CAR_Public/180419.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Thursday, April 19, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 79



                            Headlines


A10 NETWORKS: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action
ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS: "Aguirre" Suit Nixed; May Re-file on May 11
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: May 14 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
AKARA RESOURCES: Class Suit Filed Over Gold Mine Pollution
ALOHA TENT: Class of Drivers and Crew Certified in "Sanchez" Suit

ANTALIA TURKISH: "Guler" Seeks to Recover Back Wages and Overtime
ANTHEM INSURANCE: Settles Autism Treatment Class Suit for $1.6MM
APPLE INC: Class Actions Pile Up Over Slowed-Down iPhones
APPLE INC: Class-Action Lawsuit by South Korean iPhone Users
APPLE INC: To Face Class-Action Lawsuit for iPhone Issue

ARIZONA: Prisons Chief Corrects Testimony from Contempt Hearing
ARS NATIONAL: Hines Wants to Recover Damages for FDCPA Violation
AVIOR AIRLINES: Cavalieri's Bid for Class Certification Denied
BLACKHAWK NETWORK: McCauley Challenges Merger With BHN Holdings
BLUE SKY: Gadens Law Firm Investigates Shareholder Class Action

BMW: Faces Class Action in New Jersey Over Emissions Cheating
BMW: Class-Action Uncovers New Emissions-Cheating Claims
BNS MANAGEMENT: Masihuddin Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Miller Law Has Settlement in Aggrenox Suit
BRF SA: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

CANADA: Woodland Survivors Left Out of Settlement to Get Payout
CAREFIRST INC: Data Breach Class Action Can Proceed
CELGENE CORP: Robbins Geller Files Class Action Suit
CELGENE CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Lawsuit
CHINA AGRITECH: High Court Hears Oral Arguments In Class Action

CHINA AGRITECH: Jackson Lewis Attorneys Discuss Tolling Issue
CHINA AGRITECH: SCOTUS Hears Issue on Statute of Limitations
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Shearman & Sterling Discusses Class Action
CIRQUE DU SOLEIL: National Junk Fax Class Action-Claims Nixed
COINCHECK: Faces Class Action in Tokyo After January NEM Heist

CREDIT ONE: 7th Cir. Denies Arbitration of TCPA Class Action
CVS HEALTH: Sued for Revealing HIV Status of Ohio Patients
CWT: Milk Price-Fixing Class Action Settlement Appeals Pending
CYAN INC: SCOTUS Preserves State Courts as Forum for IPO Case
DCQ LLC: Accused by Mercado of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Faces "Kim" Class Suit Over Violations of FDCPA
EARTHLINK HOLDINGS: "Murray" Suit Challenges Windstream Merger
EDWARD D. JONES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
EDWARD D. JONES: Must Face Workers' 401(k) Fee Class Action
ERIC MULLINS: Class Certification OK'd in LRR Unitholders' Suit

FACEBOOK INC: Class Action Mulled Over Crypto Advertisements Ban
FACEBOOK INC: Sued for Allegedly Collecting Call, Text History
FACEBOOK INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: Class Action Lawsuits Gearing Up
FACEBOOK INC: Asks Court to Uphold Settlement Over Message Scans

FAST GLOBAL: "Onyia" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages Owed Under FLSA
FLINT, MI: Class Action Lawsuit Moving Forward
FORT MYERS, FL: Faces Lawsuit Over Toxic Sludge Site
GOLDMAN SACHS: Gender-Bias Class-Action Lawsuit to Proceed
GOOGLE INC: Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Expanded as Class Action

GRAIN PROCESSING: Class Action Jury Trial Moved to Scott County
GUAM: Contractors Granted Class-Action Certification in H-2B Case
GUARDIAN LIFE: Fails to Make Web Site Blind-Usable, Thorne Claims
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Okays Bedtime Bath Products Settlement
JUNIOR MINTS: Illinois Woman Files Consumer Fraud Lawsuit

KIND LLC: Judge Stays "All Natural" Product Labeling Class Action
LABORATORY CORP: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Robocalls
LABORATORY CORP: Sued by Cunningham for Making Unsolicited Calls
LANDSAFE INC: Class Action Status Granted in Appraisals Suit
LIBERTY POWER: Faces "Katz" TCPA Suit Over Telemarketing Calls

LK INC: Violates TCPA by Sending Autodialed Texts, "Dale" Claims
LUCKY CHANG: Accused by "Liu" Class Suit of Violating FLSA & NYLL
MARNI USA: Faces "Fischler" Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
MDL 2804: Woodstock Joins Class Action Over Opioid Crisis
MDL 2804: Falmouth Mulls Class Action Over Opioid Crisis

MDL 2804: Puts on Hold Decision to Join Opioid Class Action
MDL 2804: Rockland May Join Class Action Lawsuit
MDL 2804: Cleveland Taps Special Councel for Opioid Litigation
MDL 2804: Craven County Awaits Update on Opioid Litigation
MDL 2804: Reno County Considers Joining Opioid Crisis Lawsuit

MISSIONARY OBLATES: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Sexual Abuse
MITR PHOL: Cambodian Farmers File Suit Over Alleged Land Grab
MONSTER BEVERAGE: Townsend's Bid to Certify Consumers Class Nixed
MURRAY GOULBURN: Investor-Led Class Action Pending
NAPLES HOTEL: FCRA Class Action Pending in Florida Court

NFL: Former LSU Player Files Concussion Class Action
NIANTIC INC: Class Action Lawsuit Over Pokemon Go Dropped
NIANTIC INC: To Settle Pokemon GO Fest Suit for Over $1.5MM
OCALA, FL: Faces Class Action Over Mandatory Fire User Fees
OHIO: Judge Grants Class-Action Status to Disabilities Lawsuit

OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action
OVERSTOCK.COM INC.: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Scott+Scott Attorneys Files Class Action Suit
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
PATTERSON COMPANIES: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action

PATTERSON COS: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
PATTERSON COS: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Action
PATTERSON COS: May 29 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
PENTHOUSE CLUB: Ordered to Pay $4.6 Million in Wage Class Action
PERDUE FARMS: "Drew" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA

PFIZER INC: SCOTUS Asked to Tackle Conflict on Constitutional Law
POWERCOR: St Patrick's Day Fires' Damage Bill Could Reach $40MM
POWERCOR: Says Fully Cooperating with Bushfire Investigation
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: June 6 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
PURDUE PHARMA: Sask. Judge Refuses to Approve Oxy Settlement

PURDUE PHARMA: British Colombia Mulls Options to Recover Costs
QUDIAN INC: Faces Securities Class Action Over 2017 IPO
QUEEN'S CARE: Refuses to Pay Workers' OT, "Jackson" Suit Alleges
RBC BEARINGS: Loses Motion to Decertify Class in "Reynoso" Suit
REMINGTON: Bankruptcy May Affect Sandy Hook Victims' Case

REMINGTON: Sandy Hook Plaintiffs Would Be "Unimpaired" by Ch.11
SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Sheriff Dept. Settles Jail Class Action
SETERUS INC: Refuses to Pay Interest to Borrowers, "Hyde" Alleges
SHIKUN & BINUI: Class Action Over SBI Activities Pending
SOLID BIOSCIENCES: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action

SOLID BIOSCIENCES: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
SR JUSTUS INC: Fails to Pay Overtime to Drivers, "Johnson" Claims
ST. JOSEPH'S ORATORY: Court to Hear Appeal in Class Action Case
STARBUCKS CORP: Carlton Fields Atty Discusses Class Action Ruling
STP JJ TEAM: "Deschamp" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA

SURLY BREWING: Settles Class Action Lawsuit for $2.5MM
SUTTELL & HAMMER: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Knutson Says
SUTTER HEALTH: Sued Over Alleged Anticompetitive Conduct
SUTTER HEALTH: AG Wants Suit Tried Together with Class Action
TARGET CORP: Settlement Reached in Data Breach Class Suit

TESLA: Shareholders' Suit Over Solarcity Acquisition Can Proceed
TESLA: Must Face Class Action Over SolarCity Acquisition
TEXAS: Audit Finds Flaws in Oversight of New Foster Care Model
TIGER BRANDS: Dream Team of Experts Tapped in Listeriosis Suit
TIGER BRANDS: Listeria Class Action Filed in South Africa

TIGER BRANDS: Class Action Suit Launched in Johannesburg Court
TIGER BRANDS: Richard Spoor Files Listeria Outbreak Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Discrimination Class Action for $10MM
UNITED STATES: Two Immigration Detainees File Class Action
UNITED STATES: Ct. Grants Summary Judgment in Asylum Class-Action

UNITED STATES: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Trump Travel Ban
UNITED STATES: Stopped From Blocking Undocumented's Abortions
UNITED STATES: Judge Okays Immigrant Teens' Abortion Access Case
UNITED STATES: Certification of Class Sought in "Damus" Suit
UNITED AIRLINES: Sued for Charging Online Reservation Change Fees

WALMART: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Coupon Sales Tax
WASHINGTON, DC: Homeless Files Class-Action Lawsuit
WEINSTEIN CO: Lead Plaintiff in Class Action Serves on Committee
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Abarca's Renewed Bids for Class Cert. Granted
XSPORT FITNESS: Faces FLSA Class Action in Illinois

* 108 Black People Employment Bias Suits Filed From 2005-2015
* Class Action Lawsuits in South Africa Gaining Traction
* Class Actions May Be Useful in Countries Such as South Africa





                            *********


A10 NETWORKS: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on March 22, 2018, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against A10 Networks, Inc.
(NYSE:ATEN).  The complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of
issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the
market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price during the Class Period, which is February 9, 2016 through
January 30, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all A10 Networks,
Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class
Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described
above.  You may move the Court no later than May 21, 2018 to
serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class.  However, in
order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information
and participate in this or any other securities litigation, or
should you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice
or preservation of your rights, please contact:

         Robin Hester, Esq.
         FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Website: www.federmanlaw.com
         Email: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN]


ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS: "Aguirre" Suit Nixed; May Re-file on May 11
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on March 20, 2018, in the case
styled Carmen Aguirre v. Absolute Resolutions Corp., et al., Case
No. 1:15-cv-11111 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before
the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.

The minute entry states that:

   -- the case is dismissed without prejudice, with leave to
      reinstate to and including May 11, 2018;

   -- All pending motions are stricken; and

   -- Civil case terminated.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bpG7HbA2


ACADIA HEALTHCARE: May 14 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors that they have until May 14, 2018 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit
against Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc., if they purchased the
Company's securities between February 23, 2017 and October 24,
2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), including an August 22,
2017 public offering.  This action is pending in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

Acadia Healthcare investors should visit us at
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-acadia-healthcare-company-
inc-securities-litigation or call to speak to our claim center
toll-free at (844) 367-9658.

                      About the Lawsuit

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

On October 24, 2017, the Company disclosed negative financial
results for 3Q2017 including a reduction to its guidance for
fiscal year 2017 and a significant cut to EBITDA relating to its
U.K. facilities purportedly driven by "lower census and higher
operating costs."

On this news, the price of Acadia's shares plummeted 26% to close
at $32.68 per share. [GN]


AKARA RESOURCES: Class Suit Filed Over Gold Mine Pollution
----------------------------------------------------------
Pratch Rujivanarom, writing for The Nation, reports that the
civil court has accepted a class-action lawsuit against Akara
Resources over health problems suffered by local people allegedly
stemming from its gold mine operation.

The lawyer for the plaintiffs, Somchai Ameen, Esq., said the
Civil Court had accepted the class-action case involving more
than 6,000 people who live near the Chatree gold mine in two
tambons of Phichit and Phetchabun. The suit demands compensation
from the company, as the plaintiffs claimed the people's health
has been harmed by the environmental impacts from the gold mine.
Somchai said after suing Akara in 2016 and litigating whether it
constituted a class-action case for more than a year, he was glad
the court had finally accepted the class-action status. The
defendant has seven days to appeal before the court proceeds with
the case.

"This case can be a benchmark for class-action lawsuits on
environmental issues, as all people who are affected can sue for
compensation for damage suffered, without having to directly
engage in litigation," he said. He said the representative of the
affected people was Thanyarat Sinthonthammathat. The names of 300
affected people were presented to the court. Many local people
had become sick from prolonged exposure to heavy metals, he
added. He added that a recent report by Naresuan University,
which confirmed the leakage of water from the gold mine's tailing
storage facility to the environment, would be prominent evidence
in the case. Thanyarat said she would demand compensation of
Bt1.5 million for herself, while the total sum demanded from
Akara was about Bt500 million. As of press time, Akara had not
commented on the class-action case. [GN]


ALOHA TENT: Class of Drivers and Crew Certified in "Sanchez" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Ronald A. Guzman entered an agreed order in the lawsuit
titled GERARDO SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself, and all others
similarly situated v. ALOHA TENT, INC., METRO STAFF, INC., and
JAMES JOHN GALLAGHER, individually, Case No. 1:17-cv-05412 (N.D.
Ill.), granting the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify a
collective class under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and to certify a class on Plaintiffs' Illinois Minimum Wage
Law claim under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court conditionally certifies the following collective class
on Plaintiff's unpaid overtime claim under Section 216(b) of the
FLSA, and certifies the following class on Plaintiff's overtime
claim under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law pursuant to Rule 23:

     All hourly drivers and crew members who worked for Aloha
     Tent, Inc. or its predecessor, Partytime Productions, from
     July 24, 2014 to March 20, 2018 who performed work outside
     the State of Illinois and who were not paid time spent
     traveling from his/her hotel to the first job site at the
     beginning of his/her shift, and who were not paid for time
     spent traveling back to his/her hotel from his/her last job
     site when they performed work outside the State of Illinois.

Judge Guzman appoints Gerardo Sanchez as Class Representative,
and Jorge Sanchez, Esq., of Lopez & Sanchez as class counsel.
Judge Guzman approves the form and content of the Notice
submitted by the Parties.

By April 3, 2018, Aloha shall provide the Plaintiff's counsel a
list identifying the name, last known address and telephone
number of all current and former class members from July 24,
2014, to the date of this Order, to the extent that Defendants
have such information in their possession, custody or control.
By April 10, 2018, the Plaintiff's counsel shall mail the Notice
by first-class mail.

Class members shall have 60 calendar days from the date that the
Notice is mailed to return the consent to be a party plaintiff
form and/or the exclusion form.  The postmark date shall be
deemed the date of return.  The Plaintiff shall file a report
advising the Court on the responses to the class notice by July
3, 2018.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MREsL64d


ANTALIA TURKISH: "Guler" Seeks to Recover Back Wages and Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FATIH GULER, BORA KARAKAYA, CAN ZEYREK and KUDRET OKSUZ v.
ANTALIA TURKISH CUISINE, LLC, EKMEL ANDA individually, and SERHAT
CETINKAYA individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-02354 (S.D.N.Y., March
16, 2018), is brought on behalf of all similarly situated current
and former hourly employees of the Defendants seeking to recover
alleged unpaid back wages, unpaid tips, unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Antalia Turkish Cuisine, LLC is a Domestic Limited Liability
Corporation duly authorized and existing by virtue of the laws of
the state of New York.

Antalia does business in New York as a restaurant located at 17
West 45th Street, in New York City.  Ekmel Anda was an owner of
Defendant Antalia.  Serhat Cetinkaya was the Plaintiffs'
supervisor, as well as being an owner of Antalia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jesse C. Rose, Esq.
          THE ROSE LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3109 Newtown Avenue, Suite 309
          Astoria, NY 11102
          Telephone: (718) 989-1864
          Facsimile: (917) 831-4595
          E-mail: jrose@theroselawgroup.com


ANTHEM INSURANCE: Settles Autism Treatment Class Suit for $1.6MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Castro-Pagan, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that
Anthem Insurance Cos. Inc. will pay almost $1.63 million to end
claims that it violated federal benefit laws by placing certain
caps on the coverage of therapy treatments for children with
severe autism disorders.

Anthem also agrees to stop using guidelines that base coverage of
applied behavior analysis therapy for autism solely on an
individual's age, according to a motion seeking approval of a
class action settlement filed March 23 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana.

If approved, the settlement will provide relief for at least 201
children and allow class counsel to seek fees of up to $508,345.
The estimated average payment to class members will be $5,052,
with payments ranging from $2.02 to more than $36,000, according
to court documents.

The proposed deal would end a three-year lawsuit that accused the
insurance giant of violating federal mental health parity law
when it limited coverage for a 13-year-old boy's autism treatment
to 20 hours per week.  The settlement comes one year after a
federal judge held that Anthem satisfied Indiana's autism
mandate, which requires insurers to cover treatment for autism
spectrum disorder, by covering 20 weekly hours of treatment
instead of the 40 hours requested.

Anthem joins a growing list of companies that have settled claims
over coverage of ABA therapy for autism, including United
Healthcare Services Inc., T-Mobile USA Inc., and Applied
Materials Inc. Similar challenges against Dr Pepper Snapple,
Raytheon Co., Banner Health, and Neiman Marcus Group. are
pending.  Late last year, a federal judge in Washington refused
to dismiss similar allegations against the NECA/IBEW Family
Medical Care Plan.

In addition to the almost $1.63 million payment and Anthem's
promise to cease using its guidelines, the insurer will also
issue a statement to its employees regarding the use of age-
related considerations.  Anthem will also require employees who
review treatment plans to participate in periodic external
continuing education related to autism and ABA therapy.

Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC and SAEED & Little LLP represent
the class.  Katz Korin Cunningham PC and Reed Smith LLP represent
Anthem.

The case is W.P. v. Anthem Ins. Cos., S.D. Ind., No. 1:15-cv-
00562-TWP-TAB, plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement 3/23/18. [GN]


APPLE INC: Class Actions Pile Up Over Slowed-Down iPhones
---------------------------------------------------------
Tripp Mickle and Kirsten Grind, writing for Wall Street Journal,
reports that dozens of iPhone owners are taking Apple Inc. to
court over its disclosure that it slowed down old phones to
preserve battery life, in what could become one of the biggest
legal challenges involving the company's smartphone since its
2007 debut.

Some five dozen iPhone customers have filed at least 59 separate
lawsuits since December accusing Apple of slowing their phones to
spur people to buy new iPhones, according to court records.
Apple said in December that its software update introduced at the
start of 2017 reduced the performance of older phone models.  The
suits seek an unspecified financial award, attorneys' fees and
free iPhone battery replacements, as well as a corrective
advertising campaign.

The lawsuits also seek class-action status.  Efforts to combine
the cases will kick off at a March 29 legal meeting in Atlanta,
setting in motion an effort to have the class certified.  A lead
attorney and a court location also will be chosen.

Class-action lawsuits are frequently filed against big companies,
but the large number of individual suits concerning a single
issue is unusual, say legal experts.  It is also roughly triple
the number of suits filed in 2010 over the iPhone 4's tendency to
drop calls.

Apple settled the resulting class-action lawsuit in 2012,
agreeing to either pay iPhone 4 owners $15 or give them a free
case, according to Ira Rothken, an attorney who represented the
plaintiffs.  The total potential settlement amount was $315
million.

The latest spate of iPhone lawsuits could present Apple with
unique challenges.  The company is already working hard to
convince consumers that its newest devices are worth $1,000 or
more, as global demand for smartphones stagnates and people hold
on to their devices longer.

While legal experts say the plaintiffs face an uphill battle, a
multiyear court fight over the phone-throttling issue could force
the secretive company to disclose sensitive information about its
software development process, according to analysts.

Plus, a decision against Apple could require it and other tech
companies to be more transparent about how their software or
hardware features affect power or performance, said Mr. Rothken,
who isn't involved in this legal action.  For years, companies
have been able to avoid such disclosures, mainly because
customers haven't demanded them.

"Whatever affects Apple would affect anyone making battery
devices," Mr. Rothken said.

An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment.  The company has
previously said it would never do anything to intentionally
shorten or degrade the life of any of its devices, adding that
Apple's goal is to make iPhones that last as long as possible.

The lawsuits could also prolong the negative publicity
surrounding Apple's slowing of the phones.  "It's the brand
damage that is even more risky and expensive for Apple," said
Holger Mueller, a technology analyst with Constellation Research.

Apple also is being investigated by the Justice Department and
Securities and Exchange Commission over potential securities
violations related to its disclosure of the software updates that
slowed older iPhones.  It has faced questions from consumer and
watchdog groups in France, Italy and China.

Apple's predicament started after the company, prompted by
questions from users and analysts, said it introduced the
software update to prevent older iPhones with aged batteries from
unexpectedly shutting down.  In late December, Apple apologized
and said it would reduce the out-of-warranty cost of battery
replacement to $29 from $79 for most customers.

Some of the current lawsuits are alleging that Apple
misrepresented the true nature and scope of the battery problems
to customers, and failed to inform users last year that upgrading
to new operating systems would force them to add a feature that
slowed down the phone, according to court records.

"To encourage consumers to purchase the newest iPhone in such
short intervals, Apple has to convince consumers to upgrade their
device," according to one complaint filed in federal court in
Northern California.  "One way to do that is by reducing the
performance of older iPhones."

Larry Pethick, a 50-year-old resident of Grand Rapids, Michigan,
said his iPhone 6 started taking longer to load apps and activate
the GPS last fall after updating to a new operating system.
Mr. Pethick said he had lost his job that fall and didn't want to
spend $700 on a new phone, but came to the conclusion that buying
a new phone was his only option.

"The biggest frustration was that an adjustment was made that
severely inconvenienced me without me knowing about it," Mr.
Pethick said of Apple's software update.  He is expected to join
a class-action suit against Apple in Northern Illinois.

Apple customers could find it difficult to win their case.
Fraudulent-concealment claims, such as in the iPhone instance,
are often hard to prove because courts typically want to preserve
companies' freedom to choose what to say as long as it isn't
actively misleading, said RebeccaTushnet, a professor at Harvard
Law School.

Apple has done enough since acknowledging the software change to
make clear that it was aiming to improve user performance, said
Wayne Lam, a smartphone analyst with the research firm IHS
Markit, adding that the class-action suit "won't amount to a hill
of beans."

Meanwhile, the controversy -- and Apple's $29 battery offer --
may already be taking a toll on the company's financial results.
Barclays previously estimated Apple could lose $10.29 billion in
revenue this year because of customers choosing to replace
batteries instead of their iPhones. [GN]


APPLE INC: Class-Action Lawsuit by South Korean iPhone Users
------------------------------------------------------------
Gadgets 360 reports that a total of 63,767 South Korean iPhone
users have lodged the country's biggest-ever class action lawsuit
against Apple for damages worth millions, authorities said on
March 30.

Hannuri, a local law firm which represents the users, filed the
class action lawsuit with the Seoul Central District Court
against Apple and Apple Korea, the local unit of the iPhone
manufacturer, reports Xinhua news agency.

The iPhone customers demanded the damages worth KRW 200,000
($188) per plaintiff, or KRW 12.75 billion ($12 million) in
total.

It was the country's biggest-ever class action suit in history.

Around 400,000 iPhone customers originally sought to join the
legal action, but the number fell in the course of verifying
identification and offering necessary documents, according to the
report.

Apple was accused of slowing down old iPhones through software
tweak to make users buy new ones once a new model is released.

The iPhone maker claimed that its software intentionally slowed
some models under certain circumstances to protect them from
automatically shutting down.

Hannuri said that though Apple recognized the underperformance of
iPhones via iOS upgrade, it covered up the truth in offering the
software to hide faulty battery, prevent customer secession and
promote the sale of new models.

Civic group activists, which represent 122 and 401 iPhone users
each, filed their respective class action suits against Apple and
Apple Korea in mid-January and early March for damages worth KRW
2.2 million ($2,070) per person. [GN]


APPLE INC: To Face Class-Action Lawsuit for iPhone Issue
--------------------------------------------------------
Apple's revelation of software updates slowing iPhones with older
batteries last December resulted in an uproar among its users.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) recently reported that at least 59
separate lawsuits have been filed against Apple by around five
dozen customers. Moreover, a legal meeting is scheduled in
Atlanta to possibly combine all the cases into one class-action
lawsuit, adds WSJ.

Experts find the number of cases filed against the iPhone maker
unusual. It is almost thrice than the number filed in 2010 over
iPhone 4's call drop issue.

Notably, shares of Apple have returned 15.5% over the last year,
underperforming the industry's16.9% rally.

                        iPhone Losing Steam

Apple has been apologizing for the lack of transparency relating
to the handling of iPhone performance with older batteries but
denied of doing anything intentionally to shorten the life of a
product. However, nothing seems to pacify consumers.

Apple, in order to appease aggrieved customers, lowered the price
of an out-of-warranty battery replacement by $50 for anyone with
an iPhone 6 or later model.

Per Barclays, owing to the offer more users will go for battery
replacements rather than upgrading to new iPhones. They project a
decline of 16 million in iPhone shipments this year, which
equates to nearly $10.3 billion loss in revenues.

Moreover, we observe that the spurt in revenues from iPhone in
the last reported quarter was due to higher iPhone average
selling price (ASP), when total shipments witnessed a decline.

However, the expensive price tag might prove an impediment in
markets like China, which remains an important market for Apple,
given the growing number of middle-class customers. Also,
intensifying competition from regional players, who are offering
feature-rich smartphones at a much cheaper price, remains a major
headwind.

Recently, Goldman Sachs trimmed iPhone sales expectations by 1.7
million units to 53 million for the March quarter. For the
quarter ending June, the firm forecasts sales of 40.3 million
units, a decline of 3.2 million from its previous projection.[GN]


ARIZONA: Prisons Chief Corrects Testimony from Contempt Hearing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacques Billeaud, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Arizona Corrections Director Charles Ryan has corrected his
testimony from a hearing to determine whether he should be found
in contempt of court for failing to adequately improve health
care for prisoners.

Mr. Ryan testified on March 27 that $2.5 million in incentives
paid by the state to Corizon Health Inc., Arizona's contractor
for inmate care, over a four-month period ending in late January
came from savings from having hundreds of unfilled jobs within
the Department of Corrections.

The following day, Mr. Ryan said in a court filing that the
incentive payments instead came from money that was set aside for
health care for the 35,000 inmates in Arizona's prisons.

U.S. Magistrate Judge David Duncan has repeatedly voiced
frustrations over what he described as Arizona's "abject failure"
to improve inmate health care after the state agreed in October
2014 to settle a lawsuit that alleged inmates were being given
shoddy health care.

In addition to convening civil contempt hearings against
Mr. Ryan, Judge Duncan is considering fining the state $1,000 for
each instance during December and January in which the state
failed to comply with the promised changes.  The state has
acknowledged 1,900 such instances during those months, meaning
Duncan could issue fines as high as $1.9 million.

The state has followed through on some promises.  But the areas
in which Judge Duncan is requiring improvements include ensuring
newly prescribed medications be provided to inmates within two
days and making medical providers tell inmates about the results
of pathology reports and other diagnostic studies within five
days of receiving such records.

The error arose as Mr. Ryan was questioned about the wisdom of
negotiating a contract that let his agency impose its own fines
on Corizon of $675,000 -- while simultaneously giving the company
$2.5 million in incentives -- for its performances in complying
with the state's promised improvements.

Corene Kendrick, an attorney representing the prisoners, said the
correction may have been intended to ease any concerns rank-and-
file corrections officers had in hearing that savings from
unfilled officer positions were used to pay a contractor -- at a
time when 13 percent of the more than 6,600 authorized positions
within the agency remain vacant.

Corrections Department spokesman Andrew Wilder said Mr. Ryan
corrected his testimony to ensure it was factual.

"Plain and simple," Mr. Wilder said in an email.  "That may
disappoint some who hoped to seize on the incorrect statement,
but the fact is that no officer vacancy funds were used to pay
Corizon, period."

Mr. Wilder said the department, like its counterparts across the
United States, faces challenges in retaining officers.

"Director Ryan continues to be strongly committed to enhancing
recruitment and retaining correctional officers, including the
priority to provide our officers more competitive compensation,"
Wilder said.

Corizon, which isn't a named target of the class-action lawsuit,
has defended itself by saying it has put significant effort into
meeting the settlement's terms and has steadily improved
compliance. [GN]


ARS NATIONAL: Hines Wants to Recover Damages for FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ivette Hines, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ARS National Services, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-01673
(E.D.N.Y., March 16, 2018), seeks to recover damages arising from
the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

ARS National Services, Inc., is a California Corporation with a
principal place of business in San Diego County, California.  ARS
is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of debts
allegedly owed by consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AVIOR AIRLINES: Cavalieri's Bid for Class Certification Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Federico A. Moreno denied as moot the Plaintiffs'
provisional motion for class certification in the lawsuit
entitled ROBERTO HUNG CAVALIERI and SERGIO ENRIQUE ISEA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
AVIOR AIRLINES C.A., Case No. 1:17-cv-22010-FAM (S.D. Fla.).

The Court has considered the Motion, the pertinent portions of
the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it
is adjudged that the Motion is denied as moot in light of the
Court's Order of Continuance and Order Revising Pretrial
Deadlines, which extends the deadline for the filing of the
Motion until May 9, 2018.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=umiCqAI0


BLACKHAWK NETWORK: McCauley Challenges Merger With BHN Holdings
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES J. MCCAULEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. BLACKHAWK NETWORK HOLDINGS, INC., ANIL D.
AGGARWAL, RICHARD H. BARD, THOMAS BARNDS, STEVEN A. BURD, ROBERT
L. EDWARDS, MOHAN GYANI, PAUL HAZEN, ROBERT B. HENSKE, TALBOTT
ROCHE, ARUN SARIN, WILLIAM Y. TAUSCHER, and JANE J. THOMPSON,
Case No. 3:18-cv-01667 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2018), accuses the
Defendants of violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the proposed merger between Blackhawk and BHN
Holdings, Inc.

