:

Class:

   "all individuals in California who purchased or leased, from
   an authorized Nissan dealer, a new Nissan vehicle equipped
   with a FS6R31A manual transmission"; and

CLRA Sub-Class:

   "all members of the Class who are "consumers" within the
   meaning of California Civil Code section 1761(d)."

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to satisfy Rule
23(b)(3) with respect to either the class or the CLRA sub-class,
and that Plaintiff has likewise failed to satisfy the
requirements of Rule 23(c)(4).

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iMhwiWn2


NUVASIVE INC: Settles Securities Class Action for $7.9 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Seal, writing for Law360, reports that a certified class of
investors on March 23 told a California federal court that they
had reached a $7.9 million settlement with NuVasive Inc. to
resolve a securities suit accusing the company of concealing a
kickback scheme and falsely claiming it complied with federal
laws on Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements.

Lead plaintiff Brad Mauss and the complaint's initial filer,
Daniel Popov, told the court that the proposed settlement
provides the class of investors who purchased NuVasive common
stock between Oct. 22, 2008, and July 30, 2013.

The case is Mauss v. Nuvasive, Inc. et al, Case No. 3:13-cv-02005
(S.D.N.Y.).  The case is assigned to Judge Jeffrey T. Miller.
The case was filed August 28, 2013. [GN]


OLA GROUP: Plaza Seeks Unpaid Minimum and OT wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARCELL PLAZA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. OLA GROUP LLC d/b/a OLA ORANGE, LOPEZ
LLC d/b/a OLA WALLINGFORD, MELVIN LOPEZ, and WAGNER LOPEZ, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00612 (D. Conn., April 9, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and other
monies pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the
Connecticut Minimum Wage Act for Plaintiff Marcell Plaza and all
similarly situated persons, i.e. servers, busboys, and bartenders
(waitstaff) who work or have worked at Ola Group LLC d/b/a Ola
Orange and/or Lopez LLC d/b/a Ola Wallingford within the
statutory period.

Ola Orange and Ola Wallingford are family-owned restaurants
boasting "Miami style" dining rooms that serve Nuevo Latino
Cuisine and are self-described as "a splashy, exuberant culinary
form of celebrating the heritage and the Latin spirit." Ola Nuevo
Latino Cuisine Is A Splashy, Ola Restaurant Website,
http://olarestaurantct.com/(last accessed March 27, 2018). The
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the waitstaff at the full
minimum wage rate, instead paying them at the tipped minimum wage
rate despite failing to provide the waitstaff with lawful notice
regarding the tip credit and requiring that more than 20% of each
shift is comprised of non-tipped work.

The Defendants also paid Plaintiff and the waitstaff at a
straight time rate for all hours worked, rather than paying an
overtime premium for hours worked over forty in a workweek.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective:

          William G. Madsen, Esq.
          MADSEN, PRESTLEY & PARENTEAU, LLC
          402 Asylum Street
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 246 2466
          E-mail: wmadsen@mppjustice.com

               - and -

          Louis Pechman, Esq.
          Laura Rodriguez, Esq.
          PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
          488 Madison Avenue - 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583 9500
          E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
                  rodriguez@pechmanlaw.com


OW BUNKER: Denmark High Court Approves Investors Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Katrine Gronvald Raun, writing for ShippingWatch, reports that a
class action lawsuit involving several thousand investors in OW
Bunker has been approved by Denmark's Eastern High Court.  But
more than 1,000 investors are barred from participating in the
lawsuit, reports Danish daily Borsen. [GN]


PARKLAND HOMEOWNERS: Randels Sue over Airport Alterations
---------------------------------------------------------
VERNON RANDEL and CHERYL RANDEL, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PARKLAND HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., a Colorado corporation, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-00804 (D. Colo., April 6, 2018), seeks an Order
compelling Defendant to file with the Federal Aviation
Administration by a time definite a Form 7480-1 for all
construction, alterations, and modifications to the Parkland
Airport which have occurred since 1978, including specific
disclosure of all details concerning all of the following items
which deviate from the approved form of Parkland Airport as
described in the 1978 AMR.

This suit concerns the 40+ year history of the creation,
operation, modification, and use of a private airpark located
near Erie, Colorado. Operations at the airpark fall within the
jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Administration, which
requires among other things affirmative reporting of changes to
the airpark which must be reviewed and acted upon by the FAA
prior to implementation for, among other reasons, airway and
ground safety.

Recent changes to the historical use of the airpark have caused
significant disputes between the airpark's manager, a homeowner's
association, and several of its members, including Plaintiffs.
The disputes led to land use litigation in state court, which is
ongoing. In the course of discovery and ongoing investigation,
including the Freedom of Information Act requests directed to the
FAA, Plaintiffs and others discovered that the FAA's records
concerning the airpark, dating back to its inception of creation
and modification of its runways and taxiways, are missing
required pre-creation and modification forms, and are missing
records of FAA evaluations of the creation and changes to the
airpark.

Recent use changes by some members of the HOA, including changing
the character of a taxiway into an unrestricted runway without
FAA approval, have led to disputes concerning operations safety,
bodily and property harm to both pilots and persons on the ground
attendant to runway operations, potential private property
takings as a result of calling a taxiway a runway due to FAA
regulations, and even criminal charges against one of the
Plaintiffs due only to the disputed interpretation of FAA-allowed
facility use. As recently as September 2017, the FAA local office
with jurisdiction over safety requested members of the HOA direct
it as airpark manager to file the required forms for unreported
modifications so that the FAA may review current operations for
airspace safety concerns, which have been significant enough as
to prompt the local school district to re-route buses away from
the airpark due to low flying aircraft.  Plaintiffs requested the
HOA fulfill its regulatory obligations to report changes to the
operation of the airpark to the FAA.  The HOA refused.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Robert J. Zavaglia, Jr., Esq.
          Kathleen J. Johnson., Esq.
          TREECE ALFREY MUSAT P.C.
          633 17th Street, Suite 2200
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 292 2700
          Facsimile: (303) 295 0414
          E-mail: zavaglia@tamlegal.com
                  kjohnson@tamlegal.com


PHILLIP KNOWLES: "Morfin-Arias" Suit Wins Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled PEDRO MORFIN-ARIAS, on behalf of himself
and other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. PHILLIP
KNOWLES, DBA CERAMIC & STONE DESIGN, the Defendant, Case No.
5:16-cv-06114-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman
entered an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act
      collective action on behalf of:

      "all persons who were, are, employed by Defendant Phillip
      Knowles, dba Ceramic & Stone Design, in Santa Clara County,
      California, from October 23, 2013 through the date of final
      judgment as hourly non-administrative employees who have
      worked as stone installers, detailers, and drivers paid on
      an hourly basis." Potential class members include CSD's
      stone slab fabricators/installers and tile installers.;

   2. directing CSD to produce to Morfin-Arias a computer-
      readable data file containing the names, addresses,
      telephone numbers, and emails of potential collective class
      members within 14 days of the date of this order;

   3. directing Morfin-Arias to revise proposed notice of
      conditional certification of collective action at ECF 56-1
      as set forth in this order. After revising the proposed
      notice, Morfin-Arias shall mail and email copies of the
      final version of the notice of conditional certification of
      collective action and consent form to join action to the
      potential class members within 10 days of receipt from CSD
      of the potential class members' contact information;

   4. permitting potential class members to file consent forms
      until 120 days of the date of this order.

   5. directing Morfin-Arias' counsel to attempt to locate the
      current addresses for all potential class members for whom
      a notice is returned as undeliverable and shall promptly
      re-mail the notice to such class members at their current
      address. Morfin-Arias' counsel shall keep a record of the
      addresses that he updates and the dates on which notices
      were sent to those addresses. Morfin-Arias' counsel is not
      required to mail the notice to any particular individual
      more than two times.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nJUOm7xF


PLUS500 LTD: Faces NIS100-Mil. Class Action in Tel Aviv Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dror Reich, writing for CTech, reports that a lawsuit filed on
March 25 in Israel alleges that Plus500 Ltd., a London-listed
financial trading company, selectively paused service customers
in order to prevent them from selling options they had purchased.

The plaintiff, Asher Torgeman, 58, is seeking class-action status
and NIS 100 million (around $29 million) in damages, according to
a filing with the Tel Aviv District Court.

Based in Israel, Plus500 lets users trade in financial
derivatives called contracts for differences.  Plus500's users
try to make money from fluctuations in the prices of stocks,
wares, indexes, foreign currency and exchange-traded notes.  The
company acts as a third party broker collecting fees and also
offers its own contracts for differences, making money when the
customer is in a losing position.

Last year, the company, the main corporate sponsor of the Spanish
soccer team Atletico Madrid, reported revenue of $437 million.
It has customers in more than 50 countries.

Mr. Torgeman's lawsuit claims that in the correspondence from
Plus500, the company admitted to having deliberately paused
trading in his account and in that of other users.

"(Plus500) is refusing to provide a full explaining for having
paused trading in its system," Mr. Torgeman's attorney, Hanoch
Ehrlich, said in an interview with Calcalist.  "The company's
version of events keeps getting changed and refined.  It's been
amended four times with the final claim being that trading was
paused because of reliable market prices were not available."

Plus500 said on March 25 that it had yet to receive a formal
notice of the lawsuit.  "If we receive it, we'll study it and
respond accordingly," the company said.

Mr. Torgeman's case involves trades he made ahead of the Brexit
referendum. He says he anticipated that the vote to leave the
European Union would trigger a drop in the DAX stock market index
and decided to purchase put options.

The day after the referendum, Mr. Torgeman sought to sell 12
options but was blocked from doing so by Plus500's system.  In
that same moment, he found, options that showed a loss, remained
open for trading.

An active trader on Plus500 since 2012, Mr. Torgeman contacted
the company to complain. Plus500 provided no explanation but said
it would credit him with 1,638 euros, an offer described as a
gesture of goodwill to a long-time customer.

In the first stage of a class-action lawsuit, a plaintiff asks
the court to recognize a certain group of individuals as a class.
If the court accepts Mr. Torgmen's claim, the case will come to
include all Plus500 customers whose trading was deliberately
halted in the past seven years. [GN]


RASIER LLC: Declines to Pay Bonus to Drivers, Novak Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL NOVAK, the Plaintiff, v. RASIER, LLC, a Limited Liability
Company; RAISIER-CA, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; and UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC701368 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
April 9, 2018), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction
against Defendants to retrain them from violating the California
Labor Code and Wage Orders now and in the future.

According to the complaint, this case represents a shocking
example of an active, extensive, methodical scheme, implemented
worldwide, to specifically and knowingly defraud drivers employed
by and/or providing services to or on behalf of UBER. This
fraudulent scheme negatively impacted drivers such as Plaintiff,
along with thousands of individual Class Members nationwide.