On January 16, 2018, Blackhawk announced that it had entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger with BHN and BHN Merger Sub,
Inc., under which Merger Sub will be merged with and into the
Company, with the Company continuing as the surviving corporation
and as a wholly owned subsidiary of BHN.  Under the terms of the
Merger Agreement, Blackhawk's public stockholders will receive
$45.25 in cash in exchange for each share of Blackhawk common
stock they hold prior to the effective time of the merger.

Blackhawk is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in Pleasanton, California.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.  Blackhawk
is a prepaid payment network.  The Company operates through three
segments: (1) U.S. Retail; (2) International; and (3) Incentives
& Rewards.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 291-2420
          Facsimile: (415) 484-1294
          E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com

               - and -

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Elizabeth Tripodi, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th St., NW, Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4292
          Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com
                  etripodi@zlk.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          The Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 971-1341
          Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
          E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
                  mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com


BLUE SKY: Gadens Law Firm Investigates Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vesna Poljak and Jonathan Shapiro, writing for Australian
Financial Review, report that law firm Gadens is investigating
whether losses suffered by shareholders of Blue Sky Alternative
Investments could form the basis of a class action against the
company, just one day after short-seller Glaucus accused the fund
manager of inflating valuations.

Blue Sky on March 28 rejected Glaucus's research as being filled
with inaccuracies, and shares in the Brisbane-based company are
in a trading halt having fallen 9 per cent in response to the
hedge fund's attack.  They last traded at $10.40.

Gadens, which is also backing one of two shareholder class
actions against collapsed sandalwood grower Quintis in the
Federal Court, said on that it was looking into whether Blue Sky
has misled investors.

"Gadens is currently investigating whether Blue Sky and/or any of
its officers have failed to comply with their statutory
obligations and have misled the market," the firm said in a
statement.  Relying on Glaucus's contested accusations, Gadens
said the report canvassed "serious allegations" which raise
"grave concerns" about possible breaches of legal obligations.

Brisbane-based Blue Sky declined to comment in response to the
Gadens development. But it firmly denied the assertions made by
the US hedge fund in its extensive report.

The company told the market, "there are a large number of factual
inaccuracies throughout, including the assertions raised in
relation to how Blue Sky calculates and reports its fee-earning
assets under management, its investment performance and its
fees".  A more detailed rebuttal is anticipated from Blue Sky
before the shares resume trading.

Shareholder and retired founder Mark Sowerby has also defended
the organisation.

Blue Sky raised $100 million earlier in March in a capital
raising at $11.50 a share, mainly for the purpose of enabling
further co-investment in Blue Sky-managed strategies.

Quintis was Glaucus's first target in Australia; it called in
administrators in January. [GN]


BMW: Faces Class Action in New Jersey Over Emissions Cheating
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that German carmaker BMW faces a class-action
lawsuit filed in a New Jersey court on March 27 for alleged
emissions cheating on diesel vehicles including its X5 and 330d
models.

"BMW's representations were misleading for failure to disclose
its emissions manipulations," the suit, which was filed in the
United States District Court of New Jersey, said.

The suit was filed by law firms Steve W Berman from Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, and James E. Cecchi from Carella, Byrne,
Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, the filings show.

BMW's X5 model built between 2009 and 2013, and the BMW330d
model, which was sold between 2009-2011, emit levels of nitrogen
oxide "many times higher than their gasoline counterparts" the
suit alleges.

"The vehicles' promised power, fuel economy, and efficiency are
obtained only by turning off or turning down emission controls
when the software in these vehicles senses that they are not in
an emissions testing environment," the suit said.

BMW was not immediately available for comment but has said in the
past it did not use illegal defeat devices.

Software management programs to manage emissions are not illegal
unless they are designed specifically to evade pollution tests,
or unless a carmaker fails to disclose their existence.

Shares in BMW reduced gains sharply earlier on March 27 with
traders pointing to a Bloomberg report saying the German carmaker
was being sued for installing "defeat devices" in U.S. diesel
cars. [GN]


BMW: Class-Action Uncovers New Emissions-Cheating Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit has revealed claims that BMW installed an
illegal emissions-cheating system in tens of thousands of its
diesel vehicles to mask pollution up to 27 times the legal
standard, in similar fashion to Volkswagen's Dieselgate scandal,
according to Hagens Berman.

The lawsuit states that behind its empty promises that BMW X5 and
335d models "protect the environment every day" and were
"environmentally friendly," BMW colluded with Robert Bosch GmbH
and Robert Bosch LLC to create manipulative software that would
mask illegally high levels of pollution while undergoing
emissions testing. Only this illegal tampering enabled the
affected X5 and 335d cars to achieve the power, fuel economy and
efficiency BMW promised consumers.

The suit filed Mar. 27, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey states this collusion with BMW amounts to
a RICO enterprise, in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

If you own or lease a 2009-2013 BMW X5 or 2009-2011 335d vehicle,
you may be entitled to compensation.

"At these levels, these cars aren't just dirty -- they don't meet
standards to be legally driven on U.S. streets and no one would
have bought these cars if BMW had told the truth," said Steve
Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman.

"Why did BMW go out of its way to tout the environmental
friendliness of these cars? Because it knew that doing so would
accelerate sales.  BMW knows that a certain segment of car buyers
care about their vehicle's impact on the environment," Mr. Berman
added.  "Instead of making good on those promises of protecting
the environment, BMW chose to join the likes of Volkswagen and so
many others, to build an illegal emissions-cheating system."

The complaint states that BMW and Bosch's software manipulations
result in emissions that range from an average of 3 times the
standard in highway conditions and 8.5 times the standard in city
driving.  The law firm's independent testing revealed that
highway emissions can get as high as 20 times the standard and
city conditions as high as 27 times the standard.

The firm has used its same emissions testing using accepted
testing equipment and protocols conducted by engineering experts
in emissions testing to uncover emissions-cheating by Ford,
Mercedes, Fiat Chrysler, Audi and General Motors.  Hagens
Berman's investigations have spurred government action and
investigations against automakers.

The lawsuit seeks damages, injunctive relief to end the sale of
the affected X5 and 335d models, and equitable relief for BMW's
misconduct related to the design, manufacture, marketing, sale
and lease of its illegally polluting cars.

Attorneys say that in misleading consumers BMW violated the RICO
Act, as well as many state consumer-protection laws, amounting to
a total of 53 counts of violations against the automaker.

"BMW Was Fully Aware"

The lawsuit states that BMW fought to bolster revenue, augment
profits and increase its share of the diesel market, but failed
to achieve their lofty goals lawfully.  BMW chose to work with
Bosch and "resorted instead to orchestrating a fraudulent scheme
and conspiracy."  The complaint calls BMW and Bosch's collusion
an "illegal enterprise" with the purpose of deceiving regulators
and the public about the true emissions output of the affected X5
and 335d models.

Robert Bosch GmbH and Robert Bosch LLC tested, manufactured and
sold the electronic control module (ECM) that managed the
emission control system used by BMW in the affected diesel cars.
"Bosch worked with BMW, Volkswagen, Mercedes, Ford, General
Motors, and FCA to develop and implement a specific and unique
set of software algorithms to surreptitiously evade emissions
regulations," the suit states.  Bosch sold hundreds of thousands
of this particular ECM to BMW.

"Based on our knowledge of Bosch's widespread involvement, we
believe BMW was fully aware of this scheme involving its top-
selling diesel models," Mr. Berman said.  "BMW blatantly chose to
leave its loyal customers in the dark, forcing them to
unknowingly fit the bill for its degradation of the environment."

                     About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with 11 offices across the
country.  The firm has been named to the National Law Journal's
Plaintiffs' Hot List eight times. [GN]


BNS MANAGEMENT: Masihuddin Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
FAROOQ MASIHUDDIN, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. BNS
MANAGEMENT, INC., PUSHP KUMAR JAIN AND SUNITA JAIN, Case No.
4:18-cv-00829 (S.D. Tex., March 16, 2018), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

BNS Management, Inc., is a validly existing Texas corporation.
The Individual Defendants jointly own and operate the named legal
entity Defendant, BNS Management.

BNS Management owns and operates the Exxon Food Mart Deli located
at 1300 Sheldon Road, in Channelview, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
          ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
          One Arena Place
          7322 Southwest Frwy., Suite 1920
          Houston, TX 77074
          Telephone: (713) 223-1300
          Facsimile: (713) 255-0013
          E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Miller Law Has Settlement in Aggrenox Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
If You Purchased Aggrenox(R) or Generic Aggrenox (R) A Class
Action Settlement Could Affect You

A proposed $54 million settlement has been reached in a class
action lawsuit regarding the prescription drug Aggrenox(R)
(aspirin/extended-release dipyridamole). The lawsuit claims that
Defendants Boehringer Ingelheim and Teva Pharmaceutical hurt
competition and violated state laws by delaying the availability
of allegedly less-expensive generic versions of Aggrenox(R).
Defendants deny any wrongdoing.

No one is claiming that Aggrenox(R) or its generic equivalent is
unsafe or ineffective.

Who is included?

You are a Consumer Class Member if you:

Purchased and/or paid for Aggrenox(R) or generic versions of
Aggrenox(R), In the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Arizona,
California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii,
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Oregon (2010 or after), Rhode Island (purchases after July 15,
2013), South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin,
For consumption by yourself or your family,
From November 30, 2009 through December 22, 2017.
You are NOT a Class Member if you paid a flat co-pay (consumers
who paid the same co-payment amount for brand and generic drugs),
if you pay a flat co-pay for generic prescriptions and did not
purchase Aggrenox(R) before July 1, 2015, or if you purchased or
received branded or generic Aggrenox(R) through a Medicaid
program only.

What do the settlements provide?

The Defendants will pay a total of $54 million into a Settlement
Fund to settle all claims in the lawsuit brought on behalf of
consumer and health insurers known as third-party payors.

Class Counsel will ask the Court to award attorneys' fees in an
amount not to exceed one-third of the Settlement Fund, plus
interest, litigation expenses and incentive payments to the Class
Representatives.  After these deductions, the remainder of the
Settlement Fund will be distributed pro rata to Class Members who
file a valid claim form. The amount of money you are eligible to
receive will depend on how much you (and other consumers) paid
for Aggrenox(R) or generic versions of Aggrenox(R).

How do I get a payment?

You must submit a Claim Form by September 14, 2018 to be eligible
for a payment. See below.

What are my other rights?

If you do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you
must exclude yourself.  The exclusions deadline is May 11, 2018.
If you do not exclude yourself, you will not be able to sue the
Defendants for any claim relating to the lawsuit. If you stay in
the Settlement, you may object to the Settlement by May 11, 2018.
The Court will hold a hearing on July 19, 2018 at 1:00 p.m.
Eastern time to consider whether to approve the Settlement, a
request for attorneys' fees, expenses and incentive awards. The
Court has appointed Miller Law LLC, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, and
Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C. to represent the Class. You or your
own lawyer may ask to appear and speak at the hearing at your own
expense.  These deadlines may be amended by Court Order, so check
the litigation website. [GN]


BRF SA: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm disclosed that a class action complaint has
been filed on behalf of shareholders of BRF S.A. (NYSE:BRFS) who
purchased shares between April 4, 2013 and March 2, 2018. The
action, which was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, alleges that the Company
violated federal securities laws.

In particular, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that (i) BRF employees paid
bribes to regulators and politicians to subvert inspections in
order to conceal unsanitary practices at the Company's
meatpacking plants; (ii) the foregoing conduct, when it came to
light, would foreseeably subject the Company and its officers to
heightened regulatory enforcement and/or prosecution; and (iii)
as a result of the foregoing, BRF's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders have until May 11, 2018 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery does
not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. You may choose to
be an absent class member. [GN]


CANADA: Woodland Survivors Left Out of Settlement to Get Payout
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Smart, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that speaking
from the site where a notorious school and psychiatric facility
used to stand, one of its survivors says he finally feels a
festering wound begin to close.

Bill McArthur, who was sent to Woodlands in New Westminster, B.C.
at age five, is among hundreds of survivors who had been left out
from official compensation, because a legal loophole excluded
them from a 2009 class-action settlement.

That changed on March 31, when provincial Health Minister
Adrian Dix announced that all survivors who lived at the facility
before 1974 -- the year that it became legal to sue the
provincial government -- will receive $10,000 in compensation.

"Justice has finally been done, after so many years of
suffering," said Mr. McArthur.  "It's finally brought closure to
a festering sore."

Woodlands operated from 1878 until 1996, providing care for
children and adults with developmental disabilities and some
individuals with both developmental disabilities and mental
illness.

Abuse at the facility is well documented and in 2002, then-
provincial ombudsperson Dulcie McCallum confirmed widespread
sexual, physical and psychological abuse had occurred.

After a class-action by former residents was certified, the then-
Liberal government won a ruling in the B.C. Court of Appeal to
exclude former students who lived at Woodlands prior to Aug. 1,
1974 from compensation.  That was the date the Crown Proceedings
Act came into effect, making it legal for citizens to sue the
provincial government.

Mr. McArthur, who had been the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit but
left Woodlands ten days before that cutoff date, said the
exclusion was one of the most painful things he has experienced
in life.

"Abuse is abuse is abuse. It doesn't matter when it happened," he
said.

Mr. McArthur spoke on March 31 in front of plaques commemorating
dozens of residents who died at the facility.  He recalled the
abuses he both witnessed and experienced at Woodlands, including
rape, beatings and extended periods of isolation.

Children were lined up naked in a hallway every morning "like
cattle" to use the bathroom, he said.  If they didn't move
quickly enough, they were beaten with brooms or fists to the
head.  Mr. McArthur described seeing residents pulled down
hallways by the hair "like a sack of potatoes," or forced to take
icy cold showers for no apparent reason.

"Other residents were deliberately burned with scalding hot water
to the point where their skin would peel off in strips,"
Mr. McArthur said.  "This was deliberate action by the people who
were charged with the responsibility of caring for us in a humane
manner, and who failed to do so egregiously."

Another resident, Luanne Bradshaw, said she was sometimes heavily
medicated or locked in a "control room" with no lights for up to
two weeks over the course of her 12 years at Woodlands.

"I'm very proud of how far I've come in just being a free person,
living life as I see fit and making sure that my identity doesn't
get forgotten," said Ms. Bradshaw.

Mr. Dix said there are believed to be between 900 and 1,500
survivors of Woodlands, and the government expects to pay between
$9 million and $15 million.

More than 800 residents were eligible for compensation following
the original class-action lawsuit, but it was a long and arduous
process to establish claims after the fact, Mr. Dix said.  The
total amount already distributed through that process, which is
complete, was between $4 million and $5 million.

Recipients of the new compensation, which the province is
offering voluntarily or "ex gratia," will not have to prove
abuse, he said.

In addition to the pre-1974 residents, anyone who was eligible
for a settlement as a result of the class-action lawsuit, but
opted against coming forward for any reason, will also be
eligible for the $10,000.  And anyone who received less than
$10,000 through the lawsuit will have their compensation topped
up, Dix said.

Mr. Dix noted that a significant number of the pre-1974 residents
have died and their families will not be eligible for
compensation.

The province expects all monies to be paid out by March 31, 2019.

"Most of the residents of Woodlands were the province's most
vulnerable people.  Many were children, some were wheelchair
bound, some had developmental disabilities, others had mental
illnesses," Mr. Dix said.

"They were placed in a government facility with the
understanding, for them and their families, that they would be
cared for.  That fundamental trust was severely breached.

"We know, and I know, that no amount of compensation can make
amends for what people such as (McArthur) have experienced -- the
struggle they've experienced and the abuse they suffered.  But
it's important that we acknowledge what people went through and
help, I hope, give residents the sense of closure they deserve."
[GN]


CAREFIRST INC: Data Breach Class Action Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------
Eric W. Richardson, Esq. -- ewrichardson@vorys.com -- Jacob D.
Mahle, Esq. -- jdmahle@vorys.com -- Brent D. Craft, Esq. --
bdcraft@vorys.com -- and Timothy C. Dougherty, Esq. --
tcdougherty@vorys.com -- of Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease LLP, in
an article for Lexology, wrote that the United States Supreme
Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in February in
CareFirst, Inc. v. Attias, No. 17-641, 2017 WL 5041488 (U.S. Oct.
30, 2017), permitting a data breach class action to proceed
against a medical insurer.  In doing so, the Court passed on an
opportunity to resolve the confusion among lower courts in
determining Article III federal standing for such cases or, in
other words, when a plaintiff can bring suit as a result of a
data breach.

The Supreme Court addressed standing in a non-data breach context
in the case of Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013).
In that case, the Supreme Court reiterated that, in order for a
plaintiff to have standing to invoke the jurisdiction of federal
courts under Article III of the United States Constitution, a
plaintiff must allege an injury that is actual or imminent. Id.
at 402. Although the mere possibility of injury does not
establish standing, a "substantial risk" of injury can be
sufficient to create Article III standing. Id. at 409, 414 n. 5.
In Clapper, the court held that the named plaintiffs lacked
standing to challenge a provision of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) which permitted electronic surveillance
of individuals who are not "United States persons" and who are
reasonably believed to be outside the United States. Id. at 403-
404, 417-18.  Although the named plaintiffs -- consisting of
human rights groups, lawyers, media organizations and others --
claimed that their communications with foreign contacts were
likely to be intercepted in this program, the Court held that,
because they could not demonstrate that their communications had,
in fact, been intercepted, they could not demonstrate injury and
therefore lacked standing to maintain the suit. Id. at 410-11.
Clapper also held that voluntarily assuming mitigation costs were
not sufficient--on their own--to establish injury. Id. at 1151.

Following Clapper, a circuit split has persisted regarding the
issue of standing in the context of data breach class actions.
On one side, a number of circuit courts have held that -- even in
the absence of proof that one's personal information actually has
been misused -- the mere fact that the information was accessed
and/or that the victims of the breach incurred costs as a result
of the unauthorized access (e.g., credit monitoring) posed a
sufficient risk of injury to confer standing. See, e.g., Attias
v. CareFirst, Inc., 865 F.3d 620, 629 (D.C. Cir. 2017)
(concluding that "simply by virtue of the hack and the nature of
the data" alleged to be taken, substantial risk of injury to
plaintiffs existed, even though no proof of actual misuse had yet
been shown); Galaria v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 663 Fed. App'x 384,
386, 391 (6th Cir. 2016) (holding that standing existed where
Social Security numbers were accessed and credit monitoring costs
to mitigate the potential identity theft were incurred); Lewert
v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., 819 F.3d 963, 967 (7th Cir.
2016) (holding that standing existed where credit card
information was stolen and plaintiffs incurred charges to
mitigate potential effects of breach); Pisciotta v. Old Nat'l
Bancorp, 499 F.3d 629, 634 (7th Cir. 2007) (pre-Clapper decision
affirming standing where there was merely an "increas[ed] risk of
future harm"); Krottner v. Starbucks Corp., 628 F.3d 1139, 1143
(9th Cir. 2010) (pre-Clapper decision holding that a "credible
threat" of identity theft was sufficient to show injury after
theft of laptop with personal information).

Other circuit courts, however, have held that plaintiffs, in
order to have standing to sue, must demonstrate that their
personal information was not only accessed in a data breach, but
was actually misused as a result (e.g., a fraudulent line of
credit being taken out in the victim's name). See, e.g., Beck v.
McDonald, 848 F.3d 262, 274-76 (4th Cir. 2017) (rejecting
argument that mitigation costs constituted "injury," and holding
that injury can be "reasonably likely" to occur based on theft of
personal information but still not be sufficiently "imminent" to
provide a plaintiff standing to sue); In re SuperValu, Inc., 870
F.3d 763, 769-72 (8th Cir. 2017) (holding that the existence of a
data breach--by itself--was insufficient to establish standing,
even though credit card information was accessed and one
plaintiff faced a fraudulent charge but did not suffer a loss
from it); Whalen v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 689 Fed. App'x 89, 90
(2d Cir. 2017) (rejecting standing where stolen credit card was
promptly cancelled after the breach and no other personally
identifying information was alleged to be stolen); Reilly v.
Ceridian Corp., 664 F.3d 38, 42-44 (3d Cir. 2011) (pre-Clapper
decision holding that "hypothetical future injury" is
"insufficient to establish standing" where plaintiffs could only
speculate as to whether the hacker obtained, understood, and
intended to misuse individuals' personal information).

Whether or not CareFirst was the most appropriate vehicle for the
Supreme Court to weigh in on this issue, the Court's decision to
deny review ensures that lower courts must continue to proceed
with a lack of needed clarity in applying Clapper to data breach
cases.  [GN]


CELGENE CORP: Robbins Geller Files Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed that a class action
has been commenced by an institutional investor on behalf of
purchasers of Celgene Corporation common stock during the period
between September 12, 2016 and February 27, 2018 (the "Class
Period"). This action was filed in the District of New Jersey and
is captioned City of Warren General Employees' Retirement System
v. Celgene Corporation, et al., No. 18-4772.

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

The complaint charges Celgene and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Celgene is a biotechnology company that specializes in the
discovery, development and commercialization of therapies for the
treatment of cancer and inflammatory diseases. Its most
successful drug is Revlimid, a drug for the treatment of multiple
myeloma (a type of plasma cell cancer). However, Revlimid will
lose its patent exclusivity in the coming years, at which point
cheaper generics will be able to enter the market. As a result,
it was important that the Company develop and successfully
commercialize new drugs to diversify and ultimately replace its
reliance on revenues from Revlimid sales, with the three most
promising replacements being GED-0301, a late-stage developmental
treatment for Crohn's disease, Otezla, a commercial-stage
treatment for psoriasis, and Ozanimod, a developmental treatment
for relapsing multiple sclerosis and ulcerative colitis.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse information regarding Celgene's business and the
prospects for its drug products. Specifically, defendants failed
to disclose that trials for GED-0301 suffered from fatal design
defects, such that GED-0301 had failed to demonstrate meaningful
clinical efficacy, and that, as a result, there was an
undisclosed risk and high likelihood that Celgene would be unable
to develop GED-0301 into a commercially viable treatment for
Crohn's disease. In addition, defendants also failed to disclose
that the growth of Otezla sales had dramatically slowed during
Celgene's third fiscal quarter of 2017 and that the clinical and
nonclinical pharmacology data in Celgene's new drug application
("NDA") for Ozanimod were insufficient to permit a complete
review by the FDA, which resulted in the FDA issuing a refusal to
file letter to Celgene regarding the NDA. As a result of these
false statements and/or omissions, the price of Celgene stock was
artificially inflated during the Class Period to over $145 per
share.

On October 19, 2017, the Company revealed that it would be
abandoning GED-0301, discontinuing ongoing trials, and would
record a $1.6 billion impairment charge as a result of the drug's
failure. On October 26, 2017, the Company revealed that certain
of its key drugs had badly missed sales expectations for the
quarter. Most notably, sales for Otezla -- which management had
just recently claimed were "going very, very well" -- had slowed
to only 2% U.S. growth, compared to 41% year-over-year growth in
the prior quarter. Then, after the market closed on February 27,
2018, Celgene disclosed that it had received a refusal to file
letter from the FDA in connection with the Company's NDA for
Ozanimod. The Company revealed that both the clinical and
nonclinical pharmacology sections of its NDA were found deficient
by regulators. On this news, the price of Celgene stock dropped
9%, or $8.66 per share, to close at $87.12 per share on February
28, 2018.

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

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

         Darren Robbins, Esq.
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Tel: 800-449-4900
         Email: djr@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


CELGENE CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Celgene Corporation
("Celgene" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CELG) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased Celgene
securities between September 12, 2016 and February 27, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to
join this case by visiting the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/celg.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) the trials for GED-0301 suffered
from fatal design defects, such that GED-0301 had failed to
demonstrate meaningful clinical efficacy; (2) as a result, there
was an undisclosed risk and high likelihood that Celgene would be
unable to develop GED-0301 into a commercially viable treatment
for Crohn's disease; (3) the growth of Otezla sales had
dramatically slowed during Celgene's third fiscal quarter of
2017; and (4) the clinical and nonclinical pharmacology data in
Celgene's new drug application ("NDA") for Ozanimod were
insufficient to permit a complete review by the FDA, which
resulted in the FDA issuing a refusal to file letter to Celgene
regarding the NDA.

On October 19, 2017, Celgene announced that it would be dropping
GED-0301, discontinuing its current trials, and would record a
$1.6 billion impairment charge because of the drug's failure. On
October 26, 2017, Celgene identified some of its key drugs that
had missed sales expectations for the quarter. Specifically,
Otezla -- which management had just recently claimed were "going
very, very well" -- dropped to only 2% U.S. growth, compared to
41% year-over-year growth in the prior quarter.

On February 27, 2018, post-market, Celgene disclosed that the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") had rejected the
Company's New Drug Application ("NDA") for Ozanimod, a multiple
sclerosis treatment.  Celgene stated that it had received a
refusal-to-file letter from the FDA, which advised the Company
that it had "determined that the nonclinical and clinical
pharmacology sections in the NDA were insufficient to permit a
complete review."  On this news, Celgene's share price fell
$8.66, or 9.04%, to close at $87.12 on February 28, 2018.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/celgor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you
suffered a loss in Celgene you have until May 29, 2018 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to
share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

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

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
         Tel: 212-697-6484
         E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com [GN]


CHINA AGRITECH: High Court Hears Oral Arguments In Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Archis A. Parasharami, Esq. -- aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- of
Mayer Brown, in an article for Mondaq, wrote that the Supreme
Court heard oral arguments over whether successive class actions
can be filed after the expiration of the statute of limitations
in China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh.  The case arises against the
backdrop of the long-standing rule declared in American Pipe and
Construction Co. v. Utah (1974) that the filing of a putative
class action tolls the time for absent class members to bring
individual claims while the case remains pending as a potential
class action.  The question in China Agritech is whether American
Pipe's equitable tolling rule applies beyond the context of
individual actions and also allows absent class members to file a
successive putative class action after the statute of limitations
period has run.

It is too early to tell how the Court will rule, and the Justices
had tough questions for both sides.  As questions from at least
two of the Justices indicated, the American Pipe rule itself has
been controversial, and it is not necessarily clear that the
Court would adopt the same rule on March 27.  The central
justification for the American Pipe rule was to protect absent
class members (whether they are aware of a pending class action
or not) from needing to join as parties or intervene in the class
action, or (as the Court later held in Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v.
Parker (1983)) to file their own individual actions.

But as the Chief Justice put it, successive class actions "might
be different . . . because if you allow the second" class action
to be filed outside the statute of limitations, "you've got to
allow the third and then the fourth and the fifth.  And there's
no end in sight."  Likewise, Justice Gorsuch asked, "can you
stack them forever, so that [plaintiffs may] try, try again, and
the statue of limitations never really has force in these cases?"

Counsel for the plaintiff argued that this result might not occur
in practice because plaintiffs' counsel would not bring
successive class actions unless they could come up with a
different reason why the class should be certified in their case,
and courts could police against new class actions by choosing to
deny certification on the basis of comity.  And in any event, he
suggested that the risk of successive class actions is the
necessary consequence of the American Pipe doctrine, contending
that once an individual plaintiff is able to take advantage of
equitable tolling to bring a new action outside the statute of
limitations, he or she should be able to use any of the devices
available under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure -- including
a new class action under Rule 23.

My take: The concerns that led the Court to adopt the American
Pipe rule are focused on protecting absent class members who in
theory rely upon a pending class action to redress their claims.
But those concerns do not (and should not) extend to people who
wish to serve as representative plaintiffs in a new class action.
Such potential class representatives (and their lawyers) should
be encouraged to file competing class actions sooner rather than
later.  That approach would afford district courts an opportunity
at the outset to identify the best lead plaintiffs and interim
lead counsel.  And it would spare courts and defendants from the
costs and burdens of an endless daisy chain of class actions that
could reach years -- if not decades -- into the past. [GN]


CHINA AGRITECH: Jackson Lewis Attorneys Discuss Tolling Issue
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris, Esq. -- Stephanie.Adler-
Paindiris@jacksonlewis.com -- Stephanie L. Goutos, Esq. --
Stephanie.Goutos@jacksonlewis.com -- and Godfre O. Blackman, of
Jackson Lewis P.C, in an article for The National Law Review,
wrote that the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to China
Agritech, Inc., a fertilizer manufacturer, from the Ninth
Circuit's decision in Resh v. China Agritech, Inc., 857 F.3d 994
(9th Cir. 2017).  In reviewing Resh, the Court will consider
whether its American Pipe and Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S.
538 (1974) ruling tolls statutes of limitation to allow
previously absent class members to bring a subsequent class
action outside of the applicable limitations period.  In other
words, whether its American Pipe ruling applies only to
subsequent individual claims or if it extends more broadly to
successive class actions.  The Court held argument on this issue.

Background
In American Pipe, the Supreme Court held that the filing of a
class action suit tolls the running of the statute of limitations
for all purported members of the class who make timely motions to
intervene after the court has found the suit inappropriate for
class action status.  The First, Second, Third, Fifth, Eighth and
Eleventh Circuits have found the American Pipe decision to allow
for tolling for individual actions only -- and not serial class
actions.  Three other courts of appeal -- including the Ninth
Circuit in the decision at issue -- have rejected this notion
and, instead, interpret American Pipe to mean that the
limitations period is tolled not only as to individual claims,
but also as to future class action claims.