UBER provides car services in cities throughout the country via
an on demand dispatch system that enables end users to hail an
Uber Driver through the user application, and which enables
transportation providers, i.e., the Uber Drivers, to accept and
fulfill such on-demand requests through the use of a driver's
application.

During Plaintiff's employment, UBER offered certain incentive
bonuses to Uber Drivers. The Bonus Offers variously specified
different time periods and/or other requirements for eligibility.
The Plaintiff alleges that each of the UBER Bonus Offers
constituted an express Agreement between UBER and the Uber
Drivers, including Plaintiff.

In or about August 2017, UBER extended a bonus offer to Uber
Drivers who attained a certain number of rides during a specified
time period (the "NOVAK OFFER"). The NOVAK OFFER stated: 21 Drive
22 trips, make $75 extra. 22 Mon, Aug 7, 4 AM - Fri, Aug 11, 4
AM. The NOVAK OFFER specified that "uberX, uberPOOL, uberSC,
ESPANOL, ASSIST, UberEATS, and UberListen" were all included in
the offer. Any cancelled trips, whether by Customers or Uber
Drivers, would not be credited as applicable trips. At various
times Plaintiff noticed that, despite meeting all of the terms of
the particular Bonus Offers, including the NOVAK OFFER,
Defendants simply failed to include certain rides in determining
eligibility.

In response to Plaintiff's inquiry, other Uber Drivers reported
having similar experiences, where not all of their rides were
credited toward the Bonus Offers. The Plaintiff alleges that UBER
deliberately manipulated data to avoid paying Plaintiff and other
Uber Drivers consistent with the express terms of the Bonus
Offers, including without limitation and in Particular the NOVAK
OFFER.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marina Kats Fraigun, Esq.
          FRAIGUN LAW GROUP
          15250 Ventura Boulevard
          Penthouse 1220
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 981 1800
          Facsimile: (818) 981 1484
          E-mail: mfraigun@fraigunlaw.com


RELAY DELIVERY: Ventura Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
HORWIN VENTURA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. RELAY DELIVERY INC. (D/B/A RELAY),
ALEX BLUM, and MICHAEL CHEVETT, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
03052 (S.D.N.Y., April 6, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff is a current employee of Defendants. The Defendants
own, operate, or control a delivery company, located at 440 Park
Avenue South 14th Floor New York, NY 10016 under the name
"Relay". The Plaintiff has worked for Defendants in excess of 40
hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime
compensation for the hours that he has worked. Rather, Defendants
have failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked,
either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime
premium.

The Defendants have paid Plaintiff Ventura at a rate that is
lower than the required tip-credit rate. The Defendants' conduct
has extended beyond Plaintiff Ventura to all other similarly
situated employees. The Defendants have maintained a policy and
practice of requiring Plaintiff Ventura and other employees to
work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum
wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law
and regulations.

Relay Delivery, Inc. provides delivery solutions for restaurants.
It offers software and delivery team. The company was
incorporated in 2014 and is based in New York, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

REMINGTON: Mum on Impact of Bankruptcy Filing on Rifle Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Cohn, writing for CNBC, reports that after 202 years in
business, America's oldest gun manufacturer, Remington, has filed
for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

The filing by Remington Arms Company and its parent, Remington
Outdoors, was disclosed on March 25 on the website of the United
States Bankruptcy Court in Delaware.  Details of the filing were
not immediately available, but in a note to investors on
March 23, the company reported negative operating cash flow as of
March 25 of $7.4 million.

Remington Outdoors, which also owns gun manufacturers including
Marlin and Bushmaster, says sales in 2017 were just over $600
million, down more than 30 percent from 2016.

Like other gun manufacturers, Remington saw sharp sales declines
following the 2016 presidential election, as customers apparently
saw less urgency to stockpile firearms under Donald Trump.

Adding to Remington's problems are heavy debt, as well as product
liability concerns involving its signature product, the Model 700
bolt-action rifle , which CNBC first investigated in 2010.

While Remington maintains that the guns are safe, the company has
agreed to replace the triggers on millions of guns in a class
action settlement.  The company has refused to say whether the
bankruptcy filing -- which it first signaled in February -- will
affect the settlement.

Remington said in February that the bankruptcy would be
pre-packaged under an agreement with its lenders.  It is not
immediately clear when the company hopes to emerge from
bankruptcy.

Remington is owned by private equity giant Cerberus, which began
buying up gun companies a decade ago.  Soon after CNBC's first
investigation in 2010, Cerberus dropped plans for an initial
public offering of what was then known as the Freedom Group.

After the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in
Newtown, Connecticut, Cerberus announced plans to exit the gun
business, but could not find a buyer.  Cerberus eventually let
its institutional investors cash out of Freedom Group, which
remained on Cerberus' books, eventually renamed Remington
Outdoors. [GN]


RIDE RIGHT: "Chapman" Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------
David Chapman individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ride Right Transportation, Inc., and
Shawn H. Cluen, the Defendants, Case No.18-1072-G (Mass Super.
Ct., April 6, 2018), seeks to recover damages arising from the
Defendants' failure to pay overtime compensation for hours worked
over 40 hours in a workweek from three years preceding the filing
of the complaint, through December 31, 2016.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Shafran, Esq.
          RUDOLPH FNEDMANN LLP
          92 State Street, Boston, MA 02109
          E-mail: ashafran@rflawyers.com.


RODAN & FIELDS: Lash Boost Drug Products Misleading, Gorzo Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARYN GORZO, KASEY POE, AND ANNA OHNKE, individually and on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. RODAN & FIELDS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
CGC-18-565628 (Cal. Sup. Ct., April 9, 2018), seeks to recover
damages and equitable and legal remedies for themselves and the
putative Class, which includes California consumers who purchased
Rodan & Fields Enhancements Lash Boost products.

This action arises out of Defendant's deceptive and misleading
marketing of Lash Boost, including its statements that Lash Boost
is "not a drug product," is "safe and non-14 irritating," "does
not contain any over-the-counter (OTC) or drug ingredients,"
"contains only cosmetic ingredients," and is "not associated with
any significant side effects," when in fact Lash Boost is a drug,
is illegally marketed and sold, and contains ingredients that are
associated with serious adverse effects. Rodan & Fields has
promoted itself as a company that creates safe and effective skin
care products, with a thoughtful process of thoroughly vetting
ingredients. For instance, on its website, Rodan & Fields states:
"Rodan & Fields' philosophy is to create safe and effective
formulations, and thus, would not place a product on the market
otherwise."Through this campaign, Rodan & Fields has convinced
consumers that they can trust the Rodan & Fields name and the
specific representations Rodan & Fields makes about its products.

The Defendant engaged in a common plan and scheme, through the
use of misleading marketing, advertising, and product labeling,
which led consumers to believe that Lash Boost is a purely
cosmetic product that is not associated with serious health
risks, and is legally marketed and sold, when in fact, none of
these things are true.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          483 Ninth St., Suite 200
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 254 6808
          Facsimile: (510) 210 0571
          E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com
                  hzavareei@tzlega.com
                  agold@tzlegal.com


ROYAL BANK: Plaintiffs Ordered to Pay Indemnity Costs
-----------------------------------------------------
Shannon Kari, writing for Law Times, reports that the losing side
in litigation must show more than a specific issue has not been
previously adjudicated to be considered "novel" and avoid a costs
award, an Ontario Superior Court judge explained in a recent
class action ruling.

"For an issue to be novel in the legally significant way that
would justify the court in ordering no costs against the party
who unsuccessfully advanced the issue, it is not enough that the
issue is unprecedented or that the issue has not been decided
before," stated Justice Paul Perell in Mancinelli v. Royal Bank
of Canada.

The Superior Court judge ordered the plaintiffs to pay nearly
$100,000 in partial indemnity costs to the Bank of Montreal and
nearly $96,000 in costs to TD Bank.

The costs award followed a decision by Justice Perell where he
declined to add the banks to a $1-billion class action alleging
price fixing by 16 groups of financial institutions, because the
limitations period had passed.

The plaintiffs argued that they did not discover the necessary
evidence to add the banks to the class action until the spring of
2016 and there were novel issues related to discoverability and
the investigation of conspiracy claims.

In attempting to set out a framework to decide if an issue is
novel, Justice Perell outlined criteria for a side to meet if it
is seeking to avoid a costs award.

"The legally significant novelty of a legal issue is found in the
circumstance that the existing case law is inadequate to resolve
the issue and there would be no proper reason for the party
advancing the issue to expect to fail," he wrote.

Submitting that an action is novel because there is no past
ruling directly on point is not sufficient, the judge noted.

"He or she may be met with the argument that although there are
no decided cases, the law is clearly against the case, so the
litigant should reasonably expect to lose and thus the case is
not novel," Justice Perell wrote.

Whether an issue is considered sufficiently novel to avoid a
costs award is still an area where there is a lot of discretion
provided to a judge hearing such a motion, explains Craig
Lockwood -- clockwood@osler.com -- a litigation partner at Osler
Hoskin & Harcourt LLP in Toronto, who practises in the area of
class action defence.

"There is not a strict legal test that has been adopted. Judges
know it when they see it," Mr. Lockwood says.

A section of the provincial Class Proceedings Act states that
judges have discretion in the areas of costs if an action raises
a test case, a novel issue or a matter of public interest.

"I think courts were initially bending over backwards to insulate
plaintiffs from costs awards," says Lockwood, as a result of
access to justice concerns in this area.

"The jurisprudence is more developed now and the trend has
shifted.  A case must be truly novel or the normal costs rules
apply," he says.

The most recent Court of Appeal decision on how to determine if
an action is novel is its 2013 ruling in Smith v. Inco Limited.

"I do not think that there is always a bright line between old or
settled and novel points of law.  Novelty exists on a continuum
and s. 31 (1) of the CPA permits costs awards to be made on a
continuum, from full costs to reduced costs to no costs," wrote
Justice James MacPherson for the three-judge panel.  "The fact
that a claim is grounded in a well-established cause of action
does not remove the possibility that the claim raises a novel
point of law," MacPherson added.

Ultimately, the test to show novelty is still "nebulous," says
Margaret Waddell, a partner at Waddell Phillips in Toronto, who
normally acts for the plaintiff side in class actions and other
civil litigation. She agrees that there is no specific legal
test.

"Costs remain in the discretion of the motion judge or trial
judge," says Ms. Waddell.

She concurs, however, with the principles set out by Justice
Perell in the Mancinelli decision.  "For novelty, the issue is
not just that the court has never dealt with it before. Can you
drop this set of facts through a defined test or are you really
in uncharted territory?" Waddell says.

If, as Justice Perell notes, the existing case law is sufficient
to deal with the specific facts in a case, Waddell says it will
not be considered novel.

The subject matter of a legal action might also impact a judge's
decision on costs.

"If the court is sympathetic to your claim, it is more likely
they will find novelty," says Ms. Waddell.

Costs also might be reduced or not awarded at all if a case is
brought in the public interest.  The Court of Appeal is scheduled
to hear an appeal of another case before Justice Perell, where he
awarded $2.3 million in costs to the defendants and rejected
arguments about novelty and public interest.

Das v. George Weston Limited is a $2-billion class action related
to the collapse of the Rana Plaza in Bangladesh in 2013. More
than 1,000 workers were killed and a subsidiary of Loblaws
purchased clothes from a manufacturer that operated out of the
plaza.

The plaintiffs were funded by the Law Foundation of Ontario's
class proceedings fund.  Justice Perell dismissed the action, in
part because he found the claims were governed by the law of
Bangladesh and the plaintiffs had not disclosed a reasonable
cause of action against the defendants.

"A matter of public interest is something more than a matter that
might interest the public," wrote Justice Perell in his costs
ruling. [GN]


SAVANNAH LAW: Students File Breach of Contract Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Katheryn Tucker, writing for Law.com, reports that within days of
Savannah Law School announcing its closing on March 21, students
filed a putative class action for breach of contract and
negligence, seeking relief including attorney fees and punitive
damages.

"Earlier on March 26, we filed a class action lawsuit on behalf
of the students at Savannah Law School and are actively seeking
justice on their behalf," Stephen Lowry of Harris Lowry Manton
said in a March 23 evening news release.  The plaintiffs firm has
offices in Savannah and Atlanta.

The school's administrators told students on Marcj that they
would be closing at the end of the spring 2018 semester.  They
said the school's building had been sold, and students would
finish the semester at an undisclosed location, according to the
lawsuit and local news reports.

Savannah Law School operates as a branch of Atlanta's John
Marshall Law School.  Administrators told students they would be
offered a one-time $2,000 scholarship to transfer to Atlanta.

"These students attended Savannah Law School in good faith, with
the expectation that they could complete a law degree in Savannah
from an accredited institution," Mr. Lowry said.  "We hope to
help these students secure an adequate recovery in light of this
devastating turn of events."

Savannah Law School Dean Malcolm Morris could not be reached
immediately for comment on the class action, and didn't provide
comment to The Daily Report when first asked about the closure.
The school did release a statement on March 22 citing an
"unforeseen national decline" in legal jobs and the law school
applicant pool.  "The Board's decision was prompted by the
continued small student enrollment at the branch.  As such, it
was the Board's responsibility to acknowledge that a viable
program of legal education could not be sustained at that
location," the school's statement said.

The complaint, filed in Chatham County State Court, named both
Savannah Law School and John Marshall Law School as defendants.
It accuses them of "false and misleading representations and
omissions" about financial stability, the grading curve and
noncompliance with American Bar Association accreditation
standards, as well as denying students the opportunity to take a
full course of legal studies and obtain a J.D. where they
started.

John Marshall is one of 10 law schools nationwide that the ABA
has sanctioned for violating admissions standards.

The students also alleged that their grades were devalued.
"Following the announcement of the closure, students were
notified that any who sought to transfer their credits to another
school would receive a letter informing that school that the
school used a deflated grading curve -- that is, that its grades
are curved to a 2.7 rather than a customary 2.9 or 3.0," the
complaint said.

The students also took issue with the sale of the law school's
nearly 200-year-old building on Drayton Street, the former
Candler Hospital.  "At least one legal news site has reported
'speculat[ion] that Savannah Law was opened in the first place
[by Atlanta's John Marshall] with the goal of using federal
student loans as income to wait out the market before flipping on
a prime piece of real estate,'" the complaint said.

Full-time students at the private, for-profit law school paid
approximately $21,100 per semester, the complaint said. Part-time
students paid $12,660 per semester. [GN]


SEEK CAPITAL: Dirico Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY DIRICO, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. SEEK CAPITAL, LLC, a California
limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. BC698076 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 15, 2018),
seeks to recover, among other things, wages and penalties from
alleged unpaid wages earned and due, unpaid minimum wages, and
unpaid and illegally calculated overtime compensation.

Seek Capital is a limited liability company authorized to do
business in the state of California.  Seek Capital provides
consulting services and funding procurement to small businesses,
and assists them in obtaining financing.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff at
this time.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Genish, Esq.
          BLACKSTONE LAW, APC
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 622-4278
          E-mail: jgenish@blackstonepc.com


SMALL PLANET: "Peacock" Suit Moved to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit titled Brendan Peacock, an individual, on
behalf of himself, the general public and those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Small Planet Foods, Inc., General
Mills, Inc., and Does 1 through 50, the Defendants, Case No.
18895553, was removed from the Superior Court of California
County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (Oakland) on April 6, 2018. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-02105-DMR to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Magistrate Judge
Donna M. Ryu.

Small Planet grows, markets, and distributes organic fruits and
tomatoes.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for Defendants:

          David T. Biderman, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          505 Howard Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 344 7000
          Facsimile: (415) 344 7288
          E-mail: dbiderman@perkinscoie.com


SPECIALTY GRAPHICS: "Bayer" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Bayer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Specialty Graphics, Inc., and Does 1 through 10, Case
No. 8:18-cv-00408 (C.D. Calif., March 14, 2018), is brought
against the Defendants for negligent violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff Tyler Bayer is a resident in Corona Del Mar,
California.

Defendant Specialty Graphics, Inc. is a marketing company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STEINHOFF: Deloitte May Compensate Shareholders in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dewald Van Rensburg, writing for Fin24, reports that auditing
firm Deloitte would be the most likely source of funds to
compensate Steinhoff shareholders in the class action gathering
steam in the Netherlands.

"I think the auditor is possible for funds. Then insurers, then
the banks," said Paul Coenen, in-house attorney of VEB, the Dutch
nonprofit organisation that has launched the class action.

The retail company imploded in December, when it admitted to
shareholders that its financial statements could not be trusted.
This was due to executives allegedly overstating profits and
assets over the course of several years.

Its market capitalisation had been just shy of R200 billion. Now
it is in the region of R13 billion and the company is selling its
good assets to raise cash.

"We are not out to bankrupt Steinhoff," said Mr. Coenen.

"It is important to get the company alive again.  We are building
a pressure . . . It is the only way to force them to come to the
table and try to settle this case.

"The worst thing Steinhoff could wish for is a declaratory
judgment on its liability.

"That would then be the standard for every conversation.  In
order to save the company, they would want to avoid that."

It is impossible to recover the R180 billion that was lost. With
Steinhoff selling good assets just to stay afloat, the question
arises as to how there could be any money for compensation.

"The ideal outcome is adequate compensation," said Mr. Coenen.

"We started with the company.  We will continue later, after the
outcome of the various investigations, to litigate against the
supervisory directors, the auditors and maybe the banks that
accompanied the company at its introduction.  They have pockets,
deep pockets.

"The directors are of course insured. As soon as you litigate
against them, they will turn to the insurance companies.

"There is the ritual dance to find the balance -- which partners
can bear up to what costs and is it, in total, enough to give
adequate compensation for large stakeholders to say okay, let's
get the past behind us?"

What exactly constitutes "adequate" compensation will ultimately
be a negotiated outcome.

VEB likes to compare Steinhoff to Fortis -- the largest previous
settlement for investors in a Dutch class action.

Fortis was a financial services group based in Belgium which, in
2007, merged with Dutch competitor ABN Amro in the biggest bank
deal.  In the 2008 financial crash, Fortis went bust and had to
be bailed out.

VEB participated in the lawsuits that followed, which culminated
in an enormous $1.3 billion (R15.3 billion) settlement years
later, in 2016.

The damage done to shareholders was, however, closer to $6
billion, meaning investors got back about 22c of every dollar
they lost, said Mr. Coenen.

Steinhoff shareholders should definitely expect any settlement to
be in that range, he added.

If shareholders were to recover just 20% of the lost value in
Steinhoff, that would be around R35 billion.

Other cases, like one against oil giant Shell, ended in
settlements for less than 8%. The Shell case VEB got involved in
revolved around misstated oil and gas reserves.

"This claim should be dealt with in maximum two years which, of
course, could be appealed," said Mr. Coenen.

VEB officials were in South Africa to meet Steinhoff
shareholders.

"A lot of them say to us that this is the first time something
like this has hit us. Even though they are institutional
investors, there is a feeling of shock, disbelief and
frustration," Mr. Coenen told City Press.

VEB spokesperson Armand Kersten said even institutional investors
were completely unfamiliar with the Dutch system.

READ: Watchdog starts probe into Deloitte's Steinhoff audits
"The world of Dutch class actions is completely foreign to them."

Dutch company law creates a very simple mechanism for investor
class actions.

VEB does not need to sign up any investors for its case.  It has
legal standing simply because Steinhoff is a Netherlands-
registered company, said Mr. Coenen.

VEB takes a success fee of 9% if there is a settlement. In the
Steinhoff case, that could amount to a significant amount of
money.

VEB staff, however, get no share in it and simply receive their
salaries irrespective of the outcome, said Mr. Kersten.

It is uncertain if Steinhoff executives like Markus Jooste and
directors like Christo Wiese could face personal liability.

Mr. Coenen said VEB would make a call about this once all the
information is on the table.

"In the end it is up to us to decide if the information is enough
to institute a legal claim.

"It won't be necessary to prove fraud.  Directors are also held
to a standard of conduct.

"You cannot hide and say 'I did not know'.  There is a joint
liability.  We could tell them you will either go bankrupt or we
will tell you what to contribute -- it is more symbolical, but it
is good for the markets to see that if you commit fraud there is
a penalty." [GN]


SUNOCO: Faces Class Action Over Pipeline Construction
-----------------------------------------------------
Bill Rettew, writing for Daily Times News, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed by three Chester County neighbors
impacted by sinkholes at the site of Sunoco Mariner East 2
pipeline construction.

Attorney Andrew Neuwirth filed the lawsuit in the Philadelphia
Commons Pleas Court on behalf of Russell and Mary March of Lisa
Drive and Jared Savitski of Chessie Court in West Whiteland.  The
lawyer expects five to six additional residents to soon join the
litigation.

Mr. Neuwirth maintains that Sunoco should have never used
horizontal directional drilling in the area of an established
limestone fault line.

He said the pipeline builder should have instead dug with more a
conventional technique and instead used trench digging.