Procedural History
In Resh, a group of plaintiffs first filed a class action against
China Agritech in 2011, alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  In 2012, the district court rejected a
motion for class certification, holding that the claims were not
suited for joint adjudication.  When the individual plaintiffs
settled their claims, that case was dismissed.  A few weeks
later, another group of plaintiffs filed a similar class action
against China Agritech, raising claims under the Securities
Exchange Act related to the same events as the first class
action.  After the district court rejected a motion for class
certification, the second group of plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed their claims.

Several months later, yet another group of plaintiffs filed the
action at issue, raising claims under the Securities Exchange Act
based on the same events as the two previous class actions.
Because the filing in this case came more than two years after
the events in question, outside the applicable statute of
limitations, China Agritech argued that the district court should
dismiss it as untimely.  The district court ruled for China
Agritech, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
overturned that ruling, reinstating the class action.  The Ninth
Circuit held that the Plaintiffs' would-be class action is not
time bared, where: (1) the Plaintiffs were unnamed in the two
earlier would-be class actions against many of the same
Defendants based on the same underlying events; (2) class action
certification was denied in both previous cases; (3) the earlier
actions were timely; and (4) under American Pipe, the statute of
limitations of the individual claims of the would-be class
members in the earlier actions were tolled during the pendency of
those claims.

Highlights of the March 26, 2018 Oral Argument
Seth Aronson argued on behalf of the Petitioner, China Agritech.
Aronson argued that American Pipe gave claimants the benefit of
equitable tolling because the plaintiff had shown diligence by
coming to court to assert his claim when class certification was
denied, and, further, because enforcing the statute of
limitations would undermine Rule 23 by encouraging individual
claimants to come forward while the class action was pending.

Justice Elena Kagan began by questioning how the plaintiff in the
present case was different from plaintiffs in American Pipe, as
both are relying on a class action in order to show diligence.

A skeptical Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the validity of
petitioner's argument early on, stating "your regime is now
encouraging the very thing that American Pipewas trying to avoid,
which is to have a multiplicity of suits being filed and
encouraging every class member to come forth and file their own
suit."

Justice Kagan again pushed Aronson on his position, stating that
"just as, at time one, it made more sense to have a class action
than a thousand individual actions, so too, at time two, it makes
more sense to have a class action than a thousand individual
actions."

Aronson responded by arguing that it is not reasonable to rely on
a class action where the statute of limitations has already
expired.  He argued that if the statute of limitations is
enforced, the interests of Rule 23 would still be served because
it would mean the class members would come forward early, the
best representatives would be picked, and the court would be able
to decide the best way to proceed.

The newest addition to the Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch, also
questioned Aronson's argument against allowing individuals with
equitably tolled claims from bringing a new class action suit,
asking Aronson whether or not there were any other circumstances
where courts have allowed equitable tolling, but denied access to
procedural mechanisms in a subsequent suit.  Aronson responded
that he was not aware of any such circumstance outside of the
present case, but that the absent class members' claims are
untimely and that there cannot be such a class of untimely class
members.

Aronson argued that "someone who sleeps on their rights and
doesn't present her claim, those claims will expire when the
statute of limitation expires."

Aronson got to the heart of Petitioners' argument and said that
to allow an individual to bring a class claim after the
limitations period had ended would be unfair because those other
unnamed individuals would not be entitled to equitable tolling
because they have done nothing to illustrate a showing of
diligence while the statutory period ran.

David Frederick argued on behalf of the Respondents. Justice
Gorsuch questioned Frederick and noted that American Pipe is the
only time in which the court allows an absent class member to
illustrate diligence without actually filing an action with the
court.

Counsel for Respondents argued that if a plaintiff has a timely
claim, which he argued was conceded in this case for the
individual claims, then the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
apply automatically (which, of course, includes Rule 23).

Chief Justice John Roberts noted his concerns about allowing
individuals whose claims have been tolled to file class actions,
by stating "if you allow the second [class action suit], you've
got to allow the third and then the fourth and the fifth and
there's no end in sight."

Frederick responded by saying that the "end in sight" is that
plaintiffs must have a new rationale for why the subsequent class
certification motion should be granted.

Justice Stephen Breyer seemingly questioned why someone who has
never done anything during the tolling period should be rewarded
by being able to join a class action after the statutory period
has run.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave her thoughts on the holding in
American Pipe in a question where she stated, "so the American
Pipe [decision] is protecting diligent parties who will come in
immediately after the class action is denied and the ones who
don't come in are still sleeping on their rights."

Considerations
The issue of whether under American Pipe individuals whose claims
have been tolled can bring a class action after the statutory
period has run is one that can have massive implications for
complex litigation throughout the country.  The precedent seems
to be clear that on an individual basis, the plaintiffs' claims
may be tolled.  However, on both sides of the aisle, the Court
seems reluctant to extend this equitable tolling on a class-wide
basis.  Throughout the argument, the Justices were focused on the
diligence prong of the equitable tolling standard and appeared
concerned that allowing equitable relief for plaintiffs who sat
on their claims would fly in the face of the rationale behind
equitable tolling in the first place. [GN]


CHINA AGRITECH: SCOTUS Hears Issue on Statute of Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Mann, writing for SCOTUS Blog, reports that the audience
didn't hear quite what it expected on March 26 when the Supreme
Court turned to the class-action realm at the argument in China
Agritech v. Resh. As the most casual observer of the justices
would know, several of them in recent years have evinced
increasing levels of concern (if not panic) about large
securities class actions.  A separate group also has been pushing
the idea that courts should get out of the business of using
vague equitable doctrines to adjust the deadlines that Congress
adopts for plaintiffs to initiate litigation.  So a case pushing
both of those buttons should be a tough one for plaintiffs'
counsel (David Frederick in this case) and smooth sailing for the
defendants trying to eradicate the class (represented here by
Seth Aronson). But that was not at all what transpired at the
argument, as most of the justices expressed grave doubts about
limiting earlier precedents that suggest that the action in this
case is permissible.

A brief word of background. The problem in the case involves
applying the statute of limitations to class actions.  Suppose
that a group of plaintiffs file a class action, which lingers on
in litigation for a few years and then finally is dismissed for
one reason or another (suppose that the plaintiffs are not good
representatives for the class).  If the statute of limitations
runs before the first class action is dismissed, can individuals
not involved in the first effort bring their own action later?
American Pipe and Construction Co. v. Utah says yes, at least if
the individuals file their own separate actions.  Specifically,
American Pipe holds that the statute of limitations is "tolled"
(suspended) during the pendency of the first class action. The
question here is whether those individuals can bring their
follow-on actions as a class or must instead bring them
separately as individuals.

Notwithstanding the recent swath of cases dubious about the
benefits of class actions, the justices for the most part were
quite skeptical of the idea that claimants under American Pipe
could bring their claims only as individuals.  As Chief Justice
John Roberts put it early in the argument, "If you just read it
on its face, the statute of limitations hasn't run because of
American Pipe, . . . so why shouldn't that rule be available to
you?" In the same vein, Justice Elena Kagan commented that "the
whole theory of American Pipe was that for any given individual,
we weren't going to make them come forward; we were going to say
reliance on a class action is sufficient. So here, these people
were doing just that.  They were relying on a class action."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor also weighed in critically, pointing to
provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act that
give small-dollar plaintiffs a strong incentive not to file their
own actions by requiring courts to select the plaintiffs with the
largest claims as class representatives:

[I]f my financial interest is moderately sized or small sized,
there's no inducement for me to do anything other than what
American [Pipe] tells me to do, which is to wait until the class
issues are resolved before stepping forward. . . . [Y]our regime
is encouraging the very thing that American Pipe was trying to
avoid, which is having a multiplicity of suits being filed and
encouraging every class member to come forth and file their own
suit.

Justice Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer seemed particularly
concerned about the practical effects of Aronson's rule, which
would require follow-on plaintiffs to adjudicate their claims
separately.  Justice Roberts, evincing his wonted concern for
overcrowded federal trial dockets, asked with apparent
incredulity: "So what they all have to do is they all have to
file individual claims -- every member of the class?" More
expansively, Justice Breyer asked Aronson about a hypothetical in
which "[a] lawyer walks into the judge's chambers and says here
in my hand I have 10,000 complaints and . . . they're identical,
would it be all right to consider those as a class, just those?"
Aronson's response that individual adjudication would be the only
option did not seem to sit well.

That is not to say that the argument was totally one-sided. Both
Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch, for example, were concerned
about the possibility that the rule Frederick sought for the
plaintiffs could lead to a long series of sequential "stacked"
class actions.  Raising that concern, Justice Gorsuch asked:
"[C]an you stack them forever, so that try, try again, and the
statute of limitations never really has any force in these cases?
What do we do about the congressional judgment that there should
be a statute of limitations?" In the same vein, Roberts, offering
an explanation for why American Pipe might apply differently to
subsequent classes, suggested that "one reason that the second
might be different [from] the first [is that] if you allow the
second, you've got to allow the third and then the fourth and the
fifth. And there's no end in sight."

Justices Gorsuch and Sotomayor also explored the possibility that
the reason for denial might be relevant.  In some cases, courts
refuse to certify a class because the complaint is not suitable
for class adjudication -- the Supreme Court's recent ruling in
Wal-Mart v. Dukes held that the claims of the Wal-Mart employees
in that case did not raise sufficiently common factual questions
to warrant class-based adjudication. In cases like that one,
bringing a second class action before a second judge may amount
to little more than an effort to shop for a favorable judge.
Justice Gorsuch noted that existing rules oddly do not really
obligate trial judges in the second class action to defer to the
rulings of a trial judge who decided to dismiss the first class
action.  Other cases, though, do not present that problem,
because the reason for dismissal of the first class action
involves a defect in the particular class representative; courts
occasionally dismiss cases under the PSLRA rules mentioned above.
In that case, a second class action filed by a proper plaintiff
is less an attempt to evade the first ruling than a response to
the ruling that solves the problem.  Justices Gorsuch and
Sotomayor seemed much less concerned about permitting stacked
classes in the latter group of cases -- when (as Justice
Sotomayor put it) "the only deficiency was in the plaintiff not
in my class." Their discussion with Frederick on that topic,
though, did not suggest an easy way to interpret American Pipe to
draw that distinction.

In sum, an argument not nearly so hostile to the proposed class
as recent cases might have suggested, but still leaving open the
possibility of a limitation of American Pipe to prevent stacked
class actions. [GN]


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Shearman & Sterling Discusses Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that
on March 22, 2018, Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed a putative securities class action against Chipotle
Mexican Grill, Inc. ("Chipotle"), its two former co-CEOs, and its
CFO. Ong v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. et al., No. 1:16-cv-141-
KPF (S.D.N.Y. March 22, 2018). Plaintiffs--shareholders of
Chipotle who allegedly purchased the company's shares between
February 5, 2015 and February 2, 2016--alleged that the company
and the individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") by
failing to disclose in securities filing and press releases
certain attendant risks in the fast-food chain's produce
processing and food-safety procedures, allegedly causing
plaintiffs to suffer losses when Chipotle's stock dropped after a
series of food-borne illness outbreaks occurred in 2014 and 2015.
The Court disagreed, finding that while it was "as concerned as
the parties about food-borne illness outbreaks," plaintiffs had
not adequately pleaded securities fraud, and dismissed
plaintiffs' second amended complaint ("SAC") with prejudice.

The Court first considered a motion by defendants to strike a
declaration submitted by plaintiffs as an attachment to their
SAC.  The Court found that the declaration, which opined on food-
safety standards and practices for fast-food companies and
Chipotle's adherence thereto, was written long after the illness
outbreaks and thus was not a "written instrument" -- as that term
has been interpreted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(c)
-- that could be considered at the motion to dismiss stage.  The
Court also found that the declaration was not "incorporated by
reference" into the SAC, because it was used by plaintiffs in an
attempt to prove the truth of its contents.  Determining that the
declaration was drafted for the purposes of the litigation, and
therefore plaintiffs could not have relied on its terms while
drafting their SAC, the Court granted defendants' motion to
strike the declaration, and noted that it would not consider any
conclusory allegations in the amended complaint that were based
on the declaration.

The Court next considered whether any of the six misstatements or
omissions alleged by plaintiffs in the SAC were material and pled
with sufficient particularity to establish scienter under the
heightened pleading standards of the PSLRA.  First, the Court
rejected plaintiffs' contention that Chipotle had a duty to
disclose any heightened risk associated with a change in its
produce processing, finding that the company's securities filings
contained a lengthy disclosure of risks associated with food
safety and processing of produce and that defendants were not
required to outline the myriad possible outcomes associated with
its process.  Second, the Court held that generalized,
aspirational statements providing that, for example, Chipotle is
"committed to serving safe, high quality food to [its]
customers," were nonactionable puffery.  Third, the Court
rejected plaintiffs' contention that defendants had a duty to
disclose facts regarding the company's ability to trace
ingredients back to its suppliers, finding that the company's
statement regarding its use of multiple produce suppliers was
"far too attenuated" from the alleged omission--the nondisclosure
of Chipotle's ability to trace ingredients--to trigger a
corresponding duty to disclose.  The Court added that "no
reasonable investor would have considered significant Chipotle's
ability to trace ingredients through its supply chain in deciding
whether to invest" in the company, and therefore the alleged
misstatement was immaterial.  Fourth, the Court rejected
plaintiffs' contention that Chipotle omitted material risk
factors and the existence of several outbreaks from certain of
its regulatory filings, finding that the documents provided
robust risk disclosures that "were company-specific and related
to the direct risks it uniquely faced," and thus there could be
"no argument that these were boilerplate statements insufficient
to satisfy the Company's" disclosure obligations. Fifth, the
Court reached a similar conclusion regarding plaintiffs'
allegations that defendants failed to disclose information
relating to the outbreaks in Chipotle's financial projections,
finding that the company's produce processing and food-safety
compliance standards were not tied to sales in any manner not
addressed by its existing disclosures.  The Court added that any
such forward-looking statements are also protected by the PSLRA's
safe harbor provisions, because plaintiffs failed to allege that
they were made with actual knowledge that they were false or
misleading.  Finally, the Court rejected plaintiffs' contention
that a press release issued by the company was known to be false,
finding that plaintiffs had taken cribbed phrases from the
release out of context and had not sufficiently alleged scienter
by defendants.

Additionally, the Court analyzed the scienter allegations in the
SAC against the individual defendants, but found that the SAC's
allegations fell short of pleading a Section 10(b) claim.  First,
the Court concluded that defendants could not have recklessly
disregarded information to which they never had access. Second,
in analyzing the allegations concerning the individual
defendants' alleged stock trades, the Court found no evidence
from which an inference of scienter may be drawn, determining
that the alleged trades "were not sufficiently unusual to suggest
that they were made in order to offload stock before anticipated
illness outbreaks were tied to Chipotle."

Finding that all of plaintiffs' claims under Section 10(b) failed
to adequately plead either a material misstatement or omission,
or facts giving rise to scienter, the Court summarily dismissed
plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claims for control person liability.
The Court also rejected plaintiffs' application for leave to
amend yet again, noting that plaintiffs' proposed attempts to
gather further information to amend the deficiencies in the SAC
did not assure the Court that amendment would not be futile.  In
particular, the Court did not find persuasive any of plaintiffs'
stated reasons for why further amendment would not be futile,
which included that (i) plaintiffs are awaiting responses to FOIA
requests, (ii) plaintiffs have moved to intervene in other cases
against Chipotle involving similar allegations for the limited
purpose of unsealing the redacted pleadings filed therein, (iii)
the criminal investigation into Chipotle is ongoing, and (iv)
plaintiffs are continuing their own investigation.  The Court
observed that "none of these efforts has a clear end date, and
extending the pleading stage in this litigation indefinitely
would cause Defendants undue prejudice given their interest in
finality and repose."

The decision serves as a reminder of the high bar to plead a
securities fraud claim, which requires a plaintiff to plead with
specificity factual allegations seeking to tie allegations of
misstatements or omissions to specific language within corporate
filings and press releases. [GN]


CIRQUE DU SOLEIL: National Junk Fax Class Action-Claims Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Thomas, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
applying a new standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court, a Chicago
federal judge has ruled that a junk fax suit against Cirque du
Soleil can continue, but limited the class action claims only to
Illinois residents.

On March 12, U.S. District Judge Thomas M. Durkin nixed national
class-action claims when he dismissed the claims of non-Illinois
residents and limited class certification to include only
Illinois residents who received the faxes.  The judge relied on
the Supreme Court's recent decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v.
Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, in which the
court more stringently tailored specific jurisdiction standards
for such claims from those outside a court's normal jurisdiction.

Durkin held the Supreme Court's ruling prevents the court "from
exercising personal jurisdiction over defendants with respect to
the claims of non-Illinois-resident class members."

The Illinois ruling stems from a lawsuit brought by Practice
Management Support Services Inc. The company accused Cirque du
Soleil of violating the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) in 2009 when it allegedly sent unauthorized faxes
advertising a vaudeville-themed theatrical show without providing
clear instructions on how to opt out.  The lawsuit came after two
suits brought by GM Sign Inc. involving the same faxes were
dismissed.

In August, Cirque du Soleil asked for summary judgment, claiming
Practice Management's suit came too late.  But Judge Durkin
denied the request in November, saying the previous lawsuits
tolled the statute of limitations.  Tolling allows for delaying
or pausing the time set by a statute of limitations.  This means
that a lawsuit may potentially be filed even after the statute of
limitations has run out.

In December, Practice Management moved for class certification,
claiming Cirque du Soleil sent more than 40,000 faxes from
Jan. 20, 2009, to July 8, 2009.  But Cirque du Soleil argued the
Supreme Court's recent decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb "prevents
this court from asserting personal jurisdiction over the
defendants with respect to the claims of putative class members
located outside of Illinois."  The court agreed with the
defendants.

The court went on to define the class as "all persons who are
residents of Illinois and all entities located in Illinois who
were successfully sent a facsimile in Illinois."

The order stayed the case pending the outcome of another case
currently pending before the Supreme Court, but it noted the
plaintiff has leave to file its motion for reconsideration.
Attorneys for Practice Management also informed the court they
will be filing a motion for reconsideration or a Rule 23(f)
appeal with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals solely regarding
the portion of the ruling that limits the class to Illinois
residents.

Glenn L. Hara, an attorney representing Practice Management, and
Yesha Sutaria Hoeppner, an attorney representing Cirque du
Soleil, declined to comment.

David O. Klein -- dklein@kleinmoynihan.com -- an attorney at
Klein Moynihan Turco LLP who practices telemarketing law and
online marketing law in New York City, said the Cirque du Soleil
case could be a good tool for law firms that defend TCPA class
actions.

"It's a great ruling from the perspective of the defendants that
are defending TCPA class actions," Mr. Klein told the Cook County
Record.

In deciding to limit the class to only Illinois residents, the
court ruled specific jurisdiction existed with respect to the
faxes that were sent to residents in Illinois.

"In other words, those that they wanted to certify in the class
nationally would not be eligible to be included in this class,"
Mr. Klein said.  "They would need to bring an action in other
jurisdictions where those residents reside in order for specific
jurisdiction to attach."

In applying the Bristol Myers-Squibb standard, he explained that
you need to have either general or specific jurisdiction over a
defendant for the case to proceed.  While general jurisdiction
didn't apply in the Cirque du Soleil case, specific jurisdiction
did apply with respect to residents who received faxes in
Illinois.

"They also held that the Bristol Myers-Squibb decision and its
reasoning applied in a class-action realm," Mr. Klein said.

Klein said he would advise clients to obtain consumers' prior
express written consent before sending them text messages, phone
calls or faxes through automated means.  But if they end up on
the receiving end of a TCPA class-action suit, he said he would
raise the Cirque du Soleil case and Bristol Myers-Squibb case in
all class certification proceedings to limit the size of the
class. [GN]


COINCHECK: Faces Class Action in Tokyo After January NEM Heist
--------------------------------------------------------------
John McMahon, writing for NewsBTC, reports that Coincheck is in
the news again as another class action suit has been brought
against the Japanese cryptocurrency exchange in the aftermath of
the January NEM heist.

Another Class Action Suit

According to the Japanese media outlet Sankei an additional 132
investors have joined a class action suit to try and get full
reimbursement of their stolen digital assets.

The suit which was filed in Tokyo District Court on Feb. 27 is
seeking $2.1 million in cryptocurrency.  This is following a suit
that was filed Feb. 15 that sought $183,000 in damages plus 5%
annual interest until the funds are recovered.

These suits are part of the aftermath of a late January hack that
netted thieves 523 million NEM tokens worth over $425 million at
the time.  Eventually, the hack was blamed in part on Coincheck's
bad security protocols because customer tokens were stored in a
non-secure wallet.

The Coincheck hack which is the second largest after the
legendary Mt. Gox brought with it a new level of scrutiny from
Japan's Financial Services Agency which has since banned two
other exchanges from doing business and delt official warnings to
Coincheck and others.

Coincheck had stated from the day of the hack that it would
reimburse the 260,000 investors affected by the theft the sum of
$435 million dollars from its own accounts.  Then announced that
payments had been completed on March, 13.

According to Coincheck's spokeswomen, the reimbursement was
completed in one day and that customers were paid based on a
valuation of 88.54 Yen per NEM token.  Coincheck began taking
orders again that same day.

At the time many customers Tweeted out their thanks to the
company for keeping their word while others cried foul at the low
payment price noting that the value of the NEM at the time it was
stolen was 110 Yen per token.

Coinchecks Pay Out not Enough for Some
Coincheck posted a message on their blog to explain how they
calculated the reimbursement rate which read "the prices during
the period beginning with the suspension of new purchases and
sales of NEM on the Coincheck platform and ending with the
release of this notice."

This explanation obviously has not satisfied all customers
affected by the hack who believe the company should pay out at
the earlier, higher rate or barring that in NEM tokens.

To date, the Coincheck hack remains unsolved.  The hackers are
still at large despite a major effort by the Tokyo police force
to track the funds.  There is evidence that up to $80 million of
the NEM tokens have been laundered through exchanges though the
how is still a mystery.

The Coincheck hack sent shivers through the Cryptocurrency world
as wounds from the Mt. Gox hack have yet to heal for many of
those victims.  On Feb. 14, 2014, a mysterious glitch caused $500
million in Bitcoin to go missing resulting in the eventual
shuttering of the exchange, rounds of regulatory assessment and
lawsuits.  Even now after 4 years little of the missing Bitcoin
has ever been traced. [GN]


CREDIT ONE: 7th Cir. Denies Arbitration of TCPA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Alan S. Kaplinsky, Esq., Mark J. Levin, Esq., Joel A. Tasca,
Esq., and Lindsay C. Demaree, Esq., of Ballard Spahr LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, wrote that in A.D. vs.
Credit One Bank, N.A., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit reversed a district court order compelling individual
arbitration of a putative class action for Credit One's alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).  The
appellate court concluded that the named plaintiff -- the minor
daughter of a Credit One cardholder -- was not bound by her
mother's cardholder agreement, rejecting arguments that the
plaintiff was an authorized user or otherwise estopped from
avoiding the agreement's arbitration provision.

The plaintiff's mother opened a credit card account with Credit
One.  The mother used her daughter's cellular phone to call
Credit One about the account and Credit One, in turn, attached
the daughter's cell phone number to her mother's account.
According to the plaintiff, Credit One purportedly violated the
TCPA by calling her phone in an attempt to collect amounts owed
on her mother's account.

The credit card agreement between Credit One and the plaintiff's
mother included an arbitration provision that required
arbitration of all claims made by "anyone connected with" the
accountholder, including an authorized user.  The agreement also
stated that if the accountholder allowed someone to use the
account, "that person will be an Authorized User."  The provision
went on to explain the process for designating an authorized
user, which required a minimum age of 15 and the payment of an
annual fee to issue a card in the authorized user's name. The
plaintiff's mother never paid the annual fee or obtained a
separate credit card for her daughter.  However, on one occasion,
she allowed her daughter to use her Credit One credit card to
pick up and pay for smoothies that she (the mother) had pre-
ordered. The plaintiff was 14 years old at the time of the
transaction.

Agreeing with Credit One, the district court found that the
daughter was an "Authorized User" bound by the cardholder
agreement's arbitration provision under the "direct benefits
estoppel" theory.  Specifically, the lower court appeared to find
that the daughter was an authorized user of the account because
her mother allowed her to use the credit card to make a purchase.
It further found that the plaintiff benefitted from her mother's
cardholder agreement because the agreement enabled the daughter
to pay for the items ordered by her mother.  The district court
stayed the case pending arbitration, but certified the question
of whether the daughter was bound by the cardholder agreement
under 28 U.S.C. Sec 1292(b).

The Seventh Circuit granted permission to appeal and reversed,
rejecting Credit One's arguments that the daughter was bound by
the arbitration provision in her mother's cardholder agreement.
First, the court held that plaintiff was not an authorized user
because the agreement's specific process for designating an
authorized user "makes it clear that an individual does not
become an Authorized User simply by using the credit card to
complete the cardholder's transaction." (Emphasis in original.)
It was undisputed that the daughter was never designated using
the agreement's process.  Additionally, because she was only 14
at the time of the smoothie transaction, she lacked legal
capacity to enter into any contractual obligation with Credit One
as an authorized user.

Second, the Seventh Circuit held that the daughter could not be
bound based on principles of estoppel because she neither
received a direct benefit under the agreement nor asserted a
claim based on any rights under the agreement.  Applying state
law, the appellate court explained that estoppel "prevents a non-
signatory from refusing to comply with an arbitration clause when
it receives a 'direct benefit' from a contract containing an
arbitration clause." (Internal quotations omitted.) It held that
any "benefit" the daughter received from using the card at her
mother's direction derived from her mother-daughter relationship,
not from the cardholder agreement.  The court likewise rejected
Credit One's argument that the daughter was bound by the
arbitration provision because her TCPA claim sought benefits
under the cardholder agreement.  Although Credit One sought to
establish an affirmative defense of consent based on the
cardholder agreement, the plaintiff's claim remained premised on
the TCPA.  And, according to the Seventh Circuit, binding the
plaintiff to the terms of the cardholder agreement's arbitration
provision simply because of Credit One's potential defense "would
threaten to overwhelm the fundamental premise that a party cannot
be compelled to arbitrate a matter without its agreement."

Notably, the Seventh Circuit's ruling comes only days after the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit set aside the Federal
Communication Commission's (FCC) interpretation of "called party"
in the agency's 2015 Declaratory Ruling and Order implementing
the TCPA. Considering the "called party" issue in the context of
number reassignments, the D.C. Circuit acknowledged that the FCC
could reasonably interpret "called party" to refer to the current
subscriber.  The court, nevertheless, excised this definition of
"called party" as part of its decision to set aside the FCC's
"treatment of reassigned numbers as a whole."  It remains to be
seen how this ruling might affect cases like Credit One that turn
on the consent of a "called party" in other contexts. [GN]


CVS HEALTH: Sued for Revealing HIV Status of Ohio Patients
----------------------------------------------------------
Action News Now reports that CVS Health is being sued for
allegedly revealing the HIV status of 6,000 patients in Ohio.

A federal lawsuit claims CVS mailed letters last year that showed
the status of participants in the state's HIV drug assistance
program through the envelopes' glassine window.

The complaint, which was filed March 21 in federal court in Ohio,
also names Fiserv, the company that CVS hired to mail the
letters.  On the envelopes used by Fiserv, the patients' HIV
status could be seen through the clear window, just above their
name and address, the documents states.

The letters included the patients' new benefits cards and
information about a mail prescription program.

The companies are being sued by three unidentified plaintiffs,
according to the complaint.

The first plaintiff, only identified as John Doe One of Delaware
County, Ohio, says he "feels that CVS has essentially handed a
weapon to anyone who handled the envelope, giving them the
opportunity to attack his identity or cause other harm to him."

Another plaintiff identified as John Doe Two of Defiance County
says he lives in a small town and fears the stigma stemming from
the disclosure of his HIV status.

He is also concerned that his "friends and family run the risk of
being stigmatized just by being seen with him."

The third plaintiff says he also lives in a small town in Gallia
County, where "everyone knows everyone" and has experienced
"significant distress as a result of this disclosure."

He is scared to leave his home and has "experienced complications
and health issues since this disclosure, up to and including just
in the past several days."

The plaintiffs are seeking a class-action suit and a jury trial.

The attorneys claim that CVS failed to announce the breach of
privacy data and did not contact all the patients whose status
was revealed.

In a statement to CNN, CVS Health said the envelope window was
intended to show a reference code for the assistance program and
not the recipient's health status.

"CVS Health places the highest priority on protecting the privacy
of those we serve, and we take our responsibility to safeguard
confidential information very seriously," the statement said.

"As soon as we learned of this incident, we immediately took
steps to eliminate the reference code to the plan name in any
future mailings."

A representative for Fiserv told CNN the company does not comment
on pending litigation.

The Ohio Department of Public Health did not reply to a request
for comment on March 31. [GN]


CWT: Milk Price-Fixing Class Action Settlement Appeals Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Haddad, writing for ClickOnDetroit, reports that back in
January of 2017, as the result of a class action lawsuit, people
who bought certain dairy products in Michigan were eligible for a
cash refund.