"The allegation is they were drilling in a negligent manner in an
area they shouldn't have been," Mr. Neuwirth said.

Shipping of highly volatile liquids on the existing 1930s-era
Mariner East 1 pipeline was recently halted after Sunoco filled
in several of up to five sinkholes with concrete.

"They've been told to stop," Mr. Neuwrith said.  "It's too
little, too late.

"The damage is done."

The court complaint reads that drilling has caused destruction
and physical damage to the plaintiffs' properties.

The complaint reads that pipeline construction has caused
cracking in walls, chimneys and driveways and a subsequent
decline in property value.

The plaintiffs are experiencing "anxiety, fear and associated
stress from the potential that the underground pipelines may
explode," reads the complaint.

The complaint also reads that Sunoco "drilled in a negligent
manner and violated state environmental laws."

A Nov. 11 discharge of drilling fluid flooded Lisa Drive
backyards and soon the first sinkhole appeared.

"Sunoco knew or should have known prior to drilling that there
was an underground fissure in the area of the pipeline," reads
the complaint.  "The failure to identify this fissure is a
serious failure . . ."

Sunoco operates "without sufficient geologic study and without
notifying residents in the area of the risk . . . and knowingly,
recklessly and negligently caused the release of the
contaminant," according to the attorney.  "Acts and omissions
were committed in a wanton, reckless and outrageous disregard for
the rights, safety and health of plaintiffs."

The complaint also reads that plaintiffs are experiencing a "loss
of the use of quiet enjoyment of their property and impartment of
the value of their homes."

Mr. Neuwrith expects that the suit will be heard within the next
15-24 months.

Sunoco Pipeline spokeswoman Lisa Dillinger released the following
comment March 26: "I cannot comment on current or pending legal
matters, however, we continue to work with the PUC and all
appropriate agencies to ensure a timely return to service." [GN]


SUPERIOR HOSPITALITY: Williams Seeks to Recover Minimum, OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TANIZIA WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and all those similarly
situated v. SUPERIOR HOSPITALITY STAFFING, INC.; SUPERIOR
HOSPITALITY SYSTEMS, INC.; SUPERIOR HOSPITALITY SYSTEMS
MANAGEMENT, INC.; SUPERIOR HOSPITALITY JANITORIAL SERVICES, INC.
and SHANE MILLIET, Case No. 2:18-cv-02793 (E.D. La., March 15,
2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
overtime wages and liquidated damages owed to the Plaintiff and
the class for not being paid overtime timely, in direct violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and an individual claim for
unpaid final wages under Louisiana's Final Wage Payment Act.

The Corporate Defendants are Louisiana companies and continue to
be engaged in business in Orleans Parish, Louisiana.  Shane
Milliet appears to be the sole manager/member owner of the SHS
Entities.  The Defendants provide staffing services to businesses
throughout Louisiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SYNGENTA: Gray Ritter Attorney Discusses GMO Corn Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
David Bennett, writing for Delta Farm Press, reports that when a
$1.51 billion settlement -- a record amount -- was recently
announced between Syngenta and U.S. corn farmers involved class-
action litigation, questions naturally followed.

What precipitated the settlement
(www.syngentacornlitigation.com)? Who is eligible for payments?
What must they do to collect?

Attorney Don Downing of Gray, Ritter & Graham, P.C. spoke with
Delta Farm Press to provide some answers.  Among his comments:

On the background . . .

"The litigation has been going on for years. Syngenta sold two
(GMO corn) varieties that weren't approved in China.  They were
warned in advance that if they did that, China would stop taking
our corn. Sure enough, that's what happened -- the price of corn
went down and U.S. corn farmers were hurt.  That's the basic
premise of the litigation.

"We litigated this and took depositions all over the world
because Syngenta has operations all over the world.  Millions of
documents were produced and reviewed.

"It went to trial last year in June in Kansas.  Most of the cases
filed by farmers around the country were sent to a federal judge
in Kansas City.  He was the one who organized the litigation in
the federal courts.  There was separate litigation in Minnesota
state court.

"The (federal) judge certified a nationwide class and also a
bunch of state classes of corn farmers.  One of the state classes
he certified was the Kansas class, about 7,300 corn farmers.  The
Kansas class was the first corn trial in the country."

On what Downing and colleagues were seeking . . .

"We asked the jury for $217.7 million in damages -- compensatory
damages that our experts determined Kansas farmers lost -- and
that's what they awarded.  We also asked for punitive damages,
but they didn't award those.

"After the jury came back, the judge basically ordered the
parties to get to the settlement table after both sides had had a
chance to see how a jury would react to the evidence.

"Since then, there's been a lot negotiation."  In mid-March, "we
were finally able to advise the court in a formal way that we'd
reached a settlement agreement with Syngenta on behalf of not
only the corn farmers in the country but ethanol plants and
grain-handling facilities, as well.  That's the $1.51 billion
settlement.

"Because it's a nationwide class settlement, the judge still has
to approve.  So, on March 25 we submitted the settlement
formally, asked the judge to preliminarily approve it and gave
him reasons why he should."

On what happens next . . .

"Next, if he does preliminarily approve it, notices will be
mailed to 600,000 corn farmers across the country, ethanol
plants, grain-handling facilities.  There will be a lot of
advertising about the settlement, social media, just trying to
get the word out to everybody.  This is one thing (Delta Farm
Press) can be helpful to farmers on.

"The key thing farmers need to know about the settlement is they
need to file a claim form in order to get money.  The form is
very short and easy to fill out.  Basically, they're authorizing
the FSA to release what's known as a FSA-578 form to the claims
administrator so they can calculate every farmer's damages.

"If there's preliminary approval by the judge, the notices will
go out.  If any corn farmer doesn't want a part of the settlement
they can opt out.  They can bring their own lawsuit if they
choose.  Or, if anyone doesn't like the settlement, they have a
right to object -- 'we don't like the settlement, we don't think
it's fair.'

"Then, there will be a period of time, six months, for farmers
who want to file claim forms to be part of the settlement.  After
that happens, the judge will consider any objections to the
settlement by anyone and make a final decision on approval.  If
anyone still objects, they can appeal it to the Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals, another federal appellate court.

"Long story short, we don't expect any money to be going out to
farmers until sometime in the first half of 2019.  That's because
of the extended process required under federal rules and law."

What's the window for farmers to file notice?

"From the date the notices go out -- and we expect that to happen
sometime in April -- farmers will have 150 days to get their
claim forms in.  That's plenty of time.

"But corn farmers, when they get these in the mail, they
shouldn't throw them in the trash can.  They need to open them,
read them, print out a claim form.  For those who use computers,
they can also submit a form online."

What's the time frame for when damages occurred?

"The price was affected, according to our experts, began with the
2013-14 marketing year and continued for five years.  So, from
the 2013-14 through 2017-18 marketing years." [GN]


TEXAS: Class Action Over Foster Care System Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
Allie Morris, writing for San Antonio-Express News, reports that
Alyssa Murphy doesn't remember much of her childhood in the Texas
foster care system, having been "zombified" by strong
prescription drugs.

But there's one event she can't forget.  When she was 10, Alyssa
was told she wouldn't be going back to the Dallas-area foster
home where she lived with her little sister.

In the two-story brick house at the end of a quiet cul-de-sac,
the girls had watched movies together, played soccer on the green
lawn and, sometimes at night, fallen asleep in the same bed.

Alyssa knew that her foster parents were frightened by her
sleepwalking and fits of anger. But, after two years, she was
finally settling in and had started calling the couple Mom and
Dad.

It was a shock, then, when a social worker told Alyssa she
wouldn't be staying.  The couple were adopting her sister, but
not her.

That separation began an eight-year spiral through more than a
dozen foster placements, until Alyssa turned 18 and aged out of
the system.

"Ever since, I have belittled myself.  I have felt like nothing,
or air or scum on somebody's shoe," she said.

Now 20, Alyssa is one of roughly a dozen anonymous plaintiffs in
an ongoing class-action lawsuit against the Texas foster care
system.  She is speaking publicly for the first time in the hope
her story will prevent children from suffering as she did.

The details of Alyssa's experience showcase allegations made in
the suit: that children are placed far from their home
communities, separated from siblings, bounced between multiple
placements, overmedicated and unable to make meaningful
relationships with caseworkers or other adults tasked with
protecting them.

Though filed seven years ago, the case is scheduled to be argued
before a federal court of appeals.

The Department of Family and Child Services declined to comment
on the specifics of Alyssa's experience, saying it can't speak on
individual, confidential cases.  But a spokesman said evidence
used in the suit predates improvements the agency has been
making, which include efforts to eliminate the overutilization of
psychotropic medications.

"Also, we didn't dispute the plaintiffs' stories -- their
veracity or tragedy -- but we did dispute whether they were
typical of and common to the 12,000 children in the state's
permanent custody at the time of the trial," the agency said in a
written statement.

Early lessons

By age 6, Alyssa considered herself a grown-up.  She made bottles
for her younger siblings and changed their diapers.  She hardly
knew her father, a death-row inmate who was convicted of
murdering a 79-year-old woman before Alyssa turned 3.

The family caught the attention of Child Protective Services
after Alyssa called 911 when a fight broke out at her mother's
house.

Alyssa doesn't want to reveal details about this part of her
life.  But she does remember jumping out of the car as a
caseworker drove her away from her East Texas home.

"I was not wanting to be taken," she said.  "I knew what was
going to happen to me.  I knew it was not going to be a good
thing."

In one of the first foster homes, Alyssa said she reported being
forced to drink vinegar as punishment and that her 2-year-old
sister wasn't given enough to eat.

According to court documents, Alyssa's caseworker was worried
that the foster parents didn't adapt their child-raising
techniques to fit Alyssa's needs and forced the 8-year-old to run
laps in the backyard.  Still, Alyssa and her sister lived there
for more than a year, before they were relocated to a foster home
in McKinney. The state investigated the allegations, but ruled
out abuse, according to court documents.

From that experience, Alyssa said she learned an early lesson.

"Your words don't matter," she said.  "From the beginning, I
started screaming and nobody listened."

At the next foster home, in McKinney, 30 miles north of Dallas,
Alyssa began to settle in with the foster parents she called Mom
and Dad.  Her foster mother, a drama teacher, let Alyssa help
build stage sets at school.  She impressed teachers with her
ambidexterity. But some things, such as not being allowed to go
rollerblading outside, could set off Alyssa's anger.  Once she
kicked a dent in her bedroom wall; another time, she hit a
teacher.

Over the nearly two years that the girls lived there, the foster
parents began planning to adopt Alyssa's younger sister.  A court
approved a separation of the siblings, and the couple legally
changed the little girl's name, according to court documents.