The antitrust lawsuit alleged a nationwide conspiracy by CWT and
its members to limit the production of raw farm milk by
prematurely slaughtering cows, in order to illegally increase the
price of milk and other fresh milk products.  Defendants deny any
wrongdoing or liability for the claims alleged.

While claims closed at the end of January 2017, people are left
wondering: Where is my milk money?

Here's the latest update from the official settlement website:
The Fresh Milk Products Price-fixing Class Action payout amounts
have been finalized.

"We received more claims than anticipated, which lowered the
expected payout amounts on a fixed settlement fund.  Individuals
will receive $6.79, and entities will be receiving $190.13.

"The appeals deadline has now passed, but unfortunately, there
were 3 appeals submitted by objectors to the settlement, which
means payments cannot start until those appeals are resolved.  It
is now in the hands of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit."

Regrettably, the wheels of justice don't always move at the pace
we want, and objectors to a settlement can hold up payments for
all class members.  We are working hard to resolve the appeals so
we can get payments in the hands of all claimants.  We do
apologize for the delays and truly appreciate your patience with
this process. [GN]


CYAN INC: SCOTUS Preserves State Courts as Forum for IPO Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin C. Conroy, Esq. -- kconroy@foleyhoag.com -- of Foley Hoag
LLP, in an article for Mondaq, wrote that in a unanimous decision
issued March 20, 2018, the United States Supreme Court clarified
that certain securities law class action cases may proceed in
state courts.  The Court declined to find that Congress intended
to make federal courts the exclusive or preferred forum for
resolving such claims.

The case -- Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund
-- involved the interpretation of the Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (also referred to as SLUSA) and the
changes that law made to the Securities Act of 1933.  The
Securities Act governs the offering of securities to the public
and requires "full and fair disclosure" of relevant information.
The Securities Act gives plaintiffs the option of pursuing a
claim in either federal or state court.  Ordinarily a defendant
facing a lawsuit brought in state court but based on federal law
(such as the Securities Act) would have the option to "remove"
the case to the appropriate federal court.  The Securities Act,
however, expressly prohibits the removal of such cases to federal
courts.  If a plaintiff choses to bring the claim in state court,
the defendant is forced to litigate the claim in that forum.  The
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 takes a different approach.  The
Exchange Act (which governs trading in securities and which was
not at issue in Cyan) granted federal courts exclusive
jurisdiction over claims brought pursuant to that act.
Plaintiffs alleging violations of the Exchange Act could only
bring their claims in federal court.

In 1995, Congress passed the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act, amending both the Securities Act and Exchange Act.  These
amendments included both substantive changes that applied to
cases brought in either federal or state courts and procedural
changes that only applied to actions brought in federal court.
Because the procedural changes were generally more favorable to
the defendant, one effect of the 1995 reforms was to make state
court an even more attractive option for plaintiffs bringing
claims under the Securities Act.  Plaintiffs could also
circumvent the substantive changes by alleging separate claims
based on state law rather than on the Securities Act or Exchange
Act.

In 1998, Congress amended the securities laws once again by
passing SLUSA.  The purpose of SLUSA was to curb perceived abuses
in securities litigation, including the use of state courts to
circumvent the changes enacted in the 1995 amendments.  SLUSA
barred class action lawsuits involving more than 50 class members
and a security listed on a national stock exchange where the
claim was based on state securities laws.  The bar applied to
both federal and state courts.  In other words, SLUSA made the
Securities Act and Exchange Act the exclusive means to redress
alleged deception in the offering or sale of listed securities,
with a limited exception for small and local matters.  SLUSA also
provided a limited exception to the Securities Act's prohibition
on removal of actions from state to federal courts.

The Cyan case arose when the plaintiffs (three pension funds and
an individual) bought shares of a telecommunications company
(Cyan) in an initial public offering registered under the
Securities Act.  The shares declined in value, and the plaintiffs
brought a class action in a California state court alleging
violations of the Securities Act.  Cyan moved to dismiss the
case, arguing that SLUSA made federal courts the exclusive forum
for litigating such cases.  Cyan lost its argument in the state
courts, and the case made its way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, found that SLUSA had
not stripped the state courts of jurisdiction to hear cases
involving alleged violations of the Securities Act.  Instead, the
Court found that SLUSA barred the litigation of securities claims
based on state law, but did not otherwise change the ability of
state courts to adjudicate securities law claims.  The Supreme
Court also declined to find that SLUSA permitted the removal of
Securities Act claims from state to federal courts (a position
advocated by the United States Solicitor General).

Although the justices had expressed concern about the clarity of
the statutory language during oral arguments, the Court
ultimately used a straightforward textual analysis to reach its
conclusion, finding that "The statute says what it says--or
perhaps better put here, does not say what it does not say."  If
Congress had intended to strip state courts of jurisdiction over
Securities Act claims, it could have expressly done so, as it had
done from the start with the Exchange Act.  The Court easily
rejected Cyan's arguments based on Congress's purpose in enacting
SLUSA, observing that the act "largely accomplished the purpose
articulated" by Congress, and that the Court does "not generally
expect statutes to fulfill 100% of all of their goals."

As for the possibility of defendants removing Securities Act
claims from state to federal court, the Court found that SLUSA's
limited exception to the Securities Act's general prohibition on
removal only applies to those claims that plaintiffs may attempt
to bring based on state securities laws (which SLUSA
simultaneously bars on the merits).  While a state court applying
the Securities Act as amended by SLUSA should dismiss such barred
claims itself, defendants can elect to remove the case to a
federal court to avoid any perceived risk of the state court
failing to dismiss the case.

Following the Supreme Court's Cyan decision, it is clear that
those involved in the offering of securities remain exposed to
potential litigation in state courts, where they will not have
the full slate of procedural protections they would have in
federal court.  Perhaps the most significant procedural
protection lost in such instances is the opportunity to
consolidate potentially duplicative class action lawsuits.
Different groups of plaintiffs could pursue separate class
actions simultaneously in multiple states against the same
defendants for the same alleged violations.  Defendants would
have no ability to consolidate the various actions, unless
Congress decides to further amend the securities laws to prevent
that outcome. [GN]


DCQ LLC: Accused by Mercado of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Beatriz Mercado, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DCQ, LLC d/b/a Oxygen Recovery Group, Case
No. 1:18-cv-01678 (E.D.N.Y., March 16, 2018), accuses the
Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
which prohibits the collection of any amount, including any
interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the debt, unless
such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the
debt or permitted by law.

DCQ, LLC, doing business as Oxygen Recovery Group, is a New York
Limited Liability Company with a principal place of business in
Rockland County, New York.  The Defendant is regularly engaged,
for profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by
consumers.  The Defendant regularly engages in debt
collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Faces "Kim" Class Suit Over Violations of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Woo Y. Kim, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-
01665 (E.D.N.Y., March 16, 2018), is brought on behalf of all
persons similarly situated in the state of New York from whom the
Defendant attempted to collect a consumer debt without disclosing
whether non-interest fees were continuing to accrue, in violation
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, is a South Carolina Limited
Liability Company with a principal place of business in
Greenville County, South Carolina.  The Defendant is regularly
engaged, for profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by
consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EARTHLINK HOLDINGS: "Murray" Suit Challenges Windstream Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT MURRAY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. EARTHLINK HOLDINGS CORP., SUSAN D. HOWICK, JOSEPH F.
EAZOR, KATHY S. LANE, GARRY K. MCGUIRE, R. GERARD SALEMME, JULIE
A. SIDMER, MARC F. STOLL, WALTER L. TUREK, WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS,
INC., CAROL B. ARMITAGE, SAMUEL E. BEALL III, JEANNIE H.
DIEFENDERFER, JEFFREY T. HINSON, WILLIAM G. LAPERCH, LARRY LAQUE,
KRISTI MOODY, MICHAEL G. STOLTZ, TONY THOMAS, ALAN L. WELLS, Case
No. 4:18-cv-00202-BRW (E.D. Ark., March 19, 2018), is a merger-
related securities class action brought on behalf of the former
holders of EarthLink common for violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with misleading statements in proxy
statements issued in connection with the merger of EarthLink and
Windstream.

Based on the closing price of Windstream common stock on the
NASDAQ on November 3, 2016, the exchange ratio of 0.818
represented approximately $5.55 in value for each share of
EarthLink common stock, according to the complaint.  The
Plaintiff alleges that this Merger consideration was insufficient
and undervalued EarthLink.  He insists that the Merger
consideration was inconsistent with EarthLink's recent financial
performance, statements by EarthLink's management and analyst
targets.

Before the Merger, Earthlink was a Delaware corporation that
maintained its headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia.  Defendants
Bowick, Eazor, Lane, McGuire, Salemme, Shimer, Stoll, and Turek
are directors and officers of Earthlink.

EarthLink began operations in 1994 as a provider of nationwide
Internet services to residential customers.  In 1996, EarthLink
expanded into the small to mid-sized business market.  In 2006,
EarthLink expanded into the enterprise business market.  During
2010 through 2013, EarthLink acquired eight companies which
transformed its business from being primarily an Internet
services provider to residential customers into a network,
communications and IT services provider for business customers.

Windstream is a Delaware corporation that maintains its
headquarters in Little Rock, Arkansas.  Windstream provides
network communications and technology solutions in the United
States.  Defendants Armitage, Beall, Diefenderfer, Hinson,
LaPerch, Laque, Moody, Stoltz, Thomas and Wells are directors and
officers of Windstream.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
          Hank Bates, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 W. 7th Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
          E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com
                  hbates@cbplaw.com

               - and -

          W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 802-1486
          Facsimile: (212) 602-1592
          E-mail: scotth@johnsonfistel.com


EDWARD D. JONES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Franklin D. Azar, Esq. & Associates ("FDA") and John R. Garner,
Esq. -- jrg@erglaw.net -- of the Garner Law Office ("Garner")
have filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of
Plaintiffs Edward Anderson, Raymond Keith Corum, and Jesse and
Colleen Worthington against Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., The
Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., EDJ Holding Company, Inc.,
James D. Weddle, Penelope ("Penny") Pennington, Daniel J. Timm,
Kenneth R. Cella, Jr., Brett A. Campbell, Kevin D. Bastien,
Norman L. Eaker, Vincent J. Ferrari, Timothy J. Kirley, and James
A. Tricarico, Jr. (collectively, "Edward Jones" or "the Company")
as well as Olive Street Investment Advisors, LLC, Passport
Holdings, LLC, and Passport Research, Ltd. (collectively with
Edward Jones, "Defendants"). The action, which is captioned,
Anderson et al v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. et al 2:18-at-
00404,  asserts claims under Sec 12(a)(2) and Sec 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 (1933 Act), Sec 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (1934 Act) and Rules 10b-5(a)(b), and (c)
promulgated thereunder, and the fiduciary duty laws of Missouri
and California on behalf of all persons (including, without
limitation, their beneficiaries) who had their commission-based
accounts with Edward Jones moved into one of the Advisory
Programs between March 30, 2013 and March 30, 2018 (the "Class
Period"), inclusive, and who were damaged thereby (the "Class").

The Complaint alleges that Edward Jones executed a reverse
churning scheme to take advantage of trusting, long-standing
clients and unlawfully shift their commission-based accounts to a
fee-based program -- Edward Jones Advisory Solutions ("Advisory
Solutions") or Edward Jones Guided Solutions ("Guided Solutions")
(collectively, "Advisory Programs"). In orchestrating this scheme
to churn revenue from essentially dead assets, Edward Jones made
misleading statements and material omissions to their clients
about the amount of fees they would pay after their assets were
moved into one of the Advisory Programs and about Edward Jones'
preference for investing in proprietary funds only available
through Advisory Solutions.  In addition, Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties because clients who engaged in little to
no trading activity paid more in fee-based accounts than they did
in commission-based accounts and clients who were invested in a
proprietary fund were entitled to know about Defendants'
competing interests that caused them to make self-interested
investments on their clients' behalf.

If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff of the Class, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than May 29, 2018, which is
60 days from the date of publication of notice of the pendency of
the first filed, related securities class action on behalf of
Edward Jones clients. Any member of the proposed Class may move
the Court by the above deadline to serve as Lead Plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain a member of the proposed Class.

         Ivy Ngo, Esq.
         John Garner, Esq.
         Tel: 303.757.3300
         E-mail: EdwardJones@FDAzar.com [GN]


EDWARD D. JONES: Must Face Workers' 401(k) Fee Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Castro-Pagan, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that
Edward D. Jones & Co. LP couldn't convince a federal judge to
throw out claims that it violated federal benefits law by paying
excessive record-keeping fees and offering imprudent investment
options in its 401(k) plan.

The workers' amended lawsuit also provides sufficient facts to
state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty and for failure to
defray plan expenses under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, Judge John A. Ross of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri held March 27.

Ross' ruling follows the same rationale he used one year ago when
he refused to dismiss the workers' original lawsuit.  The
workers' allegations concerning the offering of certain
affiliated mutual funds with excessive fees and underperforming
returns and their allegations concerning excessive fees are the
same allegations pled in the original lawsuit, Judge Ross said.
Likewise, the arguments Edward Jones advanced in support of
dismissal are virtually identical to those raised in its original
motion, Judge Ross added.

The decision is another victory for financial institution
employees challenging their employer's decision to add in-house,
high-fee, underperforming mutual funds in their 401(k) plans.  So
far more than 20 companies have been hit with similar lawsuits.

Courts for the most part have sided with the employees, with only
CapitalGroup and Wells Fargo succeeding in getting the lawsuits
dismissed.  Judges have certified classes in cases against
American Century Services LLC, Insperity Inc., BB&T, Deutsche
Bank, and Franklin Templeton.  So far, five companies have
settled similar claims: American Airlines (settled for $22M),
Allianz ($12M), TIAA ($5 million), New York Life Insurance Co.
($3 million), and Principal Life Insurance ($3 million).

In its attempt to get the lawsuit tossed, Edward Jones relied on
a ruling that dismissed a similar lawsuit against Wells Fargo.
Edward Jones argued that the workers failed to plead additional
facts showing that the fiduciary's decision was based on
financial interest rather than a legitimate consideration.  The
company also said the workers didn't include facts suggesting
that the choice of higher-cost affiliated funds was the result of
flawed decision-making.

Judge Ross rejected the argument.  The workers' allegations were
sufficient to raise an inference of disloyalty and imprudence, he
said. They alleged that record-keeping fees nearly tripled over
the class period while market rates for these services declined,
and that the total weighted average expense ratio of the plan was
high compared to market rates.

Judge Ross further rejected Edward Jones' argument that the
workers improperly grouped together all defendants without
asserting that each had a particular role in the misconduct
alleged.  The workers sufficiently detailed and differentiated
the claims asserted against the separate defendants, Judge Ross
said.

Izard Kindall & Raabe LLP and Bailey & Glasser LLP represent the
workers.  Dowd Bennett LLP and Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP
represent Edward Jones.

The case is Schultz v. Edward Jones & Co., L.P., E.D. Mo., No.
4:16-cv-01346-JAR, defendants' motion to dismiss denied 3/27/18.
[GN]


ERIC MULLINS: Class Certification OK'd in LRR Unitholders' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Arroyo LLP and Cooch and Taylor, P.A. announce class
certification has been granted allowing a class of unitholders to
proceed in a lawsuit named Hurwitz v. Mullins, et al., Case No.:
1:15-cv-00711-MAK, pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

ROBERT HURWITZ, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. ERIC MULLINS, CHARLES W. ADCOCK, JONATHAN
C. FARBER, TOWNES G. PRESSLER, JR., JOHN A. BAILEY, JONATHAN P.
CARROLL, SCOTT W. SMITH, RICHARD A. ROBERT, W. RICHARD ANDERSON,
BRUCE W. MCCULLOUGH, and LOREN SINGLETARY, Defendants.

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00711-MAK

              Announcement Of Class Pendency

The litigation asserts claims for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws arising out of Vanguard Natural
Resources, LLC's ("Vanguard") 2015 acquisition of LRR Energy,
L.P. ("LRR") in a unit-for-unit transaction through which LRR's
former unitholders received 0.55 Vanguard units in exchange for
each LRR unit they previously owned.

Defendants in the class action are Eric Mullins, Charles W.
Adcock, Jonathan C. Farber, Townes G. Pressler, Jr., John A.
Bailey, Jonathan P. Carroll, Scott W. Smith, Richard A. Robert,
W. Richard Anderson, Bruce W. McCullough, and Loren Singletary.

On January 2, 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Mark A. Kearney
entered an Order, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, preliminarily certifying the case to proceed as
a class action on behalf of a Class defined as follows:

(A) HOLDING LRR ENERGY, L.P. COMMON UNITS AS OF AUGUST 28, 2015
THROUGH THE OCTOBER 5, 2015 CLOSE OF VANGUARD NATURAL RESOURCES,
LLC'S ACQUISITION OF LRR, WERE DAMAGED AND ASSERT CLAIMS
PRESENTLY SUSTAINED IN THE MARCH 13, 2017,  DECEMBER 29, 2017,
AND MARCH 8, 2018 ORDERS UNDER SECTIONS 14(A) AND 20(A) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934; AND,

(B) RECEIVING VANGUARD COMMON UNITS IN EXCHANGE FOR THEIR LRR
COMMON UNITS ON OR ABOUT OCTOBER 5, 2015 UNDER THE REGISTRATION
STATEMENT, AS AMENDED, WERE DAMAGED, AND ASSERT CLAIMS PRESENTLY
SUSTAINED IN THE MARCH 13, 2017,  DECEMBER 29, 2017, AND MARCH 8,
2018 ORDERS UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 15 OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF
1933; BUT

(C) EXCLUDING: DEFENDANTS; MEMBERS OF THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY OF
EACH INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT; AN OFFICER OR DIRECTOR OF VANGUARD OR
LRR; A FIRM, TRUST, CORPORATION, OFFICER OR OTHER ENTITY IN WHICH
A DEFENDANT HAS OR HAD A CONTROLLING INTEREST; PERSONS
PARTICIPATING IN THE ALLEGED MATERIAL OMISSIONS OR
MISREPRESENTATIONS; AND THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS,
AFFILIATES, HEIRS, BENEFICIARIES, SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST, OR
ASSIGNS OF AN EXCLUDED PERSON OR ENTITY (the "CLASS").

Lead Plaintiff Robert Hurwitz has been appointed as Class
Representative.

On March 8, 2018, LRR and Vanguard were dismissed from the case.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY
BE AFFECTED. On March 30, 2018, a Notice of Pendency of Class
Action (the "Notice") was mailed to persons or entities falling
within the Class definition and whose information was reflected
on the books and records of Vanguard/LRR and their transfer
agents. The Notice contains important information regarding the
rights of Class members, including the right to seek exclusion
from the Class and the deadline for doing so. If you believe you
are a member of the Class as defined above, and if you have not
received a copy of the Notice by mail, you are urged to request a
copy free of charge by mailing your request LRR Energy Securities
Litigation, c/o GCG, P.O. Box 10532, Dublin, Ohio 43017-4532. You
may also download a copy of the Notice at
www.LRREnergySecuritiesLitigation.com.

IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOT EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE
CLASS, YOU WILL BE BOUND BY ALL ORDERS AND ANY JUDGMENT IN THE
ACTION. TO EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
WRITTEN REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION POSTMARKED ON OR BEFORE MAY 29,
2018.  [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Class Action Mulled Over Crypto Advertisements Ban
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crypto Coin Spy reports that a class action lawsuit against
internet giants Facebook, Google, Twitter, and Yandex, is
reportedly being put together by the respective cryptocurrency
and blockchain associations of Russia, China, and South Korea, in
response to their recent outlawing of cryptocurrency
advertisements.

The heavyweight lawsuit will be filed in an American court by the
Eurasian Blockchain Association (EBA) in May, with funding coming
via a dedicated cryptofund which, once set up, will also accept
public donations.

Indeed, it was on March 27 that the EBA came into existence; the
result of an agreement reached in Moscow by representatives of
the three aforementioned countries' blockchain industry bodies.

Specifically, the EBA will represent the interests of the Russian
Cryptocurrency and Blockchain Association (RACIB), the Korea
Venture Business Association (KOVA), and the Chinese Association
of Cryptocurrency Investors (LBTC).

The (sometimes partial) banning of cryptocurrency-related
advertisements has received immense publicity in recent months,
ever since Facebook (including their Instagram subsidiary) -- the
world's largest social network platform -- acted as the 'lead
domino' after deciding to outlaw certain types of cryptocurrency
adverts back in late January.

Since then, other major online platforms have followed suit, such
as Google (including their YouTube subsidiary), Yandex,
Twitter, and also Snapchat.  Each ban has prompted a fresh batch
of alarmist headlines (i.e., FUD), resulting in multiple spates
of intense sell-side pressure in virtually every known
cryptoasset, even Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH).

It has yet to be determined where exactly in the United States
the EBA take their class action. The legal team's decision looms
as critical, however, for as the RACIB's president Yuri
Pripachkin told Russian news agency, RIA Novosti:

"You know, every state has different laws.  Some states, like
Wyoming for example, have been fair towards cryptocurrencies."

The legal line of argument that will be pushed by the EBA is not
dissimilar to cartel collusion, according to Pripachkin,
particularly when one considers the short timeframe in which
these bans took place.

Speaking for the EBA, the RACIB president explained how:

"We think these four companies are using their monopoly power and
have colluded to manipulate the market."

In defence of these publicly-listed companies, their respective
decisions did come weeks after the cryptocurrency market
experienced a ridiculously white-hot bull run; prompting a slew
of new investors who -- having never heard of a 'blockchain' or
'Bitcoin' until the market-wide price bonanza -- were incredibly
vulnerable to being duped by fraudulent ICOs, cloud mining
operators who owned not one ASIC miner, or some other devious
scheme.

In fact, many crypto enthusiasts and investors commended these
internet giants for casting aside what was sure to be a fruitful
revenue stream (i.e., the cost to advertisement on their
respective platforms); instead prioritising the layperson who was
too often being swindled by these well-conceived cryptocurrency
scams.

It is clear the EBA thinks otherwise, and so the crypto community
will keenly await the impending class action trial.  At the very
least, it will provide further authoritative insight on a
cryptoasset industry that the law barely (if at all)
acknowledges. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Sued for Allegedly Collecting Call, Text History
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Koning Beals, writing for Marketwatch, reports that three
users of the Facebook Messenger app on March 27 sued Facebook,
seeking class-action status on behalf of all users in what
appears to be among the first such suits against the social media
giant in the wake of its revelation of shared data without
permission.

The suit also probes Facebook's use of call or text message
content, which the company has claimed it does not collect and
sell, and is securely stored.

The U.S. lawsuit, filed on March 27 in federal court in the
Northern District of California, alleges that the social network
violated users's privacy by collecting logs of their phone calls
and text messages, Reuters and other news outlets reported.
Facebook has not commented on the suit, which seeks unspecified
damages.

Facebook acknowledged that it had been logging some users's call
and text history but said it had done so only when users of the
Android operating system had opted in . Android is owned by
Alphabet's Google, which is not named as a defendant in the suit.

Facebook, for its part, on March 28 announced privacy tweaks that
will roll out in the coming weeks, include a new, central hub in
the app settings that contains existing tools for users to review
and, if desired, delete traces of their Facebook activity such as
past posts and search terms.  Some other data, such as which ads
users clicked on, still won't be erasable.  Facebook says any
information users delete is wiped from its servers.

The Federal Trade Commission announced that it's investigating
Facebook's privacy practices amid revelations that British
political campaign strategy firm Cambridge Analytica used 50
million of the social media site's users's personal data without
their permission.

The suit comes as CEO Mark Zuckerberg is planning to testify
before Congress about the way the Silicon Valley giant manages
its users' data, people familiar with the matter said on March
27, the Wall Street Journal reported.  That sets the stage for a
potentially pivotal moment for the 14-year-old company at a time
of mounting tension with regulators and lawmakers.

It would mark Mr. Zuckerberg's first public testimony in front of
U.S. lawmakers.

In the immediate wake of the data fallout, Facebook shares have
tumbled nearly 14%, shaving roughly $75 billion from its market
cap.  Shares closed on March 27 down another 5%. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller") on March 27
disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of
purchasers of Facebook, Inc. ("Facebook") (NASDAQ:FB) common
stock during the period between July 6, 2017 and March 23, 2018
(the "Class Period"). This action was filed in the Northern
District of California and is captioned Bennett v. Facebook,
Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-01868.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from March 20, 2018.  If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058,
or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com.  If you are a member of this
class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/facebookinc/. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Facebook and certain of its officers and/or
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Facebook is the world's largest social networking company.  In
2011, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") charged Facebook with
numerous violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act for,
among other things, sharing users' data without their consent.
Facebook formally agreed to settle the charges and enter a
consent decree with the FTC on August 10, 2012.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose material information to investors regarding
Facebook's sharing of its users' data and compliance with its
consent decree with the FTC.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that defendants had failed to notify users that their user data
had been improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica and entities
affiliated with Cambridge Analytica; that Facebook user data had
been shared and used for purposes and in ways that violated
Facebook's terms of use; that Facebook user data had not been
maintained in accordance with Facebook's terms of use and that
Facebook had not taken steps to adequately ensure that the
improperly shared data was destroyed; and that Facebook may have
been in violation of its consent decree with the FTC, including
by sharing the data of 50 million or more users with Cambridge
Analytica and affiliated entities, and by making
misrepresentations or omissions concerning the fact that Facebook
had shared the data and defendants' efforts to verify the privacy
and security of users' data.  As a result of defendants' false
statements and/or omissions, the price of Facebook stock was
artificially inflated to as high as $193 per share during the
Class Period.

On December 11, 2015, The Guardian published an article titled
"Ted Cruz using firm that harvested data on millions of unwitting
Facebook users."  The Guardian stated that "surreptitious,
commodified Facebook data" was being used in political campaigns
and "represented an intensified collision of billionaire
financing and digital targeting on the campaign trail."  In fact,
The Guardian had already determined how an academic from
Cambridge had combined with a billionaire financier to create
what turned out to be a series of overlapping companies, the best
known of which is now Cambridge Analytica, that planned to use
Facebook data to create psychological profiles for the purpose of
designing political campaigns and advertisements.  The article
further reported that Facebook was aware of The Guardian's report
and declared that the Company was taking action.

Then, beginning on March 16, 2018, a series of media reports
about Facebook and Cambridge Analytica were published, based in
part on a whistleblower's account and a "dossier of evidence." On
March 17, 2018, The Observer and The New York Times each
published articles on Cambridge Analytica's use of Facebook data.
The articles revealed, among other things, that 50 million or
more Facebook accounts had their data shared with Cambridge
Analytica for improper political purposes without their explicit
permission, far more than previously thought; that the data had
not been destroyed, or even protected with encryption; and that
Facebook knew this and had not acted.  Indeed, the one action
Facebook claimed to have taken -- asking the parties involved to
certify destruction of the data -- did not happen until August
2016, long after Facebook was alerted by The Guardian in 2015 to
the improper sharing of users' data.  On March 18, 2018, The New
York Times reported that U.S. Senator Mark Warner and U.S.
Representative Adam Schiff were calling for an investigation of
the Facebook data leak, while U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar had
pressed Zuckerberg to appear before the Senate Judiciary
Committee to explain what the social network knew about the
misuse of its data "'to target political advertising and
manipulate voters.'" On March 19, 2018, a WCCFTech article
reported that Facebook faced billions or even trillions of
dollars in liability for violating a previous consent decree with
the FTC, and that "The FTC consent decree required Facebook to
notify users and explicitly receive their permission before data
is shared beyond their privacy settings. In this case, the
developer only received permission from those who took the test,
not their friends.  Facebook first learned of this incident back
in 2015, however, [it] chose not to inform the agency or the
affected users." On this news, the price of Facebook common stock
fell more than $12 per share, or nearly 7%, to close at $172.56
per share on March 19, 2018.

On March 20, 2018, media sources confirmed that the FTC was
investigating whether Facebook had violated the consent decree.
On March 21, 2018, Zuckerberg finally issued a statement and gave
a number of interviews, admitting that the reporting on the data
sharing was "credible," and that Facebook needed to do a "full
forensic audit" of every developer on the platform in 2014, which
would necessarily include "investigating and reviewing tens of
thousands of apps" and would cost "millions of dollars." Then on
March 26, 2018, the FTC issued a press release confirming that it
was investigating Facebook's privacy practices and compliance
with the consent decree. In reaction to this news, Facebook's
stock price fell as much as 6.5% to $149.02 per share before
closing at $160.06 per share.

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

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is a law firm
advising and representing U.S. and international investors in
securities litigation and portfolio monitoring.  With 200 lawyers
in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Class Action Lawsuits Gearing Up
----------------------------------------------
Damien Mason, writing for Kitguru, reports that it was discovered
that Facebook was siphoning smartphone data outside of its
applications, logging Android users' calls and text messages.
Three affected users have now stepped forward, attempting to
construct a class action lawsuit against the company for
violating their privacy.

The suit was filed in a federal court based in Northern District
of California, just days after Facebook came under fire for the
Cambridge Analytica debacle. Although just three users are
involved, they seek to represent all that have been affected,
asking for as-of-yet an unspecified amount of damages.

Facebook acknowledged the data collection on March 25, calling it
an opt-in feature, meaning that users always had the opportunity
not to participate. The problem arose from it being the default
for any user running Android 4.0 Jelly Bean or prior, with
criticism falling on the company for not being as upfront and it
could have been about the intrusive practice.

The social media platform has gone on to try and reassure its
users that the collected data is not sold to third-parties and is
kept safe and secure on its servers. This, however, begs the
question of why it needs and keeps the data in the first place.

Alphabet, the owner of Google and its Android branding has not
been called forward in the suit as of yet, but will potentially
be asked to cooperate in the pending case.[GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Asks Court to Uphold Settlement Over Message Scans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for Digital News Daily, reports that
Facebook is asking an appellate court to uphold a recent
settlement of a privacy lawsuit over allegations that it scanned
users' private messages.

The settlement, which requires Facebook to add a 22-word sentence
to its help site, "provides meaningful benefits," the company
argues in papers filed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The agreement, originally approved by U.S. District Court Judge
Phyllis Hamilton in the Northern District of California, resolved
a privacy lawsuit brought against the company in 2013 by Arkansas
resident Matthew Campbell and Oregon resident Michael Hurley.
They alleged that Facebook violated the federal wiretap law by by
intercepting users' messages to each other and scanning them. The
company reportedly did so in order to determine whether people
were sending their friends links to outside sites.

That suit was only one of numerous privacy cases filed against
Facebook in recent years. Among other pending cases, the company
currently is battling a suit alleging that it violated an
Illinois biometrics law by creating a "faceprint" database, as
well as lawsuits stemming from recent revelations that Cambridge
Analytica harvested data from 50 million users.

The allegations about the message scans emerged in 2012, when
security researcher Ashkan Soltani reported that Facebook counts
in-message links as "likes." Facebook said at the time that no
private information is exposed.

The social networking service has since changed that practice.
The settlement notes that Facebook revised its prior practice,
but the agreement doesn't prohibit the company from changing it
again in the future.

The settlement requires Facebook to pay up to almost $4 million
to the class-action attorneys who brought the case, and $5,000
each to the two Facebook users who served as plaintiffs, but no
monetary awards to the company's other users. Instead, users who
want to pursue claims for monetary damages may bring new
lawsuits.

The deal also requires Facebook to add the following sentence to
its help site: "We use tools to identify and store links shared
in messages, including a count of the number of times links are
shared."

The Center for Class Action Fairness, founded by activist Ted
Frank, recently asked 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate the
settlement, arguing that it is "worthless" to users.

The group argues that Facebook's users, as opposed to class
counsel, are supposed to be the primary beneficiaries of a deal.
"The settlement here gives preferential treatment to class
counsel, allocating virtually the entire settlement benefit to
the lawyers rather than the class," the organization contends.

The influential group Electronic Privacy Information Center is
backing that request.

Facebook counters in its new papers that the deal was reasonable
because the consumers' claims were "weak."

"Courts routinely approve as fair and reasonable settlements that
offer even minimal benefits in exchange for the release of weak
claims," the company argues.

The social networking site adds that it had "strong defenses" to
the privacy claims. Among others, it was prepared to argue that
consumers consented to the alleged interceptions. "The Data
Policy explains that Facebook collects 'the contents and other
information' that people provide when they use Facebook,
including when they 'message or communicate with others,'"
Facebook writes.  [GN]


FAST GLOBAL: "Onyia" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages Owed Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
EMMANUEL ONYIA, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b) v. F.A.S.T. GLOBAL MARKETING, INC., MARKETSTORM
GLOBAL, INC., GAVIN WALSH, individually, and TOFIQ BOLWALA,
individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-21027-DPG (S.D. Fla., March 19,
2018), arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover all
wages owed to the Plaintiff and the class during the course of
their employment with the Defendants.

The Defendants have concocted and participated in a multi-level
marketing scheme to financially benefit themselves and unlawfully
deprive the Plaintiff, and all other employees similarly
situated, of federal minimum wage and overtime compensation
during the course of their employment, the Plaintiff alleges.

FGM was a Florida corporation located and transacting business
within Miami-Dade County, and operates its principal location in
Miami, Florida.  Tofiq Bolwala was President and operator of FGM
within Miami-Dade County.

MGI was a Florida corporation located and transacting business
within Miami-Dade County, Florida, and operates its principal
location in Miami.  Gavin Walsh was a resident of Florida, and
was President and operator of MGI within Miami-Dade County.

FGM and MGI are mid-level marketing corporations that provide
marketing services to large corporate clients throughout the
United States.  One of FGM and MGI's largest corporate clients is
Xfinity -- a specialty brand developed by Comcast Corporation --
one of the largest broadcasting and cable television companies in
the world.  Xfinity offers its customers television, Internet,
home, mobile, and voice services that provide instant access to
technology virtually anywhere in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 871-0050
          E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardslaw.com
                  Jordan@flsafirm.com
                  livia@jordanrichardspllc.com


FLINT, MI: Class Action Lawsuit Moving Forward
----------------------------------------------
Anne Pierret, writing for ABC12 News, reports that as of right
now, more than 10,000 people affected by the water emergency in
Flint have joined a class action lawsuit.

It could result in a pay day.

If they win the case, everyone will be divided up into categories
pertaining to the damages their claiming.

"Nobody's gonna become a millionaire," said Flint activist
Melissa Mays. "I just want my house fixed, my kitchen's caving
in. I need my appliances replaced. And, I want my lines in my
home replaced. And, I need medical care. I don't even have health
insurance right now. I need medical care for myself and my sons
for the rest of their lives. So that's all we want. We just need
to be made whole and that is what justice looks like for Flint
residents."

Mays filed the lawsuit in November 2015.

She explained it's for past and future harms caused by the Flint
Water Emergency, including physical, emotional and mental health
issues, loss of pets, property damage, property value, water
bills, the list goes on.

It's been moving slowly due to pushback from the State. So, Mays
considered the Supreme Court's ruling a big win.

The highest court ruled it will not get involved in the cases,
meaning the U.S. Court of Appeals decision to push them to trial,
stands.

Mays has been working with a team of over 20 attorneys. They've
gathered more than a million pages of evidence to use in court.

Attorney Trachelle Young, Esq., a native of Flint, is grateful to
be moving forward.

"We are not expendable and what's good about our plaintiffs, even
though it's taken this long, they are resilient," she said. "They
are angry still. They are still hurt, they're suffering. So
they're in it for the long run. So we're not going anywhere. You
know, we will demand accountability and our plaintiffs, our
clients, they will get some justice in this."

Young encourages anyone who drank, cooked with, bathed in, used
the water in any way, to join the lawsuit.

She says an attorney can sit down with you and help talk you
through it.[GN]


FORT MYERS, FL: Faces Lawsuit Over Toxic Sludge Site
----------------------------------------------------
WINK News reports that a lawsuit wants the City of Fort Myers to
pay more than $500 million for dumping toxic sludge in the Dunbar
community.

The city used a field bounded by Henderson Avenue on the west,
Midway Avenue on the east, Jeffcott Street on the south and South
Street on the north, to dump sludge for decades in the 1960s.

The area bounded in red shows the site in Dunbar where sludge
from a water treatment plant was disposed of.

Arsenic was discovered at the site in 2007, and in the
groundwater there in 2012, but those results didn't become public
until early 2017.

The suit filed by Attorney Ralf Brookes lists Deretha Miller,
Luetricia Freeman Becker, Ralph Henry, and Noemy Rodriguez as
plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf of residents of Dunbar
against the city.

"You can't just open-dump this stuff into pits in the ground,
especially when you're in a residential neighborhood,"
Mr. Brookes said.  "They should have never brought the arsenic
here and put it in an open dump without a fence, without a liner,
without a licensed landfill."

The plaintiffs are asking for civil penalties of $37,500 per day
for each day of the violation, since 1979 when a law prohibiting
open dumping was enacted. Brookes said they want to use the money
for remediation and medical monitoring.

The lawsuit will represent more than 200 residents of the Dunbar
community living near the toxic site.

"We think it will take millions of dollars to clean up this site
appropriately and establish a medical monitoring program to the
residents that were affected who were never told they were
exposed to arsenic," Mr. Brookes said.

The lawsuit, which was filed on March 23, could take up to two
years in federal court, according to Mr. Brookes.

The suit alleges in part:

"During the 1960s and 1970s, the City pumped water from wells in
Lee County near the Dunbar neighborhood for use as drinking water
and treated that water with lime to remove contaminants.  During
part of that time, the City pumped water from the Caloosahatchee
River and discharged it onto the surface of the ground at the
wells in order to recharge the well field."

The City dumped at least 25,000 cubic yards of sludge on the
Dunbar Site over the course of several years, in some places at
least ten (10) feet deep."

It also asks a judge to force the city to clean up the site and
aquifer and fund a medical monitoring program for any side
effects from the arsenic in the soil.

WINK News reached out to Fort Myers Mayor Randy Henderson who
would not comment on the matter, and City Manager Saeed Kazemi
has yet to respond.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story underestimated the
requested civil penalties amount in the lawsuit. [GN]


GOLDMAN SACHS: Gender-Bias Class-Action Lawsuit to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports that a federal judge ruled
that women accusing Goldman Sachs of discriminating against them
in pay, promotions and performance reviews may pursue their
claims as a group in a class-action lawsuit.

The decision on March 30 in the afternoon by U.S. District Judge
Analisa Torres in Manhattan covers female associates and vice
presidents who have worked in Goldman's investment banking,
investment management and securities divisions since September
2004, and employees in New York City since July 2002.

Goldman was accused of systematically paying women less than men,
and giving them weaker performance reviews that impeded their
career growth.

Class certification can help plaintiffs achieve greater awards at
lower costs than if they sued individually. Kelly Dermody, Esq. -
- kdermody@lchb.com -- a lawyer for the plaintiffs, estimated
that more than 2,000 people are in the certified class.

Goldman had no immediate comment.

The lawsuit is one of the highest-profile cases targeting Wall
Street's alleged unequal treatment of women, a claim raised in a
variety of litigation against many banks for decades.

In her 49-page decision, Torres said the plaintiffs provided
"significant proof of discriminatory disparate treatment" at
Goldman.

She cited as an example an expert's report that female vice
presidents and associates were on average paid a respective 21
percent and 8 percent less than their male counterparts.

The judge also said the plaintiffs provided proof that Goldman
was "aware of gender disparities and gender bias," but did not
adjust its policies.

"We obviously are very, very pleased," Dermody said in a phone
interview. "This case is eight years old, and sometimes it's
worth the wait."

The plaintiffs were led by Cristina Chen-Oster, Mary De Luis and
Allison Gamba, who were all vice presidents, and Shanna Orlich,
who was an associate.

Torres said the class action will not include the claim that
Goldman maintained a "boys' club atmosphere" where women were
allegedly subjected to unwanted stereotyping, harassment and
retaliation.

She said this was because "individual" rather than "common"
issues would predominate.

The lawsuit began in September 2010, and according to Torres was
delayed largely by a dispute over the kind of relief that former
employees could obtain. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Expanded as Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Conger, writing for Gizmodo, reports that a lawsuit brought
by a former Google employee who says that the company's "bro
culture" led to daily sexual harassment is being expanded as a
class action after Google tried to push the case into sealed,
secret arbitration.

Loretta Lee, a software engineer, was fired from her role at
Google in February 2016 after eight years at the firm.  Her
lawsuit claims that she had raised complaints about harassment
and had sought medical leave shortly before she was fired.  Her
male co-workers spiked her drinks with alcohol, shot nerf darts
at her, and made sexual comments to her, Ms. Lee's lawsuit
states. One coworker texted her asking for a "horizontal hug,"
while another hid under her desk.

On March 23, attorneys representing Google tried to have Ms.
Lee's lawsuit dismissed and forced into arbitration, which would
have prevented it from proceeding in public--in stark contrast to
Microsoft, which recently ended its practice of enforcing
arbitration agreements in cases of sexual harassment. (Microsoft
is currently facing a class action lawsuit alleging that it
routinely paid women less than their male colleagues).

"While she may have forgotten about the Agreement in 2018, she
cannot claim she was surprised back in 2008 when she signed it,"
attorneys for Google wrote in a court filing.

Lee's attorney, Richard Hoyer, re-filed the lawsuit as a class
action, in hopes of representing all female harassment victims at
Google.

"Women do worse in arbitration than men compared to court," Hoyer
said in an email to Gizmodo.  "We think it's unfortunate that
Google professes to be interested in the rights of women and
diversity in the workplace, while forcing those same women to
face arbitration panels where women are substantially
underrepresented."

"The Court granted our request to have the case designated as
complex and reassign it to the proper department," Hoyer added.
The 'complex' designation will allow the case to be considered as
a class action.

A Google spokesperson did not immediately respond to questions
about the class action complaint.  In a statement issued when Lee
initially filed her lawsuit, a Google spokesperson said, "We have
strong policies against harassment in the workplace and review
every complaint we receive.  We take action when we find
violations--including termination of employment." [GN]


GRAIN PROCESSING: Class Action Jury Trial Moved to Scott County
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Ritter, writing for Quad-City Times, reports that the first
trial in a class action lawsuit against Grain Processing
Corporation over its Muscatine plant's emissions will be held at
the Scott County Courthouse in front of a Scott County jury.

Last May, the Iowa Supreme Court certified a class action lawsuit
against GPC.  At least 14,000 individuals are in the class, which
claims emissions at the Oregon Street plant have been a nuisance
and caused loss of enjoyment of properties.

A trial in the class action lawsuit was previously scheduled to
be held July 9 at the Muscatine County Courthouse, but Muscatine
County Judge Thomas Reidel ruled the trial should be moved to
Scott County.

In making the decision, the judge cited GPC's presence in
Muscatine since the 1930s and that it now employs around 1,000
Muscatine residents.  The judge wrote "GPC is a major economic
force to the Muscatine area," spending an estimated $1 million
per day in local and state economies.

"It is clear that GPC possess more influence over the jury pool
than the typical local business," the judge wrote.  "The
inescapable conclusion is that Muscatine's reliance on GPC for
its economic livelihood will affect the way the jurors perceive,
and ultimately decide, a lawsuit affecting the bulwark of its
economy."

Lawyers representing the class requested the change in venue,
arguing because of GPC's longstanding reputation as an employer,
plus economic and philanthropic force in Muscatine, it would be
difficult to find anyone in the county to act as an unbiased
juror.

GPC opposed the move to Scott County, arguing Muscatine residents
should have had the opportunity to fill the jury.

"GPC is surprised, disappointed and fundamentally disagrees with
the ruling," GPC Spokeswoman Carol Reynolds said in a statement
submitted to the Muscatine Journal.  "Rather than letting the
people of Muscatine County determine the standards and
expectations they have for local businesses, Judge Reidel's
ruling takes that opportunity away from the community and places
it in the hands of a Scott County jury."

In addition to GPC's position as an "economic force" in
Muscatine, class action counsel argued the majority of local
residents have already formed ideas about the corporation,
whether from personal experience working at GPC or in hearing
about the ongoing litigation.

"The problem is that if the jurors are convened in Muscatine,
virtually every one of them will have had more than enough
personal experience of the harms at issue to have developed pre-
formed opinions," the class action lawyers wrote.  "GPC is simply
impossible to ignore . . .  When the jurors are asked to review
the evidence presented them at trial, they will compare what they
hear to their own experiences -- and those of their families."

Class counsel used the testimonies of about a half-dozen people
to argue Muscatine residents have established opinions and biases
about GPC.  In her statement, Reynolds said she was disappointed
the judge ruled based on the testimonies, rather than those
provided by GPC, which included Muscatine County Attorney
Alan Ostergren, local attorney Scott Edwards and Fruitland Mayor
Marty Hills.  Mr. Ostergren testified he has tried only one "high
profile" case that was moved to a different venue.

"Despite our disappointment in the ruling, GPC will continue to
believe in the fundamental fairness of the people of Muscatine
and will vigorously defend itself from this lawsuit," Ms.
Reynolds wrote.  "Muscatine is our home.  We will continue to do
as we have done since 1943 and that is to be good friends and
good neighbors in the places we work, play and raise our
families."

The judge argued moving the trial to Scott County would ensure
the jury pool is less economically dependent and socially-tied to
GPC.

"Muscatine County is made up of intelligent and hard-working
individuals who would try very hard to deliver a fair and
impartial verdict in this case," Judge Reidel wrote in his
ruling.  "However, the (realities) are that almost every resident
likely has some familiarity with GPC emissions."

The trial will be held July 9 at the Iowa District Court for
Scott County, according to the judge. [GN]


GUAM: Contractors Granted Class-Action Certification in H-2B Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Haidee V Eugenio, writing for Pacific Daily News, reports that a
federal judge has granted the Guam Contractors Association's
request to grant a class-action certification in a lawsuit filed
against the U.S. government for denying nearly all H-2B visa
petitions for Guam.

Having the H-2B lawsuit certified as a class action means that
businesses not named as plaintiffs in the case could apply for
skilled foreign worker visas for Guam, and those applications
would be handled the same way as applications from named
plaintiffs.

The court issued in January a preliminary injunction in favor of
the named plaintiffs, which include the Guam Contractors
Association and 11 businesses, stating USCIS is prohibited from
applying the reasoning it used in 2015 and 2016 to reject H-2B
visa applications.

That is, USCIS cannot rely on "peakload" or "one-time occurrence"
conditions as reasons to deny visa applications.

Colorado-based attorney Jeff Joseph, counsel for the Guam
Contractors Association and other named plaintiffs, on April 2
said the judge's latest order is a significant victory, not only
for the named plaintiffs but other contractors as well.

"It shows that the lawsuit is moving in the right direction," he
said.

Joseph said employers whose H-2B petitions were denied or will be
denied by USCIS because of the temporary need and one-time
occurrence standards can now be a part of the H-2B lawsuit.

A summary judgment in the case, he said, could take another six
months to a year.

Guam-based attorney Jennifer Davis, co-counsel for the named
plaintiffs, said the judge's latest order is an important step.
She said the next step is for the plaintiffs to file a proposed
notice, no later than April 30, for other employers to join the
lawsuit.

The order
U.S. District Court Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood's
decision on the Guam Contractors Association's lawsuit comes a
few days after USCIS approved 162 H-2B petitions for military
projects on Guam.

Guam used to host more than 1,500 H-2B workers annually.  There
were 23 as of end of March.

'Great day for the island'
"This is great news," said John Robertson, vice chairman of the
Guam Contractors Association board.  "This is a great day for the
island.  Those needing a new home, for example, can now hire a
contractor at reasonable cost."

Mr. Robertson said class certification means that not only the
named plaintiffs in the lawsuit will benefit, but also all other
employers that have been similarly affected by USCIS' denial of
H-2B visas over the past two years.

"This includes not only construction contractors but also other
employers with legitimate need for temporary foreign workers," he
said.  "There are some new stipulations for applications and the
system must be tested by actual filings of petitions."

Robert Manalo, vice president of 5M Construction, a general
contractor who is among the businesses that sued the federal
government, said the judge's latest order speaks of fairness
between those involved in military construction and those that
are working for projects "outside the fence."

Mr. Manalo said 5M Construction is now preparing to file
petitions for 60 H-2B workers, and they hope for approvals.

"The latest news is giving us confidence that we now have access
again to skilled foreign workers we need to complete projects we
long started and to bid on new projects," Mr. Manalo said.

5M Construction is one of the subcontractors for the new hotel
project in Tumon, called Tsubaki Tower, which aims to offer five-
star luxury accommodation.  The hotel is estimated to cost $180
million to build and furnish, according to Pacific Daily News
files.  But its construction has been delayed because of a lack
of construction workers needed to complete the project.

'Fight is not over'
Robertson of the Guam Contractors Association said on April 2
that "the fight is not over."

"What we have is a preliminary injunction.  We must now proceed
with pursuit of a permanent injunction and that involves more
legal expense to be paid for by all of us," he said.

The island's lack of foreign skilled workers to supplement the
local workforce has put at risk military realignment construction
projects as well as civilian and government of Guam projects.

The latest National Defense Authorization Act, signed in
December, allowed up to 4,000 H-2B workers on Guam for military
projects.

Other motions in the H-2B lawsuit have been resolved, but not the
contractors' class-action certification motion, until the federal
judge's March 31 order. [GN]


GUARDIAN LIFE: Fails to Make Web Site Blind-Usable, Thorne Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRAULIO THORNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Case No.
1:18-cv-02372 (S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2018), accuses the Defendant
of failing to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web
site -- http://www.guardianlife.com/-- to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, in violation of their rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Guardian Life Insurance Company of America is a New York
Insurance Company doing business in New York.  The Defendant
operates numerous offices and employs field employees nationwide,
including around New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          Dana L. Gottlieb (DG6151)
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003-2461
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Okays Bedtime Bath Products Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bruneau Group on March 29 disclosed that a settlement has been
approved by the Superior Court of Quebec in a class action
lawsuit about the labeling of some of Johnson & Johnson's Inc.'s
Baby Bedtime Bath Products.  The plaintiff in the lawsuit claimed
the company mislabeled certain Baby Bedtime Bath Products by
describing them as "clinically proven" to help a baby sleep
better.  Johnson & Johnson Inc. has denied the allegations and
the Court did not determine who is right or wrong.

The settlement provides that eligible residents of Canada may
claim a cash refund of up to $3.00 per eligible product
purchased, to a maximum of five (5) eligible products per
household. No proof of purchase is required.

Canadian residents are eligible to make a claim if they purchased
one of the following eligible products, in Canada, during the
period starting July 1, 2010 and ending March 23, 2018.

Eligible persons should submit a claim on our secure website
www.babybedtimesettlement.ca no later than April 6, 2018.

Eligible Johnson & Johnson Baby Bedtime Bath Products (sold in
purple bottles) include:

         Johnson's Baby BEDTIME Lotion
         Johnson's BEDTIME Baby Lotion
         Johnson's Baby BEDTIME Bath
         Johnson's BEDTIME Baby Bath
         Johnson's BEDTIME Bubble Bath
         Johnson's Baby BEDTIME Bubble Bath and Wash
         Johnson's Baby BEDTIME Wash
         Johnson's BEDTIME Baby Moisture Wash
         Johnson's BEDTIME Touch Massage Gel

If any Canadian resident purchased an eligible product listed
above since July 1, 2010 and ending March 23, 2018, this person
is a member of the "Class".

Deadline to Submit a Claim

To receive a cash refund, eligible Canadians MUST submit a claim
no later than April 6, 2018.  They may file a claim online at
www.babybedtimesettlement.ca, it's a secure, fast and easy
process. No proof of purchase is required.

Completed paper claim forms may be mailed to the Claims
Administrator, postmarked no later than April 6, 2018.   A paper
Claim Form can be downloaded from the settlement website
www.babybedtimesettlement.ca

Claims Administrator

Canadian Baby Bedtime Claims Administrator
Nelson P.O. Box 20187 - 322 Rideau Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1N 5Y5
Email: info@babybedtimesettlement.ca
Toll free: 1-844-562-4215

Opting Out

Canadian Residents who do not want to be part of this lawsuit
must submit an opt-out form no later than April 6, 2018.

Should a Class member wish to consult their own independent
lawyers, he or she may do so at their own expense.

Class Counsel

The following law firm represents class members:

         Lex Group Inc.
         4101 Sherbrooke Street West
         Westmount, Quebec H3Z 1A7
         www.lexgroup.ca
         Email: davidassor@lexgroup.ca
         Tel.: 514.451.5500

Do not contact the Court about this press release.

This press release is just a summary of the class action
certification/authorization and the approval of the settlement.
The Court approved Legal Notice and Settlement Agreement are
available by visiting www.babybedtimesettlement.ca [GN]


JUNIOR MINTS: Illinois Woman Files Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Tribune reports that an Illinois has woman filed a
consumer fraud lawsuit over Junior Mints, charging deception
packaging because there is so little of the chocolate-peppermint
candy in the boxes they come in.

There is nearly as much air as candy in the box, according to the
lawsuit, filed against Chicago-based Tootsie Roll Industries, the
maker of Junior Mints.

"They have created this oversized theater box and it misleads
consumers because consumers believe they're getting more candy
when they purchase a box of Junior Mints than they're actually
getting," Christopher Moon, Esq. -- Chris.Moon@DavisWebb.com --
an attorney representing the plaintiff, said March 30. "The size
of the actual packaging is itself a misrepresentation."

Tootsie Roll executives were not available for comment.

Filed on March 29 on behalf of Paige Stemm, the lawsuit seeks
class-action status for what it claims is Tootsie Roll's
"misleading, deceptive and unlawful conduct" in packaging its
Junior Mints, which take up only slightly more than half of their
familiar cardboard box.

Stemm, of downstate Belleville, bought the Junior Mints this
month at a Walgreens for about $1, according to the lawsuit.

The Junior Mints lawsuit is one of several cases brought against
food manufacturers for allegedly deceptive and unnecessary empty
space in packaging. Governed by federal regulation, slack fill is
"the difference between the actual capacity of a container and
the volume of product contained therein."

In some cases, slack fill serves a purpose, such as the air
cushion that protects potato chips from breaking in the bag. In
other cases, a larger package may simply be misleading consumers,
according to lawsuits against manufacturers.

"In a situation like Junior Mints, that empty space actually can
increase the chances that the candies will be damaged because
they move around quite a bit inside the hard cardboard box," Moon
said.

The number of federal class-action lawsuits related to slack fill
in food packaging increased from 20 in 2008 to more than 110 in
2015, according to an article published last month by the
American Bar Association.

Moon's firm filed a similar lawsuit against Oakbrook Terrace-
based Ferrara Candy, which makes Lemonhead, Jujyfruits, Chuckles
and other brands, all of which allegedly contain deceptive empty
space in their packaging.

Such lawsuits have met with mixed results in the courts.

A federal judge in Chicago last month dismissed a case against
chocolatier Fannie May over allegedly excessive packaging space.
The plaintiffs plan to file an amended complaint, according to
court documents.

Meanwhile, a 2015 case Minnesota-based spice-maker Watkins
brought against McCormick & Co., the Maryland-based spice giant,
over allegedly underfilled pepper tins is ongoing in federal
court in Washington.

Junior Mints have been a candy staple since they were launched in
1949. The brand was acquired by Tootsie Roll in 1993. [GN]


KIND LLC: Judge Stays "All Natural" Product Labeling Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Warshafsky, Esq. -- jwarshafsky@proskauer.com --
Lawrence Weinstein, Esq. -- lweinstein@proskauer.com -- and Carl
Mazurek, Esq. -- cmazurek@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose LLP,
in an article for JDSupra, report that earlier in March, Judge
William H. Pauley III in the Southern District of New York stayed
a lawsuit against the snack bar maker KIND LLC, styled as a class
action, alleging that KIND falsely marketed its products as "all
natural" and "non-GMO."  In re KIND LLC "Healthy & All Natural"
Litigation, 2018 WL 1156009 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2018).  The case,
which has unfolded against a backdrop of increasing regulatory
activity by the USDA, will remain on hold pending the USDA's
establishment of a national disclosure standard for bioengineered
food.  The disclosure standard is due to be released by July 29,
2018.

The lawsuit began in 2015, with Plaintiffs' original complaint
claiming that KIND deceptively marketed certain products as
"healthy," "all natural," and "non-GMO" in violation of New York
and other state laws.  After Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
their "healthy" claims, Judge Pauley in 2016 stayed litigation of
Plaintiffs' challenge to KIND's "all natural" advertising in
light of ongoing FDA rulemaking regarding the use of "natural"
labeling.  Judge Pauley also dismissed without prejudice
Plaintiff's challenge to KIND's "non-GMO" advertising claim as
insufficiently pled, prompting Plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint that re-alleged its arguments as to why the stayed
"natural" advertising claim was false and sought to cure the
deficiencies of its challenge to KIND's "non-GMO" advertising.

KIND moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that
Plaintiffs' challenge to KIND's "non-GMO" statement was preempted
by the USDA's statutory mandate to formulate a national
disclosure standard pertaining to bioengineered food.  However,
the court found that the only agency-level guidance on the issue
corroborated the view that food manufacturers may voluntarily
label their foods as non-GMO "as long as such information is
truthful and not misleading."  Since Plaintiffs merely sought
remedies under state laws against untrue and misleading
representations, the court held Plaintiffs' claims were not
preempted.

The court did, however, grant KIND's motion in the alternative to
stay Plaintiffs' challenge to the "non-GMO" advertising claim
pending the USDA's establishment of the disclosure standard.  The
court reasoned that the danger of a ruling inconsistent with the
eventual guidelines was substantial, since the guidelines might
explain whether ingredients from genetically modified crops could
be considered "non-GMO."  The risk of delay, on the other hand,
was minimized by the fact that the USDA standard must be released
by July 29.

In addition, the court denied Plaintiffs' motion to immediately
lift the stay on their challenge to KIND's "all natural"
advertising statement.  Plaintiffs argued that FDA rulemaking on
the subject had stalled, with no apparent activity since the
close of the notice and comment period in May 2016.  The court
acknowledged the "glacial pace" and uncertain timeline of agency
action, but to avoid piecemeal litigation, it continued the stay
on the challenge to the "all natural" advertising claim so it
could be litigated simultaneously with the "non-GMO" challenge.
[GN]


LABORATORY CORP: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Robocalls
-------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Seaman, writing for Triad Business Journal, reports that
a lawsuit has been filed in the Middle District of North Carolina
alleging that Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (NYSE:
LH) has violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making
automated phone calls to cellphones.