The split sent Alyssa into a tailspin.

"They rip her from me and tell me she is getting adopted and not
me because I am not wanted," she remembers.

It hurts to care

Alyssa ended up 300 miles away, in a residential treatment center
outside San Antonio, where she lived with dozens of other foster
children in dormlike facilities with shared bathrooms and a
school on site.  Over the three years there, her caseworker
changed four times, according to court documents.

In the mornings, a staffer apologized before giving Alyssa a
cocktail of psychotropic drugs, which at first gave her tremors
and later made her drowsy and out of it, she said.

Eventually, Alyssa made a best friend.  The teenage girl, who
wore baggy shorts and listened to punk music, was bullied the day
she arrived for having a big nose and overbite.  Alyssa said she
beat up the tormentors, and the two shot hoops at the basketball
court until lights out.

"She was the only person who ever listened," she said.  "She
always understood everything."

But, soon after that, Alyssa was moved into a foster home.  She
said she got only one day's notice to pack and say her goodbyes.
As she sat in the passenger seat of her caseworker's car sobbing,
she vowed to make no more attachments and to run away at 17.

Over the next years, Alyssa bounced between several more
placements, including a six-week stint in a psychiatric hospital
because CPS couldn't find a spot in which to put her, according
to court records.  Her great-grandmother Ruby, the one constant
in her life, often had to drive a full day from her home in East
Texas to spend a couple of hours with Alyssa in the lobby.

"At Christmas, after Alyssa opened the gifts she couldn't take
them to her room. We had to give them to the people in the office
to inspect them. I never knew when they gave them back to her,"
she said.

In each new location, Alyssa said, she put on her worst behavior
to try to get kicked out and keep moving.  When staff put her in
restraints, she considered fighting against them a "workout."
She figured that by the time she turned 17, no place in Texas
would want her.

In place of friends, Alyssa read books. In each series -- from
Harry Potter to the Iron Fey -- she imagined herself as the main
character.

"The only way to keep seeing, is to move, I thought.  Books,
moving, acting up," she said.  "That was the only thing I could
do. I was going insane."

'I was a great kid'

By the time she turned 17, Alyssa was charged with assaulting a
staffer at a residential treatment center outside Houston, and
she served jail time.  Then, as Alyssa had planned, she ran away
from foster care and made her way back to East Texas, where she
now lives with a family friend.  She's trying to get a GED and
become a pediatric nurse but is still working to get
transportation to school, she said.

Alyssa is in touch with her little sister, who now lives in Great
Britain.  Alyssa doesn't worry about the 14-year-old because she
knows her sister's adoptive parents are good people.

But she's still mad about how, she said, foster care messed up
her life, and at times she blames herself, questioning why she
fought so many years.  If she hadn't, would she have been
adopted?

"It's so stupid," she said.  "I used to be great, I was a great
kid. I had stuff going for me."

Alyssa does remember another day, the day Jennifer Talley showed
up in the lobby of her residential treatment center.  The
pediatric social worker knew Ruby and wanted to talk about a
lawsuit.  Did Alyssa want to join? The case wouldn't help her
situation, but it might improve the lives of the kids to come,
Talley explained.

Alyssa agreed.

"Every kid they are abusing is our future.  What do you want, a
messed-up world with a bunch of effed-up kids who don't know what
living even is?" she said.  "I never want anybody to feel that
way.  If I can stop kids from possibly feeling that way, then I
am going to do it." [GN]


TIGER BRANDS: Woman Who Lost Baby to Listeriosis Joins Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kwazulu-Natal, writing for IOL, reports that a Durban woman who
lost her first baby to listeriosis says she is still struggling
to come to terms with her daughter's death.

26-year-old Lisa Moodley* found she was pregnant in May last year
and, although surprised, was elated.

Ms. Moodley craved cold meats and very dry foods during her
pregnancy.  "I consumed a lot of hot dogs, cheese and polony
toasted sandwiches.  I would chop the viennas or polony and have
it with sauce, or on a home-made pizza.

"And it was always a brand that we would buy in our grocery list
because those were easy lunch meals," she said.

She gave birth by emergency Caesarean section in November, but
her baby died after just a few days.

Ms. Moodley is one of the claimants in the class action lawsuit
being brought against Tiger Brands on behalf of the families of
the more than 180 people who died, as well as survivors.

The action is being led by attorney Richard Spoor, who has
partnered with US firm Marler Clark and will engage the services
of other experts in the field.

The source of the outbreak was traced to Tiger Brands' Enterprise
factory in Polokwane.

This and their Germiston factory were closed down, and their
products recalled.

Earlier in March, Tiger Brands chief executive Lawrence
MacDougall said there was no direct link between the deaths and
their products.

Ms. Moodley said she had joined the class action because she
wanted her daughter's death to mean something.

"I want awareness to be raised about this crisis of such
magnitude for all families. I lost birthdays, moments we could
have had, a first tooth, walking, riding a bike, school

"If her story can help, then I will do it, because those families
deserve justice and I would have wanted someone to tell me what
to look out for when I was pregnant.  Sadly, I did not fathom how
it could have been the one thing we live on -- food."

She first noticed something was wrong when her baby's movements
waned. Her concerns were allayed by her gynaecologist, but two
days later she started shivering vigorously.  She had a
temperature and was sweating, but was also cold.

Again this was brushed off, this time as Braxton Hicks
contractions.  However, as her symptoms intensified, she was
rushed to hospital.  "They examined me and realised I was
definitely in preterm labour.

"When attempts to stop the delivery failed and the baby's heart
rate dropped, it was decided that she would undergo an emergency
Caesarean section.

"As they reeled me into theatre, I had been in such pain and I
was so scared, all I kept thinking was that my fiance wasn't
there, my parents were not there and I was all alone, but I need
to be strong for her.

"I kept thinking that I needed to suck it up and be brave because
I was about to meet our little princess.

"I felt nothing, everything around me was spinning and I just
kept asking everyone in the room, is everything okay? Is she
okay? I didn't hear her cry like I'd expected her to, they didn't
bring her to me like I'd pictured.  I was just numb, and slowly
blacking out."

When she came to, she was told her baby was in ICU and breathing
through a tube.

"She was perfect, she had thick, black hair, rosy cheeks, red
lips and weighed 1.9kg.  She looked just like her dad.  More like
an angel."

Later she learned that her baby had an infection that needed such
strong medication there was a chance it would cause brain damage.

However, the baby's condition deteriorated until she was brain-
dead and on life support.

"My fiance and I had to make the worst decision of our lives, of
whether to take her off life support.  At that point I felt that
I had failed her; I couldn't do anything to protect her." She was
told her baby had had listeriosis. [GN]

* Not her real name


TIGER BRANDS: Affidavits of 100 Listeriosis Victims Completed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chisom Jenniffer Okoye, writing for Citizen, reports that the
affidavits of about 100 victims have been completed and once the
court approves the application, all other victims will be invited
to join.

The Richard Spoor Attorneys' list of victims has now reached
about 100 people, as the law firm scrambles to submit a full
application to court for their class action suit against Tiger
Brands for damages relating to their listeria-contaminated
products.

Richard Spoor, activist and human rights attorney, said: "We have
been working like dogs for the past 10 days, trying to get the
(documents) completed, but most of the affidavits are done, and
we hope to finish very soon."

According to Mr. Spoor, while the class action has drawn
approximately 100 victims to the case, they have selected about
10 victims from these, who have agreed to be representatives in
court.

"It has been very challenging, even for experienced, capable
lawyers like myself, because a lot of work needs to be done,"
said Spoor, adding that his team is working hard and doing their
best to make sure the job is done to the best of their ability.

The application includes the affidavits of the victims, expert
witnesses, a document to explain the historical background of the
case, and more.

"It is a complex document to which I will have to sign off before
it goes to the court," Mr. Spoor told The Citizen.

Once the application has been approved by the court, the firm
will have to go through a discovery procedure, to gain the
attention and participation of other victims of the listeriosis
outbreak.

This could mean eliciting the help of the National Institute for
Communicable Diseases (NICD), or calling for more media publicity
to locate victims and families who are seeking justice.

Spoor said he cannot provide an estimation of what the payout of
the case could be, as it would be unfair to place a value on a
case that has not been through the courts yet.

He said the case is similar to the Life Esidimeni case, where
families of the dead victims are to be paid R1 million each,
because very few of the victims were financial contributors to
their families, since the majority of them were children and the
elderly.

Therefore, the constitutional payout may be just as high as the
Life Esidimeni case, depending on the way the case is dealt with
in court. [GN]


TOKYO ELECTRIC: "Bartel" Suit Alleges Gross Negligence
------------------------------------------------------
Dustin Bartel et al., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Tokyo Electric Power Company, Inc. and
General Electric Company, Case No. 3:18-cv-00537 (S.D. Calif.,
March 14, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for negligence
and gross negligence.

The complaint says on or around March 11, 2011, due to
Defendants' longstanding gross negligence, the boiling water
reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant melted
down. The Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant was and is owned by
Defendant Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings and the reactors
in question were designed and built by Defendant General
Electric. As a result of the meltdown, significant amounts of
radiation were released into the surrounding environment. In
subsequent investigations, including one conducted by the
Japanese Government, TEPCO was found to have been grossly
negligent.

Due to the radiation exposure that Plaintiffs experienced as a
result of Defendants' negligence and gross negligence, Plaintiffs
have experienced severe physical and mental injury, including
cancers, thyroid conditions and, in some cases, death.

Plaintiffs were all members of the United States Armed Forces,
primarily the Navy, who were sent to Japan in or around March
2011 to provide humanitarian aid to the people of Japan following
the earthquake and tsunami that devastated the country.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Charles A. Bonner, Esq.
      A. Cabral Bonner, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BONNER & BONNER
      475 Gate Five Road, Suite 212
      Sausalito, CA 94965
      Tel: (415) 331-3070
      Fax: (415) 331-2738
      E-mail: cbonner799@aol.com
              cabral@bonnerlaw.com


TRANSGLOBAL SERVICES: Certification of Workers Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOSH BRADBURY; SHELDON SIDES; TRACY
EVERETT; JEREMY BERRY, CYNTHIA BROADWAY; JOSH BROADWAY;
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. TRANSGLOBAL SERVICES, LLC; JEFFERY COLWELL; and
JOHN RATLIFF, the Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-00036-DC (W.D.
Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to conditionally certify the
case as a collective action on behalf of:

   "all current and former workers classified as independent
   contractors and paid on an hourly basis by Transglobal at any
   time within the three-year period immediately preceding entry
   of the order granting conditional certification."