In the lawsuit, Tennessee resident Craig Cunningham claims that
during a period of about a month -- from Sept. 21 to Oct. 27 --
in 2016, LabCorp made at least two telephone to his mobile phone
without his prior consent.  The lawsuit, which was filed this
month, alleges that the phone calls used a prerecorded or
artificial voice.

Mr. Cunningham claims in the lawsuit that he had no prior contact
with LabCorp before receiving the phone calls, which were
directed to another person's name.  He is pursuing a class-action
status and seeks monetary damages and an injunction preventing
LabCorp from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act, also known as TCPA,
restricts the making of telemarketing calls and the use of
automatic dialing systems and prerecorded voice messages.  In
2012, the FCC revised the rules to require telemarketers to
obtain written consent from consumers before robocalling them and
to provide an automated "opt-out" mechanism during each call.

The Times-News reports that Mr. Cunningham was involved in a
similar suit against Loft Associates, which was doing business as
Cheddar Express, for mass texts.

An attorney representing Mr. Cunningham could not be reached for
comment.

In the lawsuit, Mr. Cunningham claims he "suffered concrete harm
as a result of the above telephone calls in that the telephone
calls tied up plaintiff's telephone line, invaded plaintiff's
privacy, disturbed plaintiff's solitude, and wasted plaintiff's
time."

Don Von Hagen, a spokesperson with LabCorp, said the company does
"not comment on pending litigation, but we intend to vigorously
defend this lawsuit." [GN]


LABORATORY CORP: Sued by Cunningham for Making Unsolicited Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG CUNNINGHAM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS d/b/a
LABCORP, Case No. 1:18-cv-00224 (M.D.N.C., March 19, 2018),
accuses the Defendant of making at least two telephone calls to
the Plaintiff's cellular telephone using a prerecorded or
artificial voice without his prior express consent, in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

LabCorp is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Burlington, North Carolina.  LabCorp operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide.  The Company
operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance
Drug Development.  The Company offers a range of clinical
laboratory tests, such as blood chemistry analyses, urinalyses,
blood cell counts, thyroid tests, Pap tests, hemoglobin A1C,
prostate-specific antigen, tests for sexually-transmitted
diseases, hepatitis C tests, vitamin D, microbiology cultures and
procedures, and alcohol and other substance-abuse tests.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Matthew Norris, Esq.
          NORRIS LAW FIRM, PLLC
          P.O. Box 1318
          Wake Forest, NC 27588
          Telephone: (919) 981-4475
          Facsimile: (919) 926-1676
          E-mail: matt@lemonlawnc.com

               - and -

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          50 Main Street, Suite 1000
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358-5345
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
          E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com


LANDSAFE INC: Class Action Status Granted in Appraisals Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Appraisal Buzz reports that the national law firm of Baron & Budd
announced that it has secured a certified plaintiff class action
federal lawsuit against Countrywide Financial Corp. and its
successor, Bank of America.  The case accuses the bank and
appraisal firm, LandSafe Inc., of conducting "sham" appraisals to
boost the number of loans originated by Countrywide. Read on to
learn more about this case. [GN]


LIBERTY POWER: Faces "Katz" TCPA Suit Over Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL KATZ, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. LIBERTY POWER CORP., LLC,
LIBERTY POWER HOLDINGS, LLC, Delaware limited liability
companies, DAVID HERNANDEZ and ALBERTO DAIRE, individuals, Case
No. 1:18-cv-10506-ADB (D. Mass., March 16, 2018), accuses the
Defendants of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in
connection with unsolicited telemarketing calls made by or on
behalf of the Defendants.

Liberty Power Corp, LLC, and Liberty Power Holdings, LLC, are
limited liability companies duly organized under the laws of the
state of Delaware with a principal place of business located in
Fort Lauderdale, Florida.  The Individual Defendants are Florida
residents, managers for both Corp and Holdings, and are part
owners of Corp and Holdings.

Liberty Power uses telemarketers to solicit potential residential
customers in several states to purchase its products and services
through outbound telemarketing campaigns.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John L. Fink, Esq.
          FINK LAW OFFICE
          18 Lyman St., Suite 208
          J&N Professional Building
          Westborough, MA 01581
          Telephone: (508) 433-0529
          E-mail: jfink@westborolawyer.com

               - and -

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Parisi, Esq.
          Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (818) 990-1299
          Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
          E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com
                  shavensbeckman@parisihavens.com

               - and -

          Yitzchak H. Lieberman, Esq.
          Grace E. Parasmo, Esq.
          PARASMO LIEBERMAN LAW
          7400 Hollywood Blvd, #505
          Los Angeles, CA 90046
          Telephone: (844) 200-5623
          Facsimile: (877) 501-3346
          E-mail: ylieberman@parasmoliebermanlaw.com
                  gparasmo@parasmoliebermanlaw.com


LK INC: Violates TCPA by Sending Autodialed Texts, "Dale" Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN DALE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. LK, INC. d/b/a LINE KILLERS, Case No. 1:18-cv-01148-
SCJ (N.D. Ga., March 19, 2018), arises out of the Defendant's
alleged practice of sending autodialed text messages to
individuals, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

LK, Inc., is a Maryland corporation headquartered in Ellicott
City, Maryland.  The Defendant conducts significant business in
Georgia and nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shireen Hormozdi, Esq.
          HORMOZDI LAW FIRM, LLC
          1770 Indian Trail Lilburn Road, Suite 175
          Norcross, GA 30093
          Telephone: (678) 395-7795
          Facsimile: (866) 929-2434
          E-mail: shireen@agrusslawfirm.com
                  shireen@norcrosslawfirm.com


LUCKY CHANG: Accused by "Liu" Class Suit of Violating FLSA & NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ZHI LIU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MAU-HUA CHANG a/k/a MICHAEL CHANG, as shareholders
and corporate officers, and LUCKY CHANG INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-
01691-SJF-ARL (E.D.N.Y., March 18, 2018), alleges that the
Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law
by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay its
employees, including the Plaintiff, minimum wage and overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

Lucky Chang Inc. is a domestic corporation, duly organized and
existing under the laws of the state of New York with a principal
place of business located in Farmingdale, New York.  Mau-Hua
Chang, also known as Michael Chang, is the owner, officer,
director and/or Chief Executive Officer of Lucky Chang.

The Defendants operate a restaurant located in Farmingdale.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Yan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID YAN
          136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 11E
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 888-7788
          E-mail: davidyanlawfirm@yahoo.com


MARNI USA: Faces "Fischler" Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN FISCHLER, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. MARNI U.S.A. CORP. AND YNAP CORPORATION
d/b/a www.marni.com, Case No. 1:18-cv-02466-GHW (S.D.N.Y., March
19, 2018), arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to design,
construct, maintain and operate their Web site,
http://www.marni.com/,to be fully accessible and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people.

Marni U.S.A. Corp. is a Domestic Business Corporation that is
organized and registered to do business in the state of New York
and has its headquarters in New York City.  Marni owns and
operates retail stores throughout the United States, including
locations in New York City.  Marni sells shirts, knitwear, coats,
jackets, bags, backpacks, pants, jewelry, sneakers and similar
items.

YNAP Corporation is a Foreign Business Corporation that is
organized under Delaware Law and registered to do business in the
state of New York.  YNAP is an online luxury fashion retailer.
YNAP is the result of a 2015 merger between YOOX Group and The
Net-A-Porter Group, which are two companies that have
revolutionized the luxury fashion industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDL 2804: Woodstock Joins Class Action Over Opioid Crisis
---------------------------------------------------------
David Ibata, writing for the AJC, reports that the Woodstock City
Council has voted to emulate governments ranging from tiny
Candler County in southeast Georgia to Fulton and DeKalb counties
in metro Atlanta in suing the pharmaceutical industry over opioid
painkillers.

The council voted to participate in an opioid class action
lawsuit on March 12 and on March 26, passed a resolution to
pursue legal action, saying drugmakers knew of the dangers and
addictiveness of opioids, yet "purposefully set out to persuade
providers, regulators and patients that their products were safe
and effective."

Woodstock retained J. Anderson Davis -- adavis@brinson-askew.com
-- and his law firm Brinson, Askew, Berry, Seigler, Richardson &
Davis LLP to represent it.  The law firm will bear the costs of
litigation and will receive no compensation or reimbursement
unless a recovery is realized, according to its retention
agreement with the city.

Hundreds of plaintiffs, mostly county and local governments, are
pursuing legal action against drugmakers over the powerful
painkillers blamed for thousands of deaths around the country.
[GN]


MDL 2804: Falmouth Mulls Class Action Over Opioid Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Bray, writing for Wicked Local, reports that town officials
in Falmouth have long wrestled with how to manage the still-
growing problem of opioid abuse. Now they're exploring the
possibility of fighting the battle in court.

Selectmen on March 26 directed Town Manager Julian Suso and Town
Counsel Frank Duffy to prepare a recommendation in May on how the
town might proceed with potential legal action against
pharmaceutical companies for their part in the opioid epidemic,
which has touched on communities nationwide.

Mr. Duffy said the town has received solicitations from legal
consortiums interested in getting Falmouth to join the effort to
take legal action against major pharmaceutical companies.  Opioid
addiction stems from the abuse of prescription drugs in 50 to 80
percent of cases, he said, adding that pharmaceutical companies
have a legal responsibility to try and prevent the illegal sale
and distribution of their products, as well as warn consumers of
the risks of addiction.

"For the most part, the suit is based on the premise that pharma
companies have failed in this duty," Mr. Duffy said on March 26.

If successful, the town would collect damages relative to the
various costs the town incurs in dealing with the opioid problem
locally.  That includes costs to the police, fire, school, and
human services departments, among others, Duffy said.

Specifically Duffy noted that health benefit and workers
compensation costs have "incrementally" increased in recent years
due to the opioid problem.  So to have ambulance costs and the
cost of training additional emergency response personnel to
address and handle overdoses and other opioid-related problems.

Police resources are meanwhile used to respond to intoxicated
drivers, as well as theft and other crimes that can be attributed
in part to addiction.  Mr. Duffy also noted that addicts "seek
refuge" in public areas such as libraries and parks.

While the town would be joining other communities in the legal
effort, Duffy pointed out that effort is not a class action suit.
That's because different towns incur different costs related to
the opioid crisis.

"It's more a collective effort, not a class action," he said.

Among the legal options available to the town include a lawsuit
from Attorney General Maura Healey on behalf of the state.
However, Duffy said that option might not be in the town's best
interest.

"My understanding is there is not a way for individual towns to
be plaintiffs in that type of action," he said.

Another option is for the town to file suit as part of a "multi-
district litigation", where towns that are similarly impacted by
the crisis take legal action together.  Mr. Duffy cited one such
effort in Cleveland, Ohio, where one judge ordered all cases into
mediation.

Messrs. Duffy and Suso will work on preparing a figure for what
the town might expect to receive in damages through the suit.
They will also interview representatives from two legal
consortiums and present options for proceeding with legal action
to selectmen at the board's second meeting in May, Mr. Duffy
said.

'I like the idea of interviewing the firms and having them come
with a recommendation," Selectmen Chairman Susan Moran said.

Selectman Samuel Patterson, meanwhile, said regardless of a
potential suit, he's interested in putting a dollar amount to
what the opioid problem is costing the town.

"I think the idea of calculating the cost and coming up with a
figure is a worthwhile exercise," he said.

Mr. Duffy said the town would pay 25 percent of the cost of any
legal effort led by a consortium, with no costs paid up front.
[GN]


MDL 2804: Puts on Hold Decision to Join Opioid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Marion, writing for The Standard Banner, reports that
County Commissioners put joining an class action opioid lawsuit
on hold during their regular session on March 26.

Dandridge attorney Richard Talley had approached the group during
the work session a week earlier with a request that they consider
plaintiff status.  The county stands to regain some of the
financial loss from the drug epidemic that has "inundated" the
local jail and caused many other problems, said Talley.

At the voting meeting, Commissioners Sammy Solomon and Russell
Turner offered motions to proceed, but after some discussion
motions from Commissioners Katy Huffaker and Steve Douglas to
postpone were approved 14-6.  Commissioner John Neal Scarlett and
others recommended that county attorneys take a look at the
situation in the meantime.

The move marks the second time Commissioners have backed away
from a class action opioid suit.  Last August, they voted 18-1 to
take no immediate action on a proposal presented by attorney Tom
Baugh, who is suing opioid marketers in a case he described as
similar to tobacco complaints settled in years past.

Mr. Baugh said all costs will be paid by the lawyers and there
will be no cost to the county, but Scarlett wondered what
percentage of the settlement attorneys will require.

In August, Commissioners asked the county attorney to provide
regular reports on the status of the proposed federal suit
outlining potential participation by other counties and the
"window of opportunity for Jefferson County to join" the
litigation.

Mr. Baugh said at that time that multiple suits against opioid
marketers have been filed across the country, with "hundreds more
expected."  He said the suits attempt to recover damages incurred
by communities as a result of opioids, especially oxycontin.

Oxycontin was introduced in 1995 by Purdue Manufacturing,
accompanied by an aggressive campaign to market it, said
Mr. Baugh.  He added that the federal government sued Purdue in
2007 and settled for $604 million, $170 million of which went to
the states.

Suits already filed allege that marketers played up the
effectiveness of the drug while downplaying its addictive
qualities.  The result has been a huge public cost and a massive
black market for the drug, according to the actions. [GN]


MDL 2804: Rockland May Join Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------
Stephen Betts, writing for Village Soup.Knox, reports that the
Rockland City Council will decide whether to join a national
class-action lawsuit against opioid manufacturers for pushing
their drugs and causing an epidemic of drug addiction.

Councilor Amelia Magjik is sponsoring the order to authorize the
city manager to contract with an attorney to have Rockland join
the class action suit.

Magjik said any money received by Rockland could be used to
compensate the community for the expenses incurred in dealing
with the drug crisis created, in part, by opioid manufacturers
and distributors. These costs include added emergency medical
services and police calls.

Money also could be used for outreach efforts in the community.

The order states that opioid manufacturers and distributors
"knowingly made and distributed quantities of prescription
opioids far beyond amounts that were medically necessary, leading
to an epidemic of addiction and death that has placed a huge
financial strain on local governments around the country."

The council is scheduled to vote on the measure at its April 9
meeting.

Auburn, Bangor, Biddeford, Lewiston, Portland, Waterville, and
Kennebec County are among the government entities in Maine that
have already joined in the class action suit.

The claims by these and other communities across the country is
that the drug companies misled physicians about the addictive
powers of the prescription drugs. People who became addicted to
these drugs would later turn to heroin or other illegal opioids.

The Maine Attorney General's Office reported that 418 people in
Maine died from drug overdoses in 2017, up from 376 in 2016. [GN]


MDL 2804: Cleveland Taps Special Councel for Opioid Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Fischer, writing for Leesville Daily Leader, reports that
Attorney Frank Shaw, Esq., presented the council with the
opportunity to participate in the class action lawsuit held in a
Federal Court in Cleveland, Ohio. The fee for representation is
25 percent based solely on whatever settlement can be reached.

The first item discussed at the city council meeting was a
resolution to hire Shaw & Leger to represent Donaldsonville in
ongoing opioid litigation held in a Federal court.

"Currently there is a multi-district litigation panel in the city
of Cleveland, " Shaw began. ". . . The judge there has suggested
that Purdue Pharma and a listing of many other defendants are in
settlement discussions, which are ongoing as we speak."

The council approved the resolution, supported by Mayor Leroy
Sullivan to allow Shaw & Leger to represent them in the class
action lawsuit. The lawsuit represents over-prescribing of
opioids that lead to addiction and subsequently crime and other
issues in communities across the country.

What was not discussed was where those funds would go if
Donaldsonville would receive any sort of settlement. Councilman
Rev. Charles Brown expressed his concerns over the issue of
throwing money at the issue. Councilman Brent Landry deemed the
opioid epidemic a spiritual void.

"We're just getting on board to get money for something, but we
still have an epidemic we're dealing with," Brown said. "That's
not going to solve that issue."

Shaw replied that the money would go towards helping with
treatment options.

"Just a lawsuit isn't going to stop the drugs in our community,"
Brown said. "It's getting worse and worse."

Shaw shared that he lost a son to an opioid overdose at LSU. "I
agree with you 100 percent," he said. "Money can't bring back a
deceased relative. We do what we can."

Next, the council approved several invoices for GSA sewer work
performed. Council Chairman Raymond Aucoin explained that the
invoices were previously reviewed at the last committee of the
whole meeting.

Lastly, Fire Chief James MacDonald shared that the Donaldsonville
Volunteer Fire Department is down volunteers. They responded
shorthanded to a couple calls last month. If anyone is interested
in donating their time for a good cause, this is it.[GN]


MDL 2804: Craven County Awaits Update on Opioid Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Todd Wetherington, writing for Sun Journal, reports that the
awarding of a contract for Craven County's stream debris removal
program was expected to come before the Board of Commissioners
during an April 2 night meeting.

The contract would cover the removal of vegetative and woody
debris from Slocum Creek, Reedy Branch, Brice's Creek/Great
Swamp, Scotts Creek, River Bend Canal and Harlowe Canal, as well
as other areas.

County staff has recommended the board award the contract to Hess
Construction in the amount of $350,505.  The proposal is $358,724
under budget, according to the meeting agenda.

The board will also be updated on efforts by County Attorney
Jim Hicks to obtain counsel to represent the county in its
efforts to join a class-action lawsuit against various
manufacturers and distributors of opioid products.  An update
will be given by a representative of the McHugh Fuller Law Group.

According to a proposed contract with the law firm, the
litigation would "pursue all civil remedies against those in the
chain of distribution of prescription opiates responsible for the
opioid epidemic which is plaguing Craven County, North Carolina.
. . . The litigation focuses on the manufacturers and wholesale
distributors and their role in the diversion of millions of
prescription opiates into the illicit market which has resulted
in opioid addiction, abuse, morbidity and mortality."

In other business, Jesse Pittman, administrative captain with the
Craven County Sheriff's Office, is scheduled to present a budget
amendment requesting an additional $12,000 to cover expenditures
for the department's electronic monitoring program through the
end of the current fiscal year.  To date, the department has
spent $25,000 on the program and collected $46,508 in revenue,
according to Pittman.

The Craven County Board of Commissioners was set to meet at 7
p.m., April 2, at the Craven County Administration Building in
New Bern.  [GN]


MDL 2804: Reno County Considers Joining Opioid Crisis Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Green, writing for The Hutchinson News, reports that though
not convinced drug manufacturers are to blame for opioid abuse in
Reno County, the Reno County Commission on April 3 was set to
consider joining a multi-state lawsuit against those
manufacturers to recover costs of responding to the epidemic.

The county was approached several months ago by a Wichita-based
law firm asking it to join the suit against several major
pharmaceutical companies, County Counselor Joe O'Sullivan
advised.

The commission met in executive session about four weeks ago to
discuss the suit and then brought it up again in the open
meeting.

The suit

A suit initially was filed in a district court in Ohio.  Since
then, law firms in West Virginia, Florida, Texas, Mississippi,
and now Kansas have filed similar suits, which will all likely be
joined by the court into a single class action suit.

"You've all read and heard about the growing problems in many
segments of the country," Mr. O'Sullivan said.  "The lawsuit
accuses the companies of spending money on marketing that
trivializes the danger while overstating its use to address
chronic pain, and also lobbying doctors about the safety of using
opioids."

The firms involved, Mr. O'Sullivan said, believe a settlement
will eventually resolve the suit.

"They'd like to do it by the end of the year," Mr. O'Sullivan
said.  "A lot of people think that's optimistic and it's not
going to happen, but in the event Reno County wants to
participate, it's important to do it sooner than later."

The suit to be filed in federal court in Wichita by the McHugh
Fuller Law Group names Johnson and Johnson, as well as some other
major pharmaceutical companies, Mr. O'Sullivan said.

The petition, which is 155 pages long, accuses the manufacturers
of engaging in false and deceptive practices in their marketing,
that the companies engaged in "unlawful distribution," and that
they "failed to prevent diversion" of the drugs.

Alternative theories, Mr. O'Sullivan said, are that the companies
have created a public nuisance and that they are engaged in
racketeering.

Joining the suit, Mr. O'Sullivan said, will cost the county
nothing, win or lose.

Under the contract, the law firm will split any money awarded
between the participating parties after taking off 30 percent of
the total gross recovery, less costs and expenses of the suit.
If the court awards attorney fees, the law firm will take
whichever is greater, the awarded fees or an amount equaling 30
percent.

What losses?

"I asked the attorney what proof they have to have that Reno
County was damaged by this type of activity," Mr. O'Sullivan told
the commission.  "Many are not damages suffered by the county,
but they include treatment care costs, education costs of
children not cared for, damages as a result of incarceration,
shoplifting, long-term rehabilitation costs, and public awareness
costs to teach physicians and children the dangers of opioids."

There are also emergency response costs, hospitals costs,
administrative costs for the county and departments that deal
with the issue, law enforcement costs, and lost revenues.

"There is no statistical information I'm aware of by which Reno
County could claim damages," Mr. O'Sullivan said.

The law firm filing the suit will develop a "damages model" that
would be used by each participant in the suit to determine their
share of damages.

"Ostensibly, everyone in the country who shares in the
consequences would get a settlement, such as was achieved in the
tobacco case," Mr. O'Sullivan said.  "I don't know what the
criteria will be (to allocate any settlement.)"

If it participated and received an award, Reno County would not
be obligated to use the money for any specific purpose,
O'Sullivan said.

"We could use it for any purpose we wanted," he said.

Reno County Deputy District Attorney Tom Stanton also addressed
the commission on the opioid issue.

"I'm here to tell you there is a drug problem in Reno, but not to
influence your decision on whether to join the lawsuit,"
Mr. Stanton said.

Hard to place blame . . .

He attended a conference recently where the issue was discussed,
and learned "a large percentage of what we see now, as far are
overdoses, are not directly the result of legally manufactured
drugs themselves," Mr. Stanton said.

"We're receiving into this country shipments of fentanyl from
Mexico the Middle East and China," he said.  "These are much more
powerful -- 50 to 100 times more powerful -- than the narcotic
drugs lawfully being manufactured.  In many cases, people are
pressing these into pills that look like prescription narcotics."

There was a case recently, he said, in which investigators
believed they had seized oxycodone pills, but a lab analysis
showed them to be fentanyl.

The lasts

"The problem is, if you look at the 64,000 overdose deaths in
2016, you have to look at what drugs were used and whether they
were actually manufactured from the defendant companies or
produced in clandestine labs."

Stanton pointed out that the Wichita petition references
instances where manufacturers have been fined for not addressing
the diversion issue.

The ways people are diverting the pills, he said, include teens
taking them from their parents or grandparent's medicine
cabinets, pharmacy burglaries and "doctor shopping."  The latter
issue has been about the only one that can be directly addressed,
by physicians sharing names of patients prescribed opioids.

"The point I want to make is basically I'm not sure how you
relate damages that might be incurred by the county to drug
manufacturers, given the influx of drugs from outside," Stanton
said.  "I'm sure there's an amount of greed involved by some
manufacturers and distributors . . . but I'm not sure how a
lawsuit can attribute the problems we have in Reno County."

Mr. O'Sullivan, responding to a question from the commission,
said the law firm had invited at least 16 municipalities to join
the suit, but only a couple have entered so far.

. . . But why not?

"I don't like this kind of lawsuit personally, to try to pin
financial responsibility on manufacturers," Commissioner Dan
Deming said.  "Though they share some portion of the blame for
the overall opioid crisis, if we don't have any costs to
pursue..."

If there's going to be a settlement "somewhere down the line,"
however, Deming said, "shouldn't we be a part of it?"

"It is low hanging fruit," Mr. O'Sullivan replied.

"Do we want to wake up in three years and find out counties that
joined are getting $500,000 and we did not?" Mr. Deming asked.
"Do we have an obligation to get involved if there's any chance
taxpayers will be reimbursed for costs that are out there? How do
we defend not being a part of it, quite frankly?"

"I guess I agree with you Dan," said Commissioner Bob Bush. "I
don't mean to be too much of a Boy Scout.  I'm not a fan of
participating in things that don't fit us.  But the point has
been made we have significant costs in the community through law
enforcement and the hospital system, through the DA's office and
their resources.  There are costs incurred, and if we paint with
a broad enough brush, we can fit within the lawsuit, so I support
that we join it." [GN]


MISSIONARY OBLATES: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Sexual Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a request has been filed in
Quebec Superior Court for a class action against a religious
order in connection with alleged sexual assaults on the
province's North Shore by a now-deceased priest and other members
of the order.

The lawsuit alleges that the Missionary Oblates of Mary
Immaculate are directly responsible for the alleged actions of
Belgian-born missionary Alexis Joveneau, who spent four decades
in small Inuit communities up until his death some 25 years ago.

Lawyer Alain Arsenault, Esq., told a news conference on March 29
that some 30 alleged victims have come forward from the community
of Unamen Shipu, and he believes there may be more in other
villages.

Arsenault said the alleged abuse took place against Indigenous
and non-Indigenous male and female victims as young as eight or
nine years old, and that it occurred over many years.

He said the claim for moral damages could reach $300,000 per
victim.

The class action has not yet been authorized and none of the
allegations have been proven in court.

The order announced that it was devastated by the allegations
that have surfaced against its members, and it was opening a 1-
800 phone line and an email address to allow any potential
victims to come forward. [GN]


MITR PHOL: Cambodian Farmers File Suit Over Alleged Land Grab
-------------------------------------------------------------
Prak Chan Thul and Patpicha Tanakasempipat, writing for Reuters,
report that farmers from Cambodia have filed a lawsuit in a Thai
civil court against Asia's largest sugar producer, accusing it of
rights abuses after it allegedly kicked farmers off their land, a
rights group said on April 2.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of 3,000 people, is the first class-
action lawsuit filed in a Thai court by plaintiffs from another
country against a Thai company operating outside Thailand, the
group, Inclusive Development International, said in a statement.

The plaintiffs accuse sugar producer Mitr Phol of violently
displacing them in Cambodia's northwestern Oddar Meanchey
province between 2008 and 2009 to make way for plantations.

"Since Mitr Phol took my land, my family and I have suffered
tremendously," Ma Okchoeurn, one of the affected people, said in
a press release issued by the rights group.

"My house was burned down.  I was arrested without reason, and as
a result my family had nothing to eat and had to collect trash to
survive.  To this day, I have no land or house."

Mitr Phol said in a statement emailed to Reuters it had invested
in Cambodia in "a good faith partnership" with the government and
got temporary concessions in compliance with all local and
national laws and with assurances from authorities that "all
temporary concession areas had been processed legally and
transparently".

It said it had withdrawn from the project in 2014 due to a
combination of factors including political tensions along the
Thai-Cambodia border, business risks, adverse agricultural
conditions and negative publicity.

Mitr Phol said after it withdrew from the project, it had
recommended that the Cambodian government return land "to the
affected communities".

Seng Loth, a spokesman at Land Management Ministry, which was
responsible for the government's involvement in the project, said
when contacted by Reuters he was in a meeting and too busy to
comment.

Government spokesman Phay Siphan said he could not comment and
referred queries to the Land Management Ministry.

Cambodia has awarded big concessions to foreign companies, mainly
from China, Vietnam and South Korea, to operate mines, power
plants and farms, in order to attract foreign investment.

Rights groups have said some concessions have led to forced
evictions and land disputes. [GN]


MONSTER BEVERAGE: Townsend's Bid to Certify Consumers Class Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Virginia A. Phillips entered an order in the lawsuit
styled Matthew Townsend and Ted Cross, Individually and on Behalf
of all Others Similarly Situated v. Monster Beverage Corporation
and Monster Energy Company, Case No. 5:12-cv-02188-VAP-KK (C.D.
Cal.):

   (1) denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification;

   (2) denying in part and granting in part Defendants' Motion to
       Strike Thomas Maronick's Expert Report and Testimony;

   (3) denying in part and granting in part Plaintiffs' Motion to
       Exclude Kent Van Liere's Expert Report;

   (4) denying in part and granting in part Plaintiffs' Motion to
       Exclude Keith Ugone's Expert Report;

   (5) denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Eva Lilja's
       Declaration; and

   (6) denying in part and granting in part Defendants' Motion to
       Strike Stefan Boedeker's Expert Report and Testimony.

The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against the
Defendants, seeking redress for Monster's allegedly "unfair and
deceptive business and trade practices on behalf of anyone who
purchased for personal consumption any of the Monster-branded
energy drinks sold under the Monster Rehab(R) brand name and the
original Monster Energy(R)."  The Plaintiffs sought to certify
two classes:

   (1) All persons who purchased the Original Monster Energy
       drink for personal use and not for resale from
       December 12, 2008 to the present ("Energy Class'); and

   (2) All persons who purchased Monster Rehab Tea + Lemonade
       Energy, Monster Rehab Rojo Tea + Energy, Monster Rehab
       Green Tea + Energy, Monster Rehab Protean + Energy, and
       Monster Rehab Tea + Orangeade + Energy (collectively,
       "Monster Rehab") for personal use and not for resale from
       March 1, 2011 to the present ("Rehab Class").

The Court grants the Defendants' Motion to Strike Mr. Boedeker's
testimony and report as it relates to the Ideal Combo, Re-
hydrate, and Consumer Responsibly statements.  The Court denies
Defendants' Motion to Strike Mr. Boedeker's testimony and report
as it relates to the Hydrates statement.

Judge Phillips sustains Defendants' Objection to Dr. Maronick's
Supplemental Report and correspondingly strikes Dr. Maronick's
Study 2 and Paragraphs 3c, 11-14, and 61-88 of Dr. Maronick's
Supplemental Report.  Judge Phillips grants Defendants' Motion to
Strike Dr. Maronick's testimony and report as to paragraphs 23,
24, 35, and 38, as well as paragraph 39 such that only the
following remains: "Consumers perceive . . . Monster Rehab as
providing hydration 'like a sports drink.'  Moreover, I find that
consumers pay attention to consumption limits, (e.g., 'Limit 3
cans per day') when present on a label."  The Court denies
Defendants' Motion as to the remainder of Dr. Maronick's report
and testimony.

Judge Phillips grants Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Dr. Van
Liere's expert report as to paragraphs 120 and 121, and denies
Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Dr. Van Liere's expert report as to
the remainder of Dr. Van Liere's report.  Judge Phillips grants
Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Dr. Ugone's expert report as to
paragraphs 48 through 56 and denies Plaintiffs' motion as to the
remainder of Dr. Ugone's report.

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

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FpY5brkH


MURRAY GOULBURN: Investor-Led Class Action Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Clint Jasper, writing for ABC News, reports that it is unlikely
an investor-led class action against Murray Goulburn will begin
until after farmer-shareholders in the milk processor vote on
whether it can be sold to Canadian owned Saputo.

Murray Goulburn's long-suffering suppliers will be asked to vote
on whether to allow Canadian dairy company Saputo to buy the co-
op for $1.3 billion, or to vote against the change, a decision
Murray Goulburn's chief executive Ari Mervis recently cautioned
would leave it in a dire financial state.

If farmers vote in favour of the sale, all that will remain of
the historic Murray Goulburn will be $235 million, $195 million
of which will be left over to defend itself from the investor-led
class action and legal proceedings brought by the Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission.

Murray Goulburn said that sum, which it called Retained
Litigation, had "taken into account a theoretical assessment of
the potential value of the proceedings and associated costs in
managing the proceedings".

But "Retained Litigation is not an indication by MG that it has
any actual liability in respect of the Retained Litigation or
that any such liability is reflected by the total retention
amount".

A hearing in the ACCC matter has been scheduled in Melbourne's
Federal Court in September.

No hearing has been scheduled yet for the class action.

Latest developments
During a joint case management and interlocutory hearing earlier
barrister Mark Elliot, acting for the investors, questioned
whether that $195 million would be enough for MG to meet the
potential claims against it from investors as well as defend
itself in the ACCC matter.

Mr Elliott also sought additional documents concerning
Murray Goulburn's interactions with its lawyers at Herbert Smith
Freehills, while the firm was engaged to provide legal advice on
the co-operative's partial listing on the Australian Stock
Exchange.

Mr Elliott said investors in the Murray Goulburn Unit Trust,
which was set up and listed on the ASX to allow the public to
invest in Murray Goulburn (raising $500 million in 2015), may
have a claim against Herbert Smith Freehills.

He argued that viewing these documents were important to
establish whether Herbert Smith Freehills acted negligently or in
breach of its retainer when it advised on the unique structure of
Murray Goulburn's listed entity.

As beneficiaries of a listed unit trust, he argued the investors
had a right to see these communications.

But Wendy Harris QC, acting on behalf of Murray Goulburn,
rejected the claims and described the probe as an "expensive
frolic".

Ms Harris said the documents fell under lawyer-client privilege.

Investors' right to access the documents was also disputed, with
Ms Harris arguing all the advice given by Herbert Smith Freehills
pre-dated the creation of the trust.

When did this all start?
The investors, led by John Webster, initially filed a class
action with the Victorian Supreme Court in May 2016 before the
matter was moved to the Federal Court in May last year.

They claim Murray Goulburn's managers published a Product
Disclosure Statement that contained inaccruate forecasts, that
they did not comply with their continuous disclosure obligations
and also breached their duty to investors under the Corporations
Act.

Murray Goulburn debuted on the ASX worth $500 million, a value
which has since slid to just under $195 million.

Its shares have dived from a high of $2.70 in December 2015 to a
low point of just 60 cents in June this year when the company
unveiled a disappointing set of financial results.

A separate class action on behalf of farmers was dropped after
the co-op agreed to abandon its clawback of money from farmers.

Law firm Slater and Gordon is also investigating whether it will
mount a class action, but nothing has been lodged with the courts
to date. [GN]


NAPLES HOTEL: FCRA Class Action Pending in Florida Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Scott Kelly, Esq. -- scott.kelly@troutman.com -- and Timothy St.
George, Esq. -- tim.st.george@troutman.com -- of Troutman Sanders
LLP, in an article for Mondaq, wrote that on March 20, Naples
Hotel Group LLC removed a putative Fair Credit Reporting Act
class action to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida.  The complaint, originally filed February 13 in the
Ninth Judicial Circuit Court in Orange County, Florida, alleges
that Naples improperly obtained and used consumer reports about
prospective and existing employees -- through an outside consumer
reporting agency -- without complying with the FCRA's disclosure
and authorization requirements.  The lead plaintiffs, Shawana
Sanders and Kenyatta Williams, are former employees of Naples.

The putative class is defined as all Naples Hotel Group employees
and job applicants in the United States who were the subject of a
consumer report procured by the company within five years of the
complaint's filing.

According to the plaintiffs, the authorization forms used to
obtain their consumer reports during the initial application
process contained "extraneous provisions" that distracted the
applicants from understanding the import of the disclosure.
According to the plaintiffs, Naples knew it was required by law
to provide a stand-alone form, separate from its employment
application, before obtaining and using consumer reports. They
allege that Naples further violated the FCRA when it took adverse
action against them.

"Without clear notice that a consumer report is going to be
procured, applicants and employees are deprived of the
opportunity to make informed decisions or otherwise assert
protected rights," according to the complaint.

These types of FCRA disclosure form claims are incredibly popular
with the plaintiffs' bar, and judicial decisions vary widely
based on circuit and fact pattern.  Last year in Syed v. M-I,
LLC, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a significant
decision on the discrete issue of FCRA willfulness as applied to
disclosure form claims, ultimately concluding that the
prospective employer willfully violated the FCRA by including a
liability waiver in its background check disclosure form.
Troutman Sanders previously reported on the Syed decision.

Troutman Sanders will continue to monitor related legislative
developments concerning employment background screening and
employee hiring. [GN]


NFL: Former LSU Player Files Concussion Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Greg Atoms, writing for 1130thetiger, reports that the NFL, and
all of football really, has been dealing with a serious problem
when it comes to brain trauma.  There are issues at the youth
level, high school, college, and all the way up.

There have been multiple suits filed against the NFL over the
years, some from individuals, others in class action form. The
most recent is actually that of a former LSU star.

Former LSU and Rummel standout Craig Steltz has filed a lawsuit
against the NFL because he claims he suffered traumatic brain
injuries while playing for the Bears.  Mr. Steltz played in
Chicago from 2008 to 2014 and the suit says he sustained
repetitive and traumatic concussive head impacts.  Mr. Steltz is
seeking unspecified damages. [GN]


NIANTIC INC: Class Action Lawsuit Over Pokemon Go Dropped
---------------------------------------------------------
Canoe.com reports that a class-action lawsuit against the
creators of Pokemon Go has been dropped after the company took
steps to deal with what the Alberta plaintiff said was an
invasion of privacy.

Calgary lawyer Clint Docken, Esq., filed legal action against
California-based Niantic Inc. in August 2016 on behalf of Barbra-
Lyn Schaeffer from Torrington.

Pokemon Go sends players into the real world to search for
digital monsters known as Pokemon, which appear on screens when
users hold up their smartphones.

It's a collision of the actual and virtual worlds. Digital
beacons called Pokestops and Pokegyms draw people to a physical
location, where they use their electronic screens to fight the
monsters.

Schaeffer had complained that players were inundating her and her
husband's home, 160 kilometres northeast of Calgary, because it
was the site of a Pokegym.

She described people crawling over the fence into her yard at all
hours to play.

Docken said Niantic addressed the concern right away by removing
the Schaeffer home as a gym location.

"It was originally a business and then it became a residence, and
Niantic didn't realize that," he said.

"The company was good enough to go to our clients and the
immediate problem got corrected. It appears as though the problem
generally, in terms of the activity, went away as well," said
Docken.

Schaeffer didn't respond to a request for comment.

Docken, who has been involved in litigation for decades, said
sometimes cases are resolved quickly.

He said the textbook way to deal with a lawsuit goes to Maple
Leaf Foods, which reached a settlement following a listeriosis
outbreak in 2008 in which 57 confirmed cases resulted in at least
20 deaths.

"I think that's the example that they use in the MBA schools in
terms of how to respond to a crisis. You take ownership of the
problem and you resolve the problem. You get credit for having
(done) that," Docken said.

"That matter, which had some complexity to it, was resolved
within a matter of months. The stock price rebounded to its pre-
incident level pretty quickly." [GN]


NIANTIC INC: To Settle Pokemon GO Fest Suit for Over $1.5MM
-----------------------------------------------------------
Greg Kumparak,writing for TechCrunch,reports that back in July of
last year, Niantic organized an outdoor festival focusing on its
augmented reality game, Pokemon GO. In theory, players would come
from all around for a day of wandering Chicago's Grant Park,
meeting other players and catching new/rare Pokemon.

It did not go as planned. Widespread cellular connectivity and
logistical issues brought the game (and thus the event itself) to
a halt before the doors even opened. People booed. People threw
things at the stage. People sued.

While Niantic quickly announced that they'd be refunding all
ticket costs (and giving players $100 of in-game currency), that
still left many of the estimated 20,000 attendees out the cost of
hotels, transportation, etc.

Niantic is settling a class action suit surrounding the festival,
TechCrunch has learned, paying out $1,575,000 dollars to
reimburse various costs attendees might have picked up along the
way. Things like airfare, hotel costs, up to two days of parking
fees, car rental, mileage and tolls.

According to documents filed in a Chicago court, an official
website for the settlement should be up by May 25th, 2018, with
an email sent to let attendees know. The documents also note a
few potential catches: those claiming part of the settlement will
need to have checked in to GO Fest through the game (presumably
to prevent those who sold their tickets for a markup from getting
more money out of it), and anyone claiming more than $107 in
expenses will need to have receipts.

If there's money left after all claims, lawyer fees, etc, the
documents note that the remaining balance will be split evenly
and donated to the Illinois Bar foundation and the nonprofit
organization Chicago Run. "In no event will money revert back to
Niantic" it reads. [GN]


OCALA, FL: Faces Class Action Over Mandatory Fire User Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Katie Pohlman, writing for Ocala, reports that a lawsuit from
April 2014 alleges the city of Ocala's mandatory fire user fees
are illegal and unconstitutional under state law.  Going from
circuit court to appellate court and back again, the case has
returned as a class action lawsuit.

Attorneys for plaintiffs in a lawsuit alleging the city of Ocala
collected illegal fire fees are putting class members on notice.

An estimated 50,000 residents qualify as class members in the
lawsuit, described as anyone who paid the city's fire user fees
on or after Feb. 10, 2010, according to court documents.  The
fees apply to residents who use city utilities.

No settlement or decision has been reached in the case, but class
members would be notified if there was one.

Discount Sleep of Ocala, LLC, and Dale W. Birch filed the lawsuit
in April 2014 alleging the city's mandatory fire user fees are
illegal and unconstitutional under state law.  The fees,
implemented in 2007, provide 55 percent of the funding for the
city's fire services.  The other 45 percent comes from the city's
general fund.

After jumping from circuit court to appellate court and back
again, the case has returned to Marion County to continue as a
class action lawsuit.

Residents can opt out of class membership by filing a request for
exclusion form by July 1.  Those who do opt out are not bound by
the decision in the class action case and can bring their own
case against the city if they see fit.

All residents who do not fill out the form will be included as a
class member and be bound by the decision.  If there is an
unfavorable verdict, individual class members cannot bring their
own cases against the city.

Fifth Circuit Judge Lisa Herndon's March 26 order states the city
has until April 26 to disclose the names and last known addresses
of all potential class members.  Plaintiff's attorneys will then
have until June 10 to mail a notice of the class action to those
addresses.

The case was originally dismissed in February 2015 claiming the
suit was filed more than four years after the ordinance was
enacted and thus did not fall under the statute of limitation.
That decision was overturned by the 5th District Court of Appeal
in June 2016, sending the case back to circuit court.

Herndon then denied class certification in January 2017 citing
the plaintiffs' failure to provide proof of residency in the city
and stating that the case could be properly litigated without
certification.

The 5th District Court of Appeal overruled that decision in
January of this year, stating class action would be the
"economically feasible" remedy, according to the opinion.

Individual claims could amount to about $171 a year. Bringing
individual cases against the city would be a waste of judicial
resources, the court ruled.

No trial has been set in this case. [GN]


OHIO: Judge Grants Class-Action Status to Disabilities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rita Price, writing for The Colombus Dispatch, reports that a 2-
year-old court battle between the state of Ohio and legal
advocates for Ohioans with developmental disabilities can proceed
as a class-action lawsuit, a federal judge in Columbus ruled
March 30.

Chief Judge Edmund A Sargus Jr. of the Southern District of Ohio
granted the request in part, but also imposed a somewhat tighter
definition of the class than the one sought initially by
plaintiffs.

Disability Rights Ohio filed the lawsuit in 2016 on behalf of six
people who said the state's disabilities system violates the
federal Americans With Disabilities Act by leaving them and
thousands of others stuck in institutions -- or at risk of moving
to one -- because they can't get the services they need to live
and work in their communities.

According to the decision, Sargus certified a class of "All
Medicaid-eligible adults with intellectual and developmental
disabilities residing in the state of Ohio who, on or after March
31, 2016, are qualified for home and community-based services,
and, after receiving options counseling, express that they are
interested in community-based services."

Disability Rights and its legal partners said the judge's ruling
means that the five remaining plaintiffs now represent the
interests of thousands of Ohioans.

"The resolution of our case will determine whether the state is
violating the rights of class members, and if so, fix that by
expanding access to community-based services," said Kerstin
Sjoberg-Witt, director of advocacy and assistant executive
director of Disability Rights.

The Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities said in an
emailed statement that officials there are reviewing the order.
Ohio "remains committed to empowering individuals with
disabilities and their families," the department said, and
"continues to make great progress in providing opportunities for
people with disabilities to choose where they want to live."

Class-action status has been an emotional issue for families who
don't want the lawsuit to speak for them. They fear that loved
ones could be forced to leave high-quality residential centers
and move into unsafe community settings, where their complex
needs won't be met.

Dozens of them fought for a voice and Sargus granted them a seat
at the table in July.

The class-action ruling is disappointing, said Caroline Lahrmann,
whose two children live in a residential center known as an
"intermediate care facility."

Families will continue to push for the ICF choice, Lahrmann said
in an email. The bottom line, she added, is that, "All choices --
ICF and community options -- should be communicated to
individuals and families and adequately funded." [GN]


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Overstock.com, Inc. (NASDAQ:
OSTK) securities between August 3, 2017 and March 26, 2018 (the
"Class Period"). Investors have until May 29, 2018 to apply to
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that Overstock's foray into "blockchain
technology" has been little more than a thinly veiled strategy to
take advantage of the Bitcoin frenzy.

On March 1, 2018, Overstock announced that the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) had requested information about its
initial coin offering. Following this news, the Company's stock
price fell $2.65 per share, or 4.4%, to close at $57.75 per share
on March 1, 2018.

Then, on March 26, 2018, Overstock announced that it planned to
offer 4,000,000 common stock shares in an underwritten public
offering. Following this news, the Company's stock price fell
$6.68 per share, or approximately 15%, to close at $37.92 per
share on March 27, 2018.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Overstock securities and
suffered a loss, continue to hold shares purchased prior to the
Class Period, have information, would like to learn more about
these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at
investigations@bespc.com, or telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by
filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm
concentrating in commercial and securities litigation. For
additional information concerning the Overstock.com, Inc.
lawsuit, please go to http://www.bespc.com/overstock.

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Telephone: 212-355-4648
         E-mail: walker@bespc.com,
                 fortunato@bespc.com [GN]


OVERSTOCK.COM INC.: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Overstock.com, Inc. from August 3, 2017 through
March 26, 2018, inclusive. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages
for Overstock.com investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Overstock.com class action, go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1312.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a
class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you
retain one. You may also remain an absent class member and do
nothing at this point. You may retain counsel of your choice.

According to the lawsuit, defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Overstock.com's coin offering was highly problematic and
potentially illegal; and (2) the company's Medici business was
hemorrhaging money. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
May 29, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1312.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN]


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Scott+Scott Attorneys Files Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, a national securities and
consumer rights litigation firm, has filed a class action lawsuit
against Overstock.com, Inc. and certain of its executives.

"the investigation could result in a delay of the Zero security
token offering, negative publicity for tZero or us, and may have
a material adverse effect on us or on the current and future
business ventures of tZero."

The action, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), 15
U.S.C. Sec. 78j(b) and 78t(a), and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Sec 240.10b-5, on behalf of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Overstock common stock between
August 3, 2017 and March 26, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Overstock is an online retailer and purported advancer of
blockchain technology. On December 18, 2017, Overstock announced
that its Medici Ventures ("Medici") business and tZERO trading
system was engaging in a $250 million coin offering.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated provisions of the
Exchange Act by issuing false and misleading statements to
investors, including in filings with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC"). Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Overstock's coin offering was highly problematic and potentially
illegal; and (2) the Company's Medici business was hemorrhaging
money.

On March 1, 2018, Overstock announced that the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") had requested information about its
initial coin offering, the Company's stock fell 4.4% to $57.75
per share from the February 28, 2018 share price of $60.40.

Then, on March 15, 2018, the Company stated that "the
investigation could result in a delay of the tZero security token
offering, negative publicity for tZero or us, and may have a
material adverse effect on us or on the current and future
business ventures of tZero." Overstock also disclosed that the
SEC was conducting an examination of advisers at tZERO. Further,
it was revealed that Medici had lost $22 million for 2017,
despite the fact that Bitcoin prices increased by 1,375% during
that time. On this news, the Company's stock fell 5.1% from
$48.20 to $45.70.

Approximately one week later, on March 26, 2018, Overstock
announced that it planned to offer 4,000,000 common stock shares
in an underwritten public offering. On this news, the Company's
stock fell approximately 15%.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later 60 days from the date of this notice. Any member of the
proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain a member of the proposed class.

         Joe Pettigrew, Esq.
         Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
         Tel: 844-818-6982
         E-mail: jpettigrew@scott-scott.com [GN]


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Overstock.com, Inc.
("Overstock" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OSTK ) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased Overstock
securities between August 3, 2017and March 26, 2018, inclusive
(the "Class Period").  Such investors are encouraged to join this
case by visiting the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/ostk

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Overstock's coin offering was highly
problematic and potentially illegal; and (2) the Company's Medici
business was hemorrhaging money.

On March 1, 2018, Overstock revealed that the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") had requested information about its
initial coin offering.  Following this news, Overstock stock
dropped 4.4% to$57.75per share.

Then, on March 15, 2018, Overstock announced that "the
investigation could result in a delay of the tZero security token
offering, negative publicity for tZero or us, and may have a
material adverse effect on us or on the current and future
business ventures of tZero." Overstock also said that the SEC was
examining the advisers at tZero.  It was also revealed that
Medici had lost$22 million in 2017, despite the fact that Bitcoin
prices increased by 1,375% during that time.  Following this
news, Overstock stock dropped 5.1% to close at$45.70.  Then on
March 26, 2018, Overstock revealed that it planned to offer
4,000,000 common stock shares in an underwritten public offering.
Following this announcement, the stock dropped about 15%.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/ostkor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq., or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitzof
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484.  If you
suffered a loss in Overstock you have until May 29, 2018to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve
as a lead plaintiff.

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


PATTERSON COMPANIES: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. on March 28 disclosed that it has filed a
securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court of Minnesota against Patterson Companies, Inc.
("Patterson" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:PDCO) on behalf of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
the Company between June 26, 2015 and February 28, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

Patterson is one of the nation's only full-service distributors
of dental products.  The Company distributes its products mainly
through two subsidiaries -- Patterson Dental and Patterson Animal
Health.

The Complaint asserts claims for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The Complaint alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Specifically, Defendants allegedly made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Defendants were
engaged in a fraudulent and illegal price-fixing conspiracy; (2)
the Company's revenue and earnings were fraudulently inflated by
the illegal scheme; (3) the scheme was aimed at prohibiting sales
to and price negotiations by group purchasing organizations
("GPOs") that represented small and independent dental practices;
(4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about
Patterson's business, operations, and prospects were materially
false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and join the class action
at www.saxenawhite.com.

If you purchased Patterson shares between June 26, 2015 and
February 28, 2018, you may contact Lester Hooker
(lhooker@saxenawhite.com) at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your
rights and interests.

If you purchased Patterson securities during the Class Period of
June 26, 2015 through February 28, 2018 and wish to apply to be
the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf must
be filed with the Court by no later than May 29, 2018.  You may
contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding the
appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class
action.  Please note that you may also retain counsel of your
choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class
member.

With offices in Florida, New York, and Massachusetts, Saxena
White P.A. -- http://www.saxenawhite.com-- concentrates its
practice on prosecuting securities fraud and complex class
actions on behalf of institutions and individuals. Currently
serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud class
actions nationwide, the firm has recovered hundreds of millions
of dollars on behalf of injured investors and is active in major
litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout the
United States. [GN]


PATTERSON COS: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Patterson Companies,
Inc. ("Patterson" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PDCO) and certain of
its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased Patterson
securities between June 26, 2015 and February 28, 2018, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this
case by visiting the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/pdco.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Defendants were engaged in a
fraudulent and illegal price-fixing conspiracy; (2) the Company's
revenue and earnings were fraudulently inflated by the illegal
scheme; (3) the scheme was aimed at prohibiting sales to and
price negotiations by group purchasing organizations ("GPOs")
that represented small and independent dental practices; (4) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Patterson's
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/pdcoor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you
suffered a loss in Patterson you have until May 29, 2018 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve
as a lead plaintiff.

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

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Tel: 212-697-6484
         E-mail: info@bgandg.com [GN]


PATTERSON COS: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on March 28, 2018, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Minnesota against Patterson Companies, Inc.
(NASDAQ:PDCO).  The complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of
issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the
market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price during the Class Period, which is June 26, 2015 through
February 28, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Patterson
Companies, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during
the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as
described above.  You may move the Court no later than May 29,
2018 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class.  However,
in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information
and participate in this or any other securities litigation, or
should you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice
or preservation of your rights, please contact:

         Robin Hester, Esq.
         FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Email: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN]


PATTERSON COS: May 29 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until May 29, 2018 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against Patterson Companies,
Inc. (Nasdaq:PDCO), if they purchased the Company's shares
between June 26, 2015 and February 28, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  This action is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of Patterson 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-pdco/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by May 29, 2018.

                  About the Lawsuit

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

On February 12, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission disclosed that
it had filed a complaint against the Company for violating
antitrust regulations through a conspiracy with other dental
supply companies to fix the prices of dental products and refuse
to offer discounts or service to buying groups representing
dental practitioners. Then, on March 1, 2018, the Company
revealed dismal financial results for 2018Q3 and the departure of
its Chief Financial Officer.

On this news, the price of Patterson's shares plummeted $7.48 per
share, or 23% in one day.

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


PENTHOUSE CLUB: Ordered to Pay $4.6 Million in Wage Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Fiorillo, writing for Phillymag, reports that in 2013, a
Philadelphia woman named Priya Verma filed a class-action lawsuit
against the Penthouse Club, alleging that the Castor Avenue strip
club owed her and the other dancers who worked there unpaid wages
and tips that had been inappropriately withheld.  Well, a
Philadelphia jury agreed with Verma, and a judge has now ordered
the Penthouse Club to cough up.

After a three-day trial, a jury returned a verdict against the
Penthouse Club on March 22.  And on March 23, United States
District Court Judge Anita Brody entered the judgment and
damages: $4,594,722.73.  It is unclear how big the class is, but
it would potentially include any woman who danced there.

The Penthouse Club, which is open for business, considered the
dancers independent contractors -- a standard practice in the
industry -- but Ms. Verma's attorneys argued that they were, in
fact, employees and entitled to certain rights and protections.

In her complaint, Ms. Verma contended that she and the other
dancers were not paid minimum wage, that Penthouse Club
management routinely took part of the tips they received from
patrons, and that they were not paid overtime when they were
required to work additional hours, which she said happened
frequently.

When a dancer provided a "lap dance" for a customer, the patron
paid $30, of which the Penthouse Club got $10, says the suit.  A
30-minute $300 private dance? Ms. Verma claimed that the
Penthouse Club took half.

The dancers were also required to pay a wide range of fines,
according to the suit: $25 every time they were more than 30
seconds late to the stage; $50 if they used a cell phone while on
the floor; $35 for wearing their hair "up" while on the job; and
$100 for leaving work early without management approval.

And then there were the "tip outs" and "house fees." Ms. Verma
says that for one Friday shift, she had to pay a $25 house fee to
management, $15 to the DJ, $5 to security, $10 to the "house
mom," $5 to the "podium host" and $6 to the valet.  The suit
claims that dancers had to pay the valet $6 even if they didn't
use the valet for their cars.

"Dancers in Philadelphia . . .  work in an 'unorganized' industry
where many workers are 'disenfranchised' by the wide disparities
in bargaining power between workers and club owners," read the
suit. "Accordingly, adult entertainment clubs such as [the
Penthouse Club] are well-positioned to take advantage of dancers
and routinely deny them basic workplace rights."

Attorneys representing Ms. Verma and the Penthouse Club were not
immediately available for comment. [GN]


PERDUE FARMS: "Drew" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Will Drew, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Perdue Farms, Inc. and Perdue Foods, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00147-
RBS-RJK (E.D. Va., March 19, 2018), seeks to recover alleged
unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs arising out of the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Perdue Farms, Inc., is a Maryland corporation.  Perdue Foods,
LLC, is a Maryland limited liability company. The Defendants are
headquartered in Salisbury, Maryland.

The Defendants are related entities in the business of producing
and processing poultry products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Justus Dean, Esq.
          Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
          CURWOOD LAW FIRM
          530 E. Main Street, Suite 710
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 788-0808
          Facsimile: (804) 767-6777
          E-mail: pdean@curwoodlaw.com
                  ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com

               - and -

          Joshua L. Jewett, Esq.
          Brittany M. Wrigley, Esq.
          ERVIN JEWETT, P.C.
          2400 Dominion Tower
          999 Waterside Drive
          Norfolk, VA 23510
          Telephone: (757) 624-9323
          Facsimile: (757) 624-8414
          E-mail: jjewett@ervinjewett.com
                  bwrigley@ervinjewett.com


PFIZER INC: SCOTUS Asked to Tackle Conflict on Constitutional Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that the odds of
persuading the U.S. Supreme Court to agree to review a case are
never good.  The court estimates that it receives about 7,000
petitions a year.  This term, the justices are hearing fewer than
70 cases, which is a grant rate of less than 1 percent.

The easiest way to catch the justices' attention, of course, is
to ask them to resolve a split between the federal circuits on a
particular issue.  Pfizer and a bunch of other pharmaceutical
companies that sell single-dose eye-drop medication for glaucoma
patients certainly have that going for them.  In a petition filed
at the Supreme Court, the pharma companies highlight contrasting
rulings by the 7th and 3rd Circuits in class actions based on
nearly identical allegations.  Last March, the 7th Circuit
refused in Eike v. Allergan to allow glaucoma patients to move
forward with claims they overpaid for the medication because the
FDA-approved packages contained a bigger drop than patients
needed.  Seven months later, the 3rd Circuit reached the opposite
conclusion in Cottrell v. Alcon, denying defendants' motion to
dismiss nearly identical claims. Pfizer and the other defendants
want the Supreme Court to review the 3rd Circuit ruling.

But not every circuit split merits the justices' time.  Is the
packaging of these eye drops an issue of national importance? And
is it likely that lower courts will be called upon again to
decide whether plaintiffs have a right to sue over the allegedly
larger-than-necessary drops?

The challenge for the pharma companies' Supreme Court counsel at
Williams & Connolly is convincing the Supreme Court that the
divide between the 3rd and 7th Circuits isn't just about eye-drop
packaging.  They've answered the challenge by arguing that the
eye-drop case implicates a constitutional concern: standing for
class action plaintiffs suing over supposedly speculative
injuries.  According to the petition for certiorari, the question
the case presents is whether plaintiffs meet constitutional
standing requirements by theorizing that they might have paid
less for medication if it were packaged differently.

"This is the rare case in which the court is asked to resolve a
circuit conflict on a question of constitutional law in cases
involving essentially identical facts and overlapping parties,"
the petition said, calling uncertainty over an allegedly
speculative economic injury "an obviously important question of
constitutional law."

As you know, the Supreme Court has recently wrestled with
constitutional standing and speculative injuries in 2013's
Clapper v. Amnesty International and 2016's Spokeo v. Robins.
That might seem like an auspicious omen for Pfizer and the other
eye-drop makers, which contend that the 3rd Circuit's ruling is
at odds with the Supreme Court's holdings in both Spokeo and
Clapper.