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to approve the notice and
consent forms proposed by Plaintiff, order Defendants to provide
the names and contact information of all Potential Plaintiffs,
and authorize Plaintiff's counsel to send all Potential
Plaintiffs the notice and consent forms.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xL3Std9K

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Seelbach Sues Over Damaged Eggs and Sperms
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLEE SEELBACH AND CHARLES SEELBACH v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS
AHUJA MEDICAL CENTER, INC. and UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS HEALTH
SYSTEM, INC. and UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS CLEVELAND MEDICAL CENTER,
Case No. CV 18 894628 (Ohio Comm. Pleas, Cuyahoga Cty., March 15,
2018), is a class action brought on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, who allegedly suffered damage to their
eggs, embryos and sperm as a result of the temperature increase
in the liquid nitrogen storage tank at the UH Fertility Center.

Since approximately August 2011, the Plaintiffs are and have been
long-standing In Vitro Fertilization ("IVF") patients of
University Hospitals, the Plaintiffs state.  They say that they
received and paid for various diagnosis, treatment and fertility-
related consultative services at University Hospitals.  On March
3-4, 2018, the Plaintiffs' frozen embryos were damaged when the
temperature rose in the liquid nitrogen storage tank at the UH
Fertility Center.  The Plaintiffs contend that the nature of the
property damaged is such that it is irreplaceable.

University Hospitals Ahuja Medical Center, Inc.; University
Hospitals Health System, Inc.; and University Hospitals Cleveland
Medical Center, Inc., are Ohio corporations with their principal
place of business in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.  University Hospitals
Health System, Inc. and University Hospitals Cleveland Medical
Center, Inc., are the owner and operator of University Hospitals
Ahuja Medical Center, Inc.

University Hospitals Ahuja Medical Center, Inc. Fertility Center
features "an in-vitro fertilization program with IVF and
andrology laboratories that feature the most advanced technology
available, and fertility experts with nearly 100 years of
combined experience."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Shroge, Esq.
          PLEVIN & GALLUCCI, LPA
          55 Public Square, Suite 2222
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 861-0804
          Facsimile: (216) 861-5322
          E-mail: mshroge@pglawyer.com


UNITED STATES: ACLU Files Class Action to Stop Family Separation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nomaan Merchant, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
the American Civil Liberties Union filed a class-action lawsuit
accusing the U.S. government of broadly separating immigrant
families seeking asylum.

The lawsuit follows action the ACLU took in the case of a
Congolese woman and her 7-year-old daughter, who the group said
was taken from her mother "screaming and crying" and placed in a
Chicago facility.  While the woman was released from a San Diego
detention center, the girl remains in the facility 2,000 miles
(3,200 kilometers) away.

Immigrant advocates say the mother and daughter's case is
emblematic of the approach taken by President Donald Trump's
administration.  The lawsuit, filed in federal district court in
San Diego, asks a judge to declare family separation unlawful and
says hundreds of families have been split by immigration
authorities.

The lawsuit also raises the case of a Brazilian woman who the
ACLU says was separated from her 14-year-old son after they
sought asylum in August.  The ACLU says the woman was given a
roughly 25-day sentence jail sentence for illegally entering the
country and then placed in immigration detention facilities in
West Texas, while her son was taken to a Chicago facility.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has not announced a
formal policy to hold adult asylum seekers separately from their
children.  But administration officials have said they are
considering separating parents and children to deter others from
trying to enter the U.S.

The department declined to comment on the lawsuit.  DHS acting
press secretary Tyler Houlton, in an earlier statement on the
case of the Congolese woman and her daughter, said government
officials have to verify that children entering the U.S. are not
victims of traffickers and that the adult accompanying them is
actually their parent.

In separate court papers, the U.S. government said it is awaiting
the results of DNA testing to confirm the woman is the girl's
mother.

"We ask that members of the public and media view advocacy group
claims that we are separating women and children for reasons
other than to protect the child with the level of skepticism they
deserve," Mr. Houlton said.

It's hard to determine how often parents and children are placed
in separate facilities after they seek asylum, which is granted
to people who have a credible fear of persecution if they are
forced to return to their home country.

Different government agencies are responsible for holding adults
and children. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detains
adults accused of immigration violations, while the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services cares for unaccompanied
immigrant children.

Immigration advocates criticized President Barack Obama's
administration for opening new family detention facilities in
Texas and called for parents and children to be released. The two
Texas facilities that it opened were found by a federal judge in
2015 to violate a long-standing 1997 settlement requiring
children be released or otherwise held in the "least restrictive
setting" available.

That settlement set other standards for the detention of
children.  The Trump administration has called for ending the
settlement as part of its demands for changes to immigration
laws.

Top administration officials have said they believe the asylum
process is overwhelmed and challenged by people making frivolous
claims.  Advocates have also accused border agents of unlawfully
turning away people who are seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico
border.

Michelle Brane, director of the migrant rights and justice
program for the Women's Refugee Commission, said that through
attorneys and social service organizations, she had identified at
least 426 immigrant adults and children who had been separated by
authorities since President Donald Trump took office in January
2017.  Ms. Brane said she did not have a comparable figure for
Obama's administration.

But Ms. Brane said since the new administration began, her office
has received far more reports of adults being held in ICE
facilities without knowing where their children are.

"A lot of these kids are already afraid because they're fleeing
something and they know they're fleeing something," Ms. Brane
said.  "And to have them pulled away, that can be devastating for
a parent." [GN]


UNITED STATES: High Court Refuses to Review Settlement Challenges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle, writing for Law.com, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court on March 26 declined to review two separate challenges to a
$380 million fund that is designated for third parties in a
larger class action settlement between the federal government and
Native American farmers and ranchers.

The $380 million fund is to be distributed to nonprofit groups
that work with Native American farmers.  The funds were part of a
bigger $680 million settlement that the U.S. government reached
in 2011 with the plaintiffs in the case in Washington's federal
trial court.  The farmers and ranchers had sued the U.S.
Department of Agriculture for alleged discrimination in its loan
programs from 1981 through 1999.

Joseph Sellers -- jsellers@cohenmilstein.com -- of Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll, counsel to the class in the underlying case, also
had asked the Supreme Court to deny review. [GN]


UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: Faces "Gola" Wage & Hour Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
KELLY GOLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a California
Corporation, Case No. CGC-18-565018 (Cal. Super. Ct. San
Francisco Cty., March 15, 2018), alleges violations of
California's wage and hour laws and unfair competition laws.

Ms. Gola brings the action on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated individuals currently and formerly employed as
part-time adjunct instructors or in a similar capacity by
University of San Francisco in the state of California.

USF is a private not-for-profit Jesuit Catholic university.  USF
offers more than 230 undergraduate, graduate, and professional
programs at its main campus in San Francisco, as well as programs
at its seven branch campuses throughout California.  USF employs
numerous Class Members to teach its courses at each campus
location.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julian Hammond, Esq.
          Polina Pecherskaya, Esq.
          Ari Cherniak, Esq.
          HAMMOND LAW, P.C.
          1829 Reisterstown Rd., Suite 410
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (310) 601-6766
          Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
          E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
                  ppecherskaya@hammondlawpc.com
                  achemiak@hammondlaw.com


UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Future of Fertility Clinic Suits Discussed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adrienne Dipiazza, writing for Fox8 Cleveland, reports that more
than 30 attorneys were in a Cuyahoga County courtroom on March 26
for a preliminary meeting about how the court will handle the
dozens of lawsuits filed against University Hospitals.

Families are suing the hospital after a malfunction in the
fertility center's storage tank, where more than 2,000 eggs and
embryos were kept, left many of them unviable.  For some of the
600 or so couples impacted, the eggs and embryos stored there
were their last chance at having biological children.

There are several class actions lawsuits and individual lawsuits
currently filed against University Hospitals.  Attorneys told
FOX8 there are still new cases being filed.

The major question before the court is whether the cases will be
handled as class action lawsuit, if they will each get their own
trial or some combination of the two.

"There's groups that want to be class action and there's a whole
process for that.  Our position for that is that people who have
no interest in class action, they want to get justice now. They
want to move forward.  They want to do discovery. They want to
get to trial," said attorney Tom Merriman.

"In one case, our clients feel that a class treatment is the best
and most appropriate way to proceed and that's how they wanted to
go, and the other our clients were more interested in filing and
individual action so we did that," explained Eric Zagrans, an
attorney representing two different families.

Cuyahoga County Judge Stuart Friedman told attorneys he intends
to make a ruling in conjunction with other judges involved on
whether the cases should be consolidated.

Judge Friedman said there has been at least one opposition to
consolidation filed.

University Hospitals released a statement regarding the matter on
March 26:

"Though our policy is not to comment on pending litigation, we
can confirm we have filed a motion to consolidate the cases
presently before the court.  This motion is a continuation of our
efforts to quickly find the best resolution for our patients that
will allow families to move forward with their futures.  Our
patients' collective interests are paramount as is the need for
factual and accurate information as we progress through this
process."

Attorneys and families are also waiting for the hospital's
internal investigation to be completed.

"The lawyers for UH tell us that they are conducting an internal
investigation of exactly what happened on the weekend of March 3,
4 so we are waiting for the results of that investigation before
we use that as the spring board for any additional information we
might need," Mr. Zagrans said.

But many families are eager to find resolution as soon as
possible.

"The tough thing is we have a lot of people who are on the clock.
They are in these programs because they want to make a family
time is running out.  They need to get back and get the
treatments.  Fortunately, they can do that, there's ways to do
that, but people need information on whether they can trust the
process at UH," Mr. Merriman said.

University Hospitals has offered counseling, fertility treatments
and storage to those impacted at no cost. [GN]


UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Judge Friedman Intends to Rule on Motions
---------------------------------------------------------------
James F. McCarty, writing for The Plain Dealer, reports that
nearly 30 lawyers and judges squeezed into a crowded courtroom on
March 26 to address 18 lawsuits filed against University
Hospitals' fertility clinic after an incident in a freezer March
3-4 impacted the viability of their stored eggs and embryos.

The legal process promises to be complicated due to the volume of
cases and disputes over whether to consolidate the cases, whether
a class action is warranted, and which judge should preside over
the cases.

For now, Judge Stuart Friedman is in charge.  But he was planning
to retire at the end of the year from the Cuyahoga County Common
Pleas Court.  He has already volunteered to remain into 2019 and
retain jurisdiction over the cases if Ohio's chief justice,
Maureen O'Connor, agrees to allow him to do so.

Judge Friedman closed the hearing to the media in an effort to
avoid stifling a more open discussion and spoke privately with
the lawyers for about a half-hour.  He made no rulings.

"This obviously is a matter of great public interest," Judge
Friedman said.  "It already has attracted the national media, and
any decision will attract more media attention."

Judge Friedman said he intends to rule on the various motions to
consolidate the cases before deciding whether to remain as the
lead judge or to defer to a different judge.

After that, the next step would be to decide whether the cases
deserve class action status, "an issue that probably will be
hotly contested," Judge Friedman said.  "I intend to make a
ruling expeditiously if I am called upon to do so."

In the meantime, Judge Dick Ambrose has given UH doctors and
employees permission to communicate with patients for medical
consultation, and to offer in vitro fertilization-related medical
care at no cost.

UH also has offered to refund storage fees and to waive storage
fees in the future for up to seven years. [GN]


UTC FIRE: Not Vicariously Liable for Retailers' TCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey H. Fisher, Esq. -- jfisher@kilpatricktownsend.com -- of
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, in an article for Lexology,
wrote that a recent Fourth Circuit decision finding that UTC and
Honeywell, manufacturers of home-security systems, could not be
held vicariously liable for calls by downstream retailers in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"),
shows that manufacturers can avoid TCPA liability by implementing
common sense safeguards.  The Fourth Circuit rejected the class
plaintiffs' attempt to pin TCPA liability on UTC and Honeywell
simply because companies licensed to use their trademarks and
sell their products violated the TCPA.

In Hodgin v. UTC Fire & Sec. Americas Corp., No. 17-1222, 2018 WL
1308605, at *1 (4th Cir. Mar. 14, 2018), the Fourth Circuit
upheld the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc. ("UTC") and
Honeywell International, Inc. ("Honeywell") on claims that UTC
and Honeywell were vicariously liable for TCPA violations
committed by telemarketers selling their home-security products.
The court agreed there was no evidence that either UTC or
Honeywell had ratified the illegal telemarketing practices --
either by failing to object or retaining the financial benefits
of the allegedly illegal call campaigns.

Hodgin was one of seven class action lawsuits consolidated by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in the Northern
District of West Virginia, and which alleged that home-security
retailers violated the TCPA by making illegal telemarketing
calls.  The class plaintiffs further alleged that UTC and
Honeywell, manufacturers of the home-security systems, should be
held vicariously liable for calls made by Versatile Marketing
Solutions, Inc. ("VMS") and ISI Alarms NC, Inc. ("ISI"),
retailers that (respectively) purchased UTC and Honeywell
manufactured home-security systems from third-party distributors
and engaged in illegal telemarketing to sell the systems to
consumers.  VMS and ISI had both entered into agreements with the
manufacturers that permitted the retailers to use UTC/Honeywell's
trademarks and logos, but also required the retailers to comply
with applicable telemarketing laws and also barred the retailers
from holding themselves out as agents or employees of
UTC/Honeywell.

Both UTC and Honeywell had received notice that the retailers had
engaged in illegal telemarketing practices, including multiple
complaints from individual consumers.  Both manufacturers
followed-up with the retailers, eventually terminating their
relationships with them.  For example, whenever UTC received a
complaint, it would investigate the complaint, inform VMS of the
grievance, and remind VMS that it was contractually obligated to
comply with applicable telemarketing laws.  When UTC continued to
receive complaints after repeated warnings, it terminated its
relationship with VMS.

The district court had found that UTC/Honeywell could not be held
liable on any of the three agency (vicarious liability) theories:
(1) actual authority, (2) apparent authority, or (3)
ratification.  On appeal, the plaintiffs pursued only one theory,
arguing that a material issue of fact existed as to their
ratification theory.  In particular, plaintiffs argued that
UTC/Honeywell had ratified the retailers' TCPA violations by
failing to repudiate their telemarketing practices after
receiving notice, and by accepting the financial benefits of the
illegal telemarketing.

The Fourth Circuit ruled that the ratification theory was not
supported by the evidence.  First, the court observed that the
manufacturers' follow-up efforts -- including investigating the
complaints, reminding the retailers of their legal obligations,
and eventually terminating the retailer agreements -- were
sufficient to show repudiation.  Second, the court found that the
mere fact that UTC/Honeywell had financially benefitted (by
selling home-security products to the telemarketers) was
insufficient to establish ratification.  Plaintiffs had failed to
offer specific evidence that the illegal telemarketing scheme had
increased sales of the home-security products.  This ruling
appears to limit the oftentimes amorphous concept of
ratification. The Fourth Circuit thus affirmed the district
court's grant of summary judgment on the vicarious liability
claims.

Practice Pointer: Hodgin is good news for upstream manufacturers
and distributors concerned about TCPA liability arising from the
conduct of loosely-affiliated third-party dealers, retailers,
resellers, and marketers, over whom they typically have little
control. Hodgin shows that, so long as manufacturers and
distributors (1) include contractual provisions that make clear
downstream sellers must abide by the TCPA; (2) take reasonable
steps to investigate and address any complaints about TCPA
violations; and (3) terminate a relationship if complaints are
not addressed, they should be able to avoid TCPA liability.
[GN]


VITAS HEALTHCARE: "Williams" Suit Moved to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit captioned JAZZINA WILLIAMS, individually
and on behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
VITAS HEALTHCARE CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA, a Delaware
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, the Defendant, Case No.: CGC-
18-564850, was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on April 6, 2018. The
Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-02096-KAW
to the proceeding.

Vitas Healthcare provides end-of-life care to patients who are
terminally ill. The company provides nurses and other specialized
and qualified staff at the patients home.[BN]

Attorneys for Defendant:

          John F. Baum, Esq.
          China Westfall, Esq.
          HIRSCHFELD KRAEMER LLP
          505 Montgomery Street 13th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 835 9000
          Facsimile: (415) 834 0443
          E-mail: jbaum@hkemploymentlaw.com
                  cwestfall@hkemploymentlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Law Firm Invites Consumers to Join Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Rogers, writing for City A.M., reports that the law
firm acting for around 10,000 Volkswagen (VW) customers whose
cars were fitted with defeat diesel devices has urged more
claimants to join what could be the largest-ever class action.

Your Lawyers is currently acting for around 10,000 VW consumers
who are suing the car maker over its role in the 2015 emissions
scandal, in which devices designed to cheat emissions tests were
installed in certain models to artificially lower levels of
nitrogen dioxide.

Nearly 45,000 motorists teamed up in a class action lawsuit at
the end of last year, with Slater and Gordon also representing a
bulk of the claimants.

On March 27, the firm was set to apply for a group litigation
order, which permits claims to be managed collectively, meaning
that more claimants could join the action against VW.  Your
Lawyers estimates that there are 1.2 million potential claimants
in the UK, none of whom have yet received compensation.

The deadline for claims is likely to be in November 2018 for
anyone who bought or leased a diesel vehicle manufactured by the
VW group, including VW, Audi, SEAT or Skoda, between 2009 and
2015.

The emissions scandal erupted in 2015 when it was discovered that
cars manufactured by VW had been equipped with software to evade
tests, with around 1.2m cars in the UK affected, and 11m
worldwide.  Some of the affected vehicles in the US have been
found to produce 40 times more NOx than permitted.

Aman Johal, the lawyer acting for the claimants, is seeking to be
appointed as lead solicitor in the pending class action.  He
said: "It is time that victims of Volkswagen's emissions scandal
achieve justice and that their voices are heard. Millions of
people have been subject to harmful emissions, and consumers have
lost money as a result of the scandal.

"We are working hard to seek damages for claimants in the UK who
are yet to receive anything, unlike their US counterparts, where
Volkswagen agreed a $25bn (GBP15.4bn) settlement with owners,
regulators, states and dealers.

"Once we have an agreed deadline, we urge claimants to stand up
and put forward their cases to finally get the recognition and
compensation they deserve."

A spokesperson for VW said: "Our consistent position has been
that the instigation of UK legal proceedings was both premature
and unfounded, and that we will robustly defend any such
litigation. There is no legal basis for customer claims in
connection with the diesel matter.

"We intend to defend these claims robustly and are confident of a
successful outcome.  It has not been established that the
relevant software is an illegal defeat device.  We have made it
clear that we do not anticipate that our UK customers have
suffered any loss or financial detriment as a result of the NOx
issue.  In particular, we note that an adverse financial impact
on the residual value of affected vehicles as a result of the NOx
issue has not been identified." [GN]


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Poised for Ruling on Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Nimmo, writing for This Is Money, reports that legal action
against Volkswagen could be triggered with claims relating to the
car emissions scandal that could run into billions of pounds.

A three-day hearing at the High Court in London starts on March
27 to decide whether to approve a group litigation application by
two law firms.

That could pave the way for a class action against the German
giant which would be the biggest in UK history.

The 'dieselgate' emissions scandal erupted in 2015 when it
emerged that the company had fitted software in its diesel
vehicles to cheat nitrogen oxide (NOx) tests, making the levels
appear lower than they actually were.

Around 1.2million Britons were sold diesel cars under the
Volkswagen, Audi, Seat and Skoda brands between 2008 and 2015. So
far, around 60,000 have signed up to the group litigation order.

But that number could rise before the deadline for claims, which
is expected to be set by the High Court.

Those affected will be able to claim up to 100 per cent of the
purchase price of the vehicle depending on how they have been
affected, lawyers claim.

VW admitted guilt in the US and has paid out around $25billion
(ú18billion) in claims and fines there. However, it has insisted
it broke no laws in Europe and is resisting compensation claims.

The High Court hearing will also decide to appoint Your Lawyers
or Slater & Gordon as lead lawyers.

Your Lawyers has partnered with American firm Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, which led the case in the US. Aman Johal,
director of Your Lawyers, said it would be 'the biggest consumer
action England and Wales has ever seen.'

He added: 'Misleading customers is very serious so that's why we
say we would be seeking up to 100 per cent of the purchase price
of the vehicle.'

Your Lawyers, which has signed up around 10,000 claimants so far,
said some of its clients had complained that their car's
performance dropped after updates were installed to 'fix' the so-
called defeat devices. Others have complained of worse fuel
consumption.

However, VW disputes this. It said 'the overwhelming majority' of
customers were satisfied with the updates.

A spokesman added: 'Our consistent position has been that the
instigation of UK legal proceedings was both premature and
unfounded, and that we will robustly defend any such litigation.

'There is no legal basis for customer claims in connection with
the diesel matter.

'Our UK customers have not suffered any loss or damage as a
result of the NOx issue. The vehicles are safe and roadworthy,
and perform as advertised.' [GN]


VOLKSWAGEN AG: British Motorists' Compensation Case to Commence
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Tovey, writing for The Telegraph, reports that British
motorists' legal battle to win compensation from Volkswagen over
the "dieselgate" scandal will finally kick off on March 27 --
with the car giant set to demand money from the claimants.