The justices, however, have conspicuously refused to revisit
questions about standing and class actions in two cases this
term.  The Supreme Court denied review to the health insurer
CareFirst, which claimed the circuits were divided over standing
for data breach victims alleging an increased threat of identity
theft; and to the search engine Spokeo, which argued that the
justices should clarify their holding in its case because the
lower courts haven't applied it uniformly.

Neither CareFirst nor Spokeo could cite as decisive a circuit
split as the divide between the 3rd and 7th Circuits in the eye-
drop litigation, but their petitions pitched issues that lower
courts confront all the time.  It will be interesting to see if
Pfizer's narrower call for review succeeds where CareFirst and
Spokeo failed.

Leah Nicholls of Public Justice argued for the proposed class of
glaucoma patients at the 3rd Circuit.  She was unavailable to
comment on the Pfizer petition. [GN]


POWERCOR: St Patrick's Day Fires' Damage Bill Could Reach $40MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rachael Houlihan, writing for Ararat Advertiser, reports that the
St Patrick's Day fires' damage bill could reach $40 million, says
a lawyer handling a class action against Powercor.

The lawsuit was lodged in the Supreme Court of Victoria on
March 28.

Maddens Lawyers' Brendan Pendergast said Andrew Francis, whose
property was significantly damaged by the fires, had agreed to be
named on the writ as the lead plaintiff.

"A proceeding has been issued in the Supreme Court by way of a
class action," Mr Pendergast said.

"The class will be by definition anyone who owned property that
was impacted or damaged by the fire.  By description everyone who
answers that definition is in the class.  Down the track a bit
further the court will give people who don't wish to participate
in the proceedings (an opportunity) to opt out . Typically with
bushfire class actions very few people opt out because they are
not at any risk in relation to cost."

A Victoria police arson squad investigation found the four major
fires at Gazette, Terang, Garvoc and Camperdown started as a
result of electrical assets.  The latest figures show 26 homes,
66 sheds, 3766 livestock and 2050 kms of fencing were lost.

He said the class action would not have to wait for regulatory
body Energy Safe Victoria's investigation report, which is
currently being compiled.

"It may very well assist us, but it is not going to hold up the
litigation," he said.

"We see the case as being extremely strong.  Here we have an
asset being the pole as we understand has been in the ground for
50 years and for the past 20 years has had metal supports
attached to it, which is something of a Band-aid means of
addressing what was clearly a structurally compromised pole.

"Ultimately with time that pole was going to fail.  It's
perfectly serviceable on 95 per cent of the weather conditions,
but we can reasonably expect in this harsh climate in Australia
to have hot, high wind days and our electrical distribution
systems must be capable of remaining safe and serviceable on
those days."

Mr Pendergast said more than 40 people attended a meeting about
the class action on March 28, along with experienced bushfire
litigator Tim Tobin QC.

"We are aware of many other people who will be participating but
weren't able to be there for various reasons," he said.

It's understood the damages bill would be part of a larger
compensation figure.

Mr Pendergast said the proceedings would shortly be served on
Powercor.

"The matter will be bought before the court and it will make
directions to carry it forward," he said.

He said the people affected by the fires should be entitled to
full compensation for their losses.

Mr Pendergast urged anyone affected by the fires to contact
Maddens Lawyers and register that their property was impacted.

He has successfully led four class actions on behalf of the
victims of Black Saturday in the south-west.

Under the settlement, Powercor was required to pay victims 100
per cent of the losses they incurred as a result of the fire.
[GN]


POWERCOR: Says Fully Cooperating with Bushfire Investigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Chvastek, Sian Johnson, Matt Neal and Bridget Rollason,
writing for ABC, report that lawyers have launched a class action
over one of the St Patrick's Day fires that devastated south-west
Victoria, with writs filed to the Supreme Court.

A group of property owners is taking action against electricity
distributor Powercor over the Garvoc fire.

A Victoria Police report revealed the fire started after a power
pole snapped in high winds and fell to the ground, with
electrical arcs igniting vegetation.

The action targets Powercor for allegedly failing to provide a
safe distribution system and adequately maintaining and
inspecting power poles.

Twenty-four houses, 63 sheds and countless livestock were lost in
major fires in Garvoc, Terang, Camperdown and Gazette. About
15,000 hectares of land was burnt.

Maddens Lawyers Principal Brendan Pendergast told ABC Radio
Statewide Drive the Garvoc fire affected between 40 and 50
properties and initial estimates were that at least $20 million
worth of damage had occurred.

Company fully cooperating
Mr Pendergast said the lead plaintiff in the action was resident
Andrew Francis.

Mr Francis told ABC Radio Statewide Drive he was still in shock
and had lost "pretty much everything" in the fire.

Mr Francis had travelled to Melbourne the day of the fire due to
the poor weather conditions.

He said he awoke the next day to numerous text messages asking
him if he was okay.

"Thankfully I was, but unfortunately my property was not," he
said.

A Powercor spokeswoman said the company was fully cooperating
with an Energy Safe Victoria investigation.

"This investigation is in its early stage," she said . "While
investigations continue landowners or their representatives can
contact us directly on 1300 783 860."

Struggling with emotions
About 40 people attended a meeting about the Garvoc fire class
action in Terang on March 28.

Mr Pendergast said it was difficult to pinpoint the number of
people impacted by the Garvoc fire.

He said he was aware people affected couldn't make it to the
meeting -- some because they were struggling with their emotional
response to the fire.

"We won't really know until the registrations for the class
action close in several months time," he said.

"But just looking at the fire field, it wouldn't surprise me if
the total loss and damage in respect to that fire exceeds $20
million.

"And unfortunately the fire adjacent to it, the Terang fire, it
wouldn't surprise me if the damages bill there was more than
double the Garvoc fire."

Mr Pendergast said the firm was investigating legal action over
the other fires as well, and the compensation claims for all four
could exceed $100 million. [GN]


PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: June 6 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP regarding the Puma Biotechnology, Inc. Litigation:

Important Notice from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California

This statement is intended to give you notice of a pending Class
Action for alleged securities fraud against Puma Biotechnology,
Inc. (PBYI).  If you purchased or otherwise acquired securities
of Puma Biotechnology, Inc. (PBYI) between July 22, 2014 and May
29, 2015, you may be a Class member.

At this time, Class members are not required to take any action
to remain in the Class.  If any benefits are eventually obtained
for the Class as a result of this lawsuit, eligible Class members
may be entitled to a payment.

Class members may choose to exclude themselves from the Class.
If you exclude yourself, you will not be entitled to a payment if
any benefits are eventually obtained for the Class.  If you do
not exclude yourself, you will be bound by any judgment in this
litigation, whether favorable or unfavorable.  To remain a Class
member and eligible for a payment if any benefits are eventually
obtained, you are not required to do anything at this time.
Requests for exclusion forms are available at
www.pumabiosecuritieslitigation.com or can be obtained by calling
866-880-1572.  The deadline to exclude yourself is June 6, 2018.

For a full description of the litigation, including
identification of the plaintiff, defendants, Class Counsel, and
the allegations of securities fraud, as well as related Court
documents, please visit: www.pumabiosecuritieslitigation.com [GN]


PURDUE PHARMA: Sask. Judge Refuses to Approve Oxy Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Barb Pacholik, writing for Regina Leader-Post, reports that
despite a new judge and further documents, a potential $20-
million national agreement to compensate Canadians prescribed an
addictive painkiller still won't get the go-ahead by
Saskatchewan's courts at this time.

"I am not yet satisfied that the settlement agreement is fair,
reasonable and in the best interests of the class as a whole,"
Court of Queen's Bench Justice Brian Barrington-Foote said in his
recent decision.

The judgment leaves the door open to filing further information
or applying for certification as a class action.

Last month's decision follows one from last fall, when Justice
Dennis Ball, who has since retired, similarly declined to approve
the settlement after raising concerns about proper notification,
legal fees and the payment of provincial health insurers.  The
proposed settlement has received approval by courts in the
Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia proceedings, but those approvals
are effective only if the agreement also gets the nod in
Saskatchewan.

The defendants are Purdue Pharma and four related Purdue
companies, accused of breaching their duty to warn consumers
about the addictive properties of OxyContin and OxyNEO, which
they manufactured, marketed and/or sold.

As Judge Barrington-Foote noted in his 31-page decision, the
agreement doesn't deal with the claims of all of those who have
suffered losses as a result of an addiction to Oxy.  For example,
it's not for those introduced to these drugs through illicit
recreational use.  Rather, the action deals with those who became
addicted as a result of ingesting drugs they were prescribed, as
well as their family members and provincial health insurers that
suffered losses as a result of their addiction.  In addition, it
would resolve claims only against the four defendants.

The "agreement in principle," for the four separate actions,
requires court approval in each jurisdiction . It provides
compensation for those who took the prescribed drugs between Jan.
1, 1996, and April 15, 2016.  Those in a personal relationship
with class members who have died or suffered injury can also make
a claim.

The settlement, reached in March last year, provides a total $20
million, including $2 million (less $150,000 for legal fees) for
provincial health insurers.

Court affidavits suggest the average payout to individual
claimants will likely be in the range of $13,000 to $18,000, less
costs.

The Saskatchewan suit, first launched in 2012 by Merchant Law
Group, covers prescribed users here as well as in Alberta,
Manitoba, the Yukon, Northwest Territories or Nunavut.  The
Ontario proceeding includes those in B.C.; the Nova Scotia action
also covers Newfoundland, Labrador, New Brunswick and P.E.I.; and
there's a Quebec action.

The original application in Saskatchewan to approve the national
settlement was in August last year. However, in an October
ruling, Ball declined to grant it until the court had more
information.

But despite the additional information and arguments, Barrington-
Foote, who took over the file since Ball's retirement, said the
agreement is still lacking.

In particular, he raised concerns with regards to the
notification to and approval by provincial health insurers.  "The
process followed in this case was rife with problems," he said.

Even if those concerns are overcome, Barrington-Foote questioned
the information provided and required on calculations,
assumptions and estimates regarding the number of claimants and
amount of damages.

"I am, in raising these concerns, also mindful of the fact that
this was, in substance, an early stage settlement, concluded
after a one-day mediation session and a conference call," he
noted. [GN]


PURDUE PHARMA: British Colombia Mulls Options to Recover Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Howlett, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that a
proposed national settlement capping a decade-long legal battle
between the pharmaceutical giant whose pain pill triggered
Canada's deadly opioid epidemic and patients who were given the
drug is in limbo.

A Saskatchewan court judge has rejected the settlement, saying
the $18-million in compensation that Purdue Pharma, the maker of
OxyContin, has agreed to pay is neither fair nor reasonable for
the people who became addicted after their doctors prescribed it.

In light of the Saskatchewan judge's ruling, British Columbia is
considering what options are available to recover its health-care
costs from Purdue, Lori Cascaden, a spokeswoman for the Ministry
of Mental Health and Addictions, said in an e-mail on March 27.

Justice Brian Barrington-Foote of Regina Court of Queen's Bench
also says in his judgment dated March 15 that the process
followed to award an additional $2-million to the provinces and
territories, which were also part of the lawsuit, was "rife with
problems."

The proposed settlement would reimburse the provinces for only a
fraction of the hundreds of millions of dollars in health-care
costs associated with addressing the opioid epidemic.  In 2016
alone, the provinces' public drug programs spent $125.3-million
on medications to treat patients for opioid dependency, a 35-per-
cent increase over two years, according to a report on drug
spending published by the Canadian Institute for Health
Information.  The tally is for every province except Quebec.

Canada's opioid epidemic traces its roots to 1996, with the
introduction of OxyContin.  The Public Health Agency of Canada
released new statistics on March 27 that show the crisis has
worsened significantly in recent months.  Between January and
September of last year, 2,923 people across the country died of
opioid-related overdoses, the agency said, an increase of 45 per
cent from the same period in 2016.

Justice Barrington-Foote says he is not satisfied that the
assumptions lawyers used to calculate the number of potential
victims and the amount of damages were sound.  He says lawyers
estimated average compensation of $11,000 to $13,500 by dividing
$20-million by the projected number of approved claimants. But
that approach did not account for the $2-million earmarked for
the provinces plus non-refundable expenses.

Courts in Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia last year approved the
settlement, which is not an admission of liability from Purdue.
But it also must be approved in Saskatchewan.  The judge said
lawyers for the patients can provide additional material to
address his concerns or seek certification of their class-action
lawsuit -- the agreement was reached before the courts could hear
an application for certification.

"We have not been able to determine what course we will take as
we are reviewing the decision," Halifax lawyer Ray Wagner told
The Globe and Mail on March 27.  "Anything and everything is on
the table," he said, when asked whether the lawyers for the
patients will seek more compensation from Purdue.

Mr. Wagner's law firm launched the lawsuit against Purdue in 2007
under class-actions legislation in Atlantic Canada and later
joined forces with firms in Ontario and Saskatchewan representing
people in the rest of the country.

The class-action accuses Purdue of knowing that anyone who took
OxyContin would be at risk of becoming addicted and suffer
withdrawal symptoms if they stopped. But at no time were these
risks disclosed.

Ottawa and the provinces have not undertaken their own court
action against Purdue.  While the company based in Stamford,
Conn., has acknowledged in the United States that its marketing
of the drug was misleading, it has not made a similar admission
in Canada.

Purdue marketed the drug as safer and less addictive than other
opioids.  Canada is now the world's second-highest per capita
user of prescription painkillers.

"We were encouraging the federal government to take a much more
active role in dealing with the national health crisis that these
opioids are causing," Mr. Wagner said.  However, he added, "there
doesn't seem to be an acceptable level of reaction."

Legislation allows provincial health insurers to recover costs
for personal-injury accidents such as slips and falls, medical
malpractice or manufacturing defects. The class-action lawyers
were required by law to include a claim on their behalf, but the
provinces were not obligated to agree with the settlement, legal
experts said.

Justice Barrington-Foote says he is not satisfied that the
provincial health insurers approved the proposed settlement in
accordance with their legislation.  He asks why no steps were
taken to ensure that past and potential future health care costs
for the provinces were identified.

The judgment also says class-action lawyers did not get a
separate negotiating mandate from the provinces before reaching
the proposed settlement.

Instead, Peter Lawless, a lawyer representing the British
Columbia's health insurer, acted as a liaison for all the
provinces and territories in the negotiations with the class-
action lawyers, the judgment says.  Mr. Lawless advised the
lawyers in an e-mail dated Jan. 10, 2017, that all 13
jurisdictions were "good to go" with the proposed settlement.
[GN]


QUDIAN INC: Faces Securities Class Action Over 2017 IPO
-------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on March 27
disclosed that purchasers of Qudian Inc. (NYSE: QD) have filed a
class action complaint against the company's officers and
directors for alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933
pursuant to the company's October 18, 2017 initial public
offering ("IPO"). Qudian provides online small consumer credit in
China.

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

Qudian Accused of Engaging in Predatory Lending Practices

On October 18, 2017, Qudian held its IPO, selling 37.5 million
American Depositary Shares and raising net proceeds of
approximately $900 million.  The complaint alleges that Qudian's
registration statement represented that the company had
experienced rapid growth in revenues, net income, and active
users in the years leading up to the IPO.  Qudian further assured
investors that it employed robust credit assessment and
monitoring tools to ensure that it was only making loans to
borrowers who demonstrated the ability and willingness to repay
the loans.  However, Qudian failed to disclose that its financial
position had been fueled by improper lending, underwriting, and
collection practices.  In particular, Qudian was engaging in
predatory lending practices that saddled subprime borrowers with
high interest rate debt that they could not repay, failed to
implement necessary safeguards to protect customer data, and
subjected the company to undisclosed risks of penalties and
financial and reputational harm.  On December 12, 2017, Qudian's
ADR price fell 45% below its $24.00 IPO price to close at $13.19.

Qudian Shareholders Have Legal Options

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

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


QUEEN'S CARE: Refuses to Pay Workers' OT, "Jackson" Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
J. ALLESE JACKSON on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. QUEEN'S CARE IN HOME, INC., QUEEN'S CARE IN
HOME 2, LLC, and QUEEN MOSES, Case No. 1:18-cv-00638-STV (D.
Colo., March 16, 2018), alleges that the Defendants violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado Minimum Wage Order when
they refused to pay the Plaintiff and those similarly situated
overtime premiums for overtime hours worked.

Queen's Care In Home, Inc., is a registered Colorado corporation
doing business in Denver, Colorado.  Queen's Care In Home 2, LLC,
is a registered Texas limited liability company doing business in
Cypress, Texas.

The Defendants sell a service -- care for the elderly and
disabled -- to the consuming public.  They are also engaged in
business that provided health and medical care.  They employed
Plaintiff to provide in-home personal care to their elderly and
disabled clientele.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandt Milstein, Esq.
          MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE
          1123 Spruce Street, Suite 200
          Boulder, CO 80302
          Telephone: (303) 440-8780
          Facsimile: (303) 957-5754
          E-mail: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com



RBC BEARINGS: Loses Motion to Decertify Class in "Reynoso" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James V. Selna denies the Defendant's motion for
decertification in the lawsuit titled Carmen Reynoso v. RBC
Bearings, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:16-cv-01037-JVS-JCG (C.D.
Cal.).

According to the Court's Civil Minutes, cause was called and
counsel made their appearances.  The Court's tentative ruling is
issued and the counsel made their arguments.  The Court denies
the Defendant's motion and rules in accordance with the tentative
ruling attached to the Civil Minutes.

The Court directs counsel to submit a Joint Declaration outlining
the issues on which they seek the Court's guidance.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Young, Esq.
          GILBERT AND SACKMAN ALC
          3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90010-2732
          Telephone: (323) 938-3000 x380
          Facsimile: (323) 937-9139
          E-mail: jyoung@gslaw.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ryan Saba, Esq.
          ROSEN SABA LLP
          9350 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 250
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 285-1727
          Facsimile: (310) 285-1728
          E-mail: rsaba@rosensaba.com


REMINGTON: Bankruptcy May Affect Sandy Hook Victims' Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that a casualty of
Remington's Chapter 11 bankruptcy could be the case brought by 10
families of Sandy Hook victims that's now before the Connecticut
Supreme Court.  After Savannah Law School closed its doors,
former students did as they've been taught: they sued.  And a
federal judge in a class action questioned what PACER fees
actually fund.

Remington's Bankruptcy Could Silence Sandy Hook Victims

Remington's Chapter 11 bankruptcy could hold up a case brought by
10 families of victims of the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook
Elementary School, even if the Connecticut Supreme Court rules in
their favor.

The bankruptcy: According to Bloomberg's story, Remington cited a
slowdown in gun sales following President Donald Trump's election
as a reason for its bankruptcy filing. It also noted a failed IPO
and investor revolt following Sandy Hook.

The Sandy Hook case: Adam Lanza killed 26 people at Sandy Hook
with an AR-15, a semi-automatic rifle that's been used in several
mass shootings including the February massacre of 17 persons at
Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
Families of the Sandy Hook victims sued Remington, the
manufacturer of the weapon, which was used by Lanza after it had
been sold to his mother.  But the shooting victims' families have
faced an uphill battle in court.  The Connecticut Supreme Court
heard oral arguments in the case last November.

Now, even if the plaintiffs win at the high court, Remington's
bankruptcy could mean a long waiting period.

"The takeaway is that even if the case is remanded back to the
lower court by the state's high court, the bankruptcy court in
Delaware could -- potentially -- hold things up for awhile,"
Robert told me.

That's not Remington's only legal problem. In 2014, Remington
settled a nationwide class action brought by its customers over
allegedly defective rifles.  On March 26, Remington lawyer
John Sherk of Shook, Hardy & Bacon filed a notice before the 8th
Circuit, which heard oral arguments in February in a highly
publicized appeal of the settlement, that the case could be
stayed given the bankruptcy.

Ex-Students Take Savannah Law School to Court
Former law students of the shuttered Savannah Law School have
filed a class action over the abrupt closure, claiming the school
misled them about its financial stability and devalued their
grades.

School officials recently announced that Savannah Law School
would close its doors at the end of the spring semester.  The law
school, which had been operated as a Savannah campus of Atlanta's
John Marshall Law School, cited small enrollment numbers.

It's the latest law school to close amid low bar passage rates
and a tight job market.  School officials sold the building and
offered one-time $2,000 scholarships for students to transfer to
its main site in Atlanta.

Stephen Lowry of Harris Lowry Manton filed the case on behalf of
the students.

Judge Asks: What Do PACER Fees Actually Fund?

A federal judge is weighing whether to toss a class action
brought over PACER fees.  At a March 23 hearing on summary
judgment arguments, U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle in
Washington D.C. appeared skeptical of both sides, asking how much
the fees charged to the public fund other programs like the Case
Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system, e-juror
services and victim notification under the Violent Crime Control
Act.

Gupta Wessler's Jonathan Taylor argued for the plaintiffs, while
AUSA Brian Field represented the government.

Cogan, who went to the hearing, told me:

"The judge seemed less convinced about the other things besides
CM/ECF.  So it may be possible that we get a ruling that says,
listen, it's okay to use the fees to fund CM/ECF, but to the
extent you're charging PACER users for these other services they
don't use, that might not be okay."

Who Got the Work?

Tucker Ellis appeared in March as lead counsel to University
Hospitals Ahuja Medical Center in Beachwood, Ohio, which faces at
least 13 lawsuits over a freezer malfunction earlier in March at
its fertility clinic that potentially left 2,000 eggs and embryos
not viable (a separate class action was filed on March 13 over a
similar event that occurred at San Francisco's Pacific Fertility
Clinic).

On March 15 and March 19, three Tucker Ellis attorneys appeared
in the Ohio cases: Cleveland partners Robert Tucker, Edward
Taber, and Rita Maimbourg, chairwoman of the firm's trial
department.  They filed motions to stay the cases pending
consolidation, which plaintiffs lawyers have opposed.  The cases,
filed in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, had a status
conference on March 26.

Here's what else you need to know:

Asbestos Abating: Asbestos filings fell in 2017, according to a
report by defense consulting firm KCIC.  The report found that
there were 4,450 asbestos filings last year, compared to 4,812 in
2016--and the decline in filing did not depend on whether the
claim centered on mesothelioma, lung cancer or other cancers.
The report also highlighted the top 10 plaintiffs' firms, which
filed 62% of all asbestos cases last year.  No. 1 was Gori Julian
& Associates, which filed 588 asbestos cases last year, up 8.1%
from 2016.  Other firms included Weitz & Luxenberg; Goldberg,
Persky & White; Simmons Hanly Conroy, and Napoli Shkolnik.

Tempered Testosterone Verdict: For a verdict, $3.2 million isn't
too shabby -- but maybe not when the original verdict was $150
million.  On March 26, a federal jury in Illinois awarded $3.2
million to an Oregon man who claimed his use of AndroGel to treat
low testosterone levels caused him to suffer a heart attack.
According to my story, the same plaintiff won $150 million last
year, but a federal judge overseeing all the "low-T"
multidistrict litigation vacated the award and set the case for a
retrial, which began earlier in March.  A spokeswoman for AbbVie,
the defendant in the trial along with Abbott Laboratories, said
it would appeal.

What's in a name?: As tax season approaches, here's something to
think about should you decide to write that big check to your
alma mater: A former Kline & Specter attorney lost his bid to
remove the arbitrator in his long-running fee dispute with his
former firm based on the name of a law school.

Donald Haviland, who managed the Philadelphia firm's class action
practice more than 10 years ago, sought to disqualify retired
Judge Mark Bernstein because he teaches at the Thomas R. Kline
School of Law at Drexel University.  But Pennsylvania Superior
Court Judge Mary Murray found no conflict: "Bernstein maintained
that he has taught at the law school since long before it was
renamed the Thomas R. Kline School of Law and that Kline has no
involvement with his teaching at the school," she wrote. [GN]


REMINGTON: Sandy Hook Plaintiffs Would Be "Unimpaired" by Ch.11
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Hussey and Rick Rojas, writing for New York Times, report
that the lawsuit brought by family members of those killed in the
massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School has been watched closely
over years of winding its way through the court system.  But a
new hurdle stands in the way of a much-awaited ruling.

Remington, one of the nation's oldest gunmakers and a defendant
in the lawsuit, recently filed for bankruptcy as its sales have
declined and debts have mounted.  The company manufactured the
AR-15-style weapon used by the gunman in the 2012 attack in
Newtown, Conn., in which 26 people, including 20 first graders,
were killed.

The case is now before the Connecticut Supreme Court, where
families brought an appeal with the aim of bringing the case to a
jury trial.  Remington's bankruptcy does not guard the company
from potential liability, but it has stalled the court from
issuing a ruling on the lawsuit until the company emerges from
the process.  The court has been weighing the case after hearing
oral arguments last year.

The families' lawyers contend that the bankruptcy will ultimately
have little influence on the case's viability.  "The bankruptcy
proceeding doesn't affect our claim," said Katie Mesner-Hage, one
of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, nine families who had
a relative killed and a teacher who was shot and survived. "The
only thing the process does is delay it to some degree."

The lawsuit has high stakes for both gun companies and gun-
control advocates because it is testing a novel strategy to find
a route around the broad protections granted by federal law that
shield the companies from litigation if their product is used to
commit a crime.  Supporters contend that the case, if it makes it
to trial, could offer a glimpse into how the gun industry
operates and possibly provide a road map for the survivors and
relatives of victims in other mass shootings who have otherwise
been hamstrung in pursuing legal action.

The case, amid recurring episodes of deadly mass violence, has
drawn an intense response.  When the lawsuit reached the
Connecticut Supreme Court, gun control advocates, school
officials and emergency doctors who treated victims of assault
rifle fire submitted amicus briefs in favor of the lawsuit. Gun-
rights organizations also weighed in, including the National
Rifle Association, which argued that the case stood to
"eviscerate" the gun companies' legal protections.

Remington will remain in business as it reorganizes and unloads
hundreds of millions of dollars in debt, according to court
records.  The process could be expedited because the company is
using a so-called prepackaged bankruptcy, which could be
completed as early as May. Remington's lawyers did not respond to
messages seeking comment.

The military-style rifle used in the attack was made by
Bushmaster, which was bought by a New York private-equity fund in
2006.  The $48 billion fund, Cerberus Capital Management,
eventually folded Bushmaster into Remington along with other gun
companies.  Remington is also the target of another high-profile
case, a federal class-action lawsuit claiming that trigger
defects have caused some of its shotguns to accidentally
discharge.

Remington, which has about $950 million in debt, began hinting
this year that it was likely to file for bankruptcy.  Before the
2016 presidential election, the gun industry had maintained a
robust manufacturing operation.  But gun sales have plummeted
since President Trump won the election; many attribute the
decrease to gun buyers believing that the Trump administration
and a Republican-controlled Congress would be less inclined to
pursue tougher gun-control measures.

Remington recently hired Lazard, a financial advisory firm, as
the company devised its restructuring plans and searched for
financing for its reorganization. Lazard approached more than 30
potential lenders on Remington's behalf before finding financial
companies willing to give them a loan, according to court
filings.  A Lazard representative wrote that many lenders
"indicated that they were reluctant to provide financing to
firearms manufacturers." And even some of the ones who ended up
lending Remington money had their names redacted from court
documents.

Susheel Kirpalani, a bankruptcy lawyer who has been consulting
the Sandy Hook families' legal team, said that he and others had
been scouring Remington's voluminous filings and disclosure
documents, looking for anything in the complex financial
transactions that might affect the Sandy Hook lawsuit.  The
company's filings indicate that creditors, including the Sandy
Hook plaintiffs, would be "unimpaired" by the Chapter 11 process,
which means that the lawsuit can resume after the reorganized
Remington emerges from bankruptcy.

Even so, beyond the bankruptcy, the Sandy Hook lawsuit has faced
long odds of success.

Congress granted gun companies industrywide immunity from blame
when one of their products is used in a crime.  But the law,
enacted in 2005, includes exceptions for sale and marketing
practices that violate state or federal laws and instances of so-
called negligent entrustment, in which a gun is carelessly given
or sold to a person posing a high risk of misusing it.

The lawsuit argues that Remington -- along with a wholesaler and
dealer, which were also named in the suit -- erred by entrusting
an untrained civilian public with a weapon designed for
maximizing fatalities on the battlefield.  It also asserts that
the companies relied on advertising, with messages of combat
dominance and slogans like "Consider your man card reissued,"
that appealed specifically to disturbed young men like
Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old gunman.

The gun companies contend that federal law shields them from the
families' claims, and a lower court judge agreed, dismissing the
lawsuit in 2016.

Still, the families believe that the companies bear a measure of
responsibility.  "The families' ultimate goal in filing the
lawsuit is accountability," Ms. Mesner-Hage said. [GN]


SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Sheriff Dept. Settles Jail Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paola Baker, writing for Daily Press, reports that the San
Bernardino County Sheriff's Department reached a settlement in a
class action lawsuit over the conditions of the county's jails,
officials said on March 28.

Sparked by a years-long investigation into the conditions of
confinement in the county jails, the lawsuit was filed in early
2016 by the nonprofit law firm Prison Law Office on behalf of
inmates Rahshun Turner, Monique Lewis, Jaime Jaramillo, Joshua
Mills and the "class and subclasses of inmates they represent."
It particularly focused on medical care and use of force.

The Sheriff's Department agreed to a consent decree that outlines
several improvements the county is expected to make, such as
increasing the amount of time inmates are permitted out of their
cells, ensuring reasonable accommodations for individuals with
disabilities and expanding access to health care.

Prison Law Office Executive