Lawyers who say they have signed up more than 50,000 VW owners
between them have made a High Court application for a "group
litigation order" as they try to start a class action against VW.

However, infighting between different groups of lawyers
representing motorists has meant three previous hearings about
compensation for alleged "fraudulent misrepresenation" have
failed to make progress.

VW is understood to want to claim hundreds of thousands of pounds
in costs it accrued preparing for the previous hearings.

The German car company was sent into chaos in 2015 after it
admitted "defeat devices" had been fitted to 11m of its cars
worldwide -- with about 1.2m in the UK.  This software helped
cars cheat emission tests and make them seem less polluting than
they actually were.

VW has paid billions in compensation and fines in the US, but
consumers in other countries have so far been offered no
recompense.  Legal groups in Britain are trying to win
compensation on the grounds VW misrepresented its diesel cars'
environmental benefits to buyers, and started signing up
claimants to join the case soon after the scandal emerged.

However, the road to the court has been long, with lawyers
arguing over who takes pole position in the case, as they will
take a higher proportion of any compensation they win for
affected drivers.

Lawyers are operating on a "no win, no fee" basis and have won
the backing of legal funding group Therium Capital Management to
bankroll the case.  Groups such as Therium take a share of any
compensation won -- typically about 25pc -- in return for their
financing.

Law firms involved in the class action hearing are Slater &
Gordon, Your Lawyers and Leigh Day.  Another firm, Harcus
Sinclair, was ordered by the courts to stop representing
claimants in the case because of a row with Your Lawyers and
Slater & Gordon over recruiting claimants.

This disagreement contributed to delays in getting the case
heard.

A spokesman for law firm Slater & Gordon defended the hold-ups,
saying the case was the biggest and most complex class action
group legal action the UK.

"We need to make sure that we are not repeating claims and
running up costs for the same work," he said.  "We're going up
against a giant car company and need to make sure we're
prepared."

Aman Johal, director of Your Lawyers, said: "It is time that
victims of VW's emissions scandal achieve justice.  Claimants in
the UK are yet to receive anything, unlike their US counterparts,
where VW agreed a $25bn (GBP17.6 billion) settlement with owners,
regulators, states and dealers."

VW has insisted it did not break British laws.  The company said:
"Our consistent position has been that the instigation of UK
legal proceedings was both premature and unfounded, and we will
robustly defend any such litigation.  There is no legal basis for
customer claims in connection with the diesel matter."
[GN]


WESTERN DENTAL: Class Action Filed Over Collection Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Northern California Record,
reports that a debt collector is alleged to have harassed a
Sacramento County consumer with collection calls.

Netia Mack filed a complaint individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California against Western Dental Services
Inc. and Does 1-10 citing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that starting
September 2017, Western Dental Services began contacting her in
an effort to collect an alleged debt. She alleges the defendant
did not have her permission to contact her and that it continued
to contact her after she revoked her consent to be called.

The plaintiff holds Western Dental Services Inc. and Does 1-10
responsible because the defendants allegedly caused a telephone
to ring repeatedly or continuously annoy her and communicated
with such frequency to constitute harassment.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment against
the defendants, award actual and statutory damages, costs and
attorney's fees, and further relief as may be just. She is
represented by Todd M. Friedman, Esq., Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. and
Meghan E. George, Esq., of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC in
Woodland Hills.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California case
number 2:18-cv-00468 [GN]


WOLVERINE WORLDWIDE: Loses Bid to Sideline Scores of Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Hogan, writing for ABC's 13 On Your Side, reports that a
judge on March 23 refused to sideline scores of lawsuits filed
against Wolverine Worldwide for groundwater contamination linked
to its tannery waste in northern Kent County.

"We need to move the ball forward," Kent County Circuit Court
Judge George Quist told lawyers for Wolverine and the Grand
Rapids law firm representing clients suing the Rockford
shoemaker.

More than 100 circuit court lawsuits have been filed since late
November. A federal class action lawsuit was filed in December.

Wolverine lawyer James Moskal, Esq., asked that the cases be put
on hold because the complaints mirror what is contained in the
federal class action suit. A status conference in that case has
been set for April 11.

"The motion today is designed to answer the question of whether
it is necessary and proper to rush these cases forward when
another court down the street is handling the same claims, or, in
contrast, whether it's better to take a step back, proceed in an
orderly fashion so that we can see what the federal court is
going to do," Moskal said.

Attorney Aaron Phelps, Esq. -- amphelps@varnumlaw.com -- whose
law firm is representing more than 100 clients in the Kent County
cases, said he was pleased with Quist's decision to let the cases
continue.

"It's significant because we believe people should be able to
move forward with individual claims and have their own property
values addressed," he said outside of court. "Now they're going
to move forward and we're happy with that."

The judge also gave Wolverine until mid-April to provide records
and other information to attorneys who filed the lawsuits.

"We've literally received nothing," Phelps said. "There are
obviously many documents that are relevant to this, so we're
eager to see what's in the record."

Attorney Janet Ramsey, Esq. -- jramsey@wnj.com -- who is also
representing Wolverine, said the company is not refusing to
produce relevant information.

"We are prepared to do full discovery in this case going
forward," she said. "But as Abe Lincoln said, if I have six hours
to chop a tree, I'm going to use four hours sharpening my ax. We
are sharpening our ax by going through the plan with plaintiffs
to get a plan in place for discovery."

The judge approved a motion by Wolverine to delay additional
depositions until after an April 20th scheduling conference.

Attorneys for Wolverine declined comment outside the courtroom.
The company released a statement saying, in part, that Wolverine
intends to work "collaboratively to bring long-term water
solutions for the community."

"While we are disappointed in today's decision not to stay these
cases pending the federal actions, we are pleased the Court
recognized the need to proceed forward in discovery in an
efficient manner for all parties," the statement reads.

"Our position has always been that we intend to remain a good
corporate citizen, help those affected and work collaboratively
to provide long-term water solutions for the community. We do not
believe the way to achieve those goals was through overlapping
and uncoordinated lawsuits in state and federal court."

The lawsuits filed by Varnum LLP contend the toxic ground water
linked to Wolverine has hurt property values and jeopardized the
health of area residents.

The groundwater contamination came to light last May when water
tested at a U.S. Armory site near Wolverine's dump on House
Street NE revealed an "alarming" amount of PFAS. The chemical was
used in Scotchgard, a product used by Wolverine to waterproof
shoes and boots.

Wolverine began using Scotchgard in 1958 to treat shoe leather
and dumped tannery waste on and around the House Street site and
at licensed and unlicensed dumps. Sites include Michigan
Department of Transportation property across from the House
Street dump. [GN]


XPO LOGISTICS: Misclassifies Delivery Drivers, "Martinez" Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAIRO MORENO MARTINEZ, JESUS CARREON, and RODOLPHO MORENO v. XPO
LOGISTICS, INC.; XPO LOGISTICS, LLC; XPO INTERMODAL SOLUTIONS,
INC.; XPO INTERMODAL SERVICES, LLC; XPO LOGISTICS CARTAGE, LLC;
XPO CARTAGE, INC., each individually and d/b/a XPO LOGISTICS, and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC698296 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty., March 15, 2018), is a class action for wage and
labor violations arising out of, among other things, the
Defendants' alleged misclassification of their delivery drivers,
failure to pay wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods
and other labor code violations and unfair business practices.

XPO Logistics, LLC, XPO Intermodal Services, LLC, and XPO
Logistics Cartage, LLC, are foreign limited liability companies
doing business in California.  XPO Entermodal Solutions, Inc., is
a foreign corporation doing business in California.  XPO
Logistics Cartage, LLC, is the successor by conversion of XPO
Cartage, Inc., and XPO Cartage, Inc., was a foreign corporation
that conducted business in California.  The Plaintiffs are
currently ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants.

The Defendants are related companies that provide various
trucking and shipping services throughout California.  The
Defendants operate under substantially similar procedures and
practices with respect to their drivers at all locations.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel Osborn, Esq.
          OSBORN LAW P.C.
          43 West 43rd Street, Suite 131
          New York, NY 10036-7424
          Telephone: (212) 725-9800
          Facsimile: (212) 500-5115
          E-mail: dosborn@osbornlawpc.com

               - and -

          D. Briana Rivera, Esq.
          Patricia A. Shackelford, Esq.
          RIVERA SHACKELFORD
          4901 Morena Blvd., Suite 111
          San Diego, CA 92117
          Telephone: (858) 412-5303
          Facsimile: (619) 858-2308
          E-mail: briana@riverashackelford.com
                  patricia@riverashackelford.com


ZEN'S CHINESE: Wang Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
Minghui Wang, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 2695 Merrick Road Inc.
d/b/a Zen's Chinese Food, and Yonghua Lin, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:18-cv-02058 (E.D.N.Y., April 6, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and
NYLL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay
their employees, including Plaintiff, overtime compensation for
all hours worked over 40 each workweek.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff(s):

          Lian Zhu, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES
          136-20 38th Ave., Suite No. 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353 8588
          E-mail: lzhu@hanglaw.com


* EU's Executive Branch Outlines Class Action Proposals
-------------------------------------------------------
Till Hoppe, Ruth Berschens and Dietmar Neuerer, writing for
Handelsblatt Global, report that the European Union wants to
substantially boost the rights of consumers to sue companies.

Documents seen by Handelsblatt, belonging to the European
Commission, the EU's executive branch, outline proposals that
would allow consumer organizations and business groups to bring
class-action lawsuits in the name of those affected by
malpractice.  In some cases, they could involve financial
compensation.

Currently, class-action lawsuits -- in which a group of
plaintiffs with broadly similar complaints can act collectively
-- are relatively rare in Europe.  The practice originated in the
United States and has slowly spread to a number of European
countries.  Germany in particular remains a holdout, with
consumer complainants generally forced to act alone, risking
large legal fees if their case fails.

And while authorities in Berlin and Brussels are under pressure
to facilitate collective lawsuits, they want to avoid the
extremes of the American "class-action industry," with lawyers
and hedge funds speculating about lawsuits against large
companies. [GN]


* Event-Drive Securities Class Action Filings Rise
--------------------------------------------------
Steve Berman and Mike Stocker, writing for Law360, report that
securities class action filings thus far in 2018 highlight a
remarkable ongoing shift in the nature of suits brought by
investors under the federal securities laws, as well as the need
for the law firms pursuing these cases to evolve.

A decade ago, accounting fraud cases dominated the headlines,
with investors suffering losses stemming from improper revenue
recognition, delayed asset impairment and revenue "smoothing."

A classic example of such a case is In re WorldCom Inc.
Securities Litigation. [GN]




                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.
Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche
Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G.
Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter A.
Chapman at 215-945-7000.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *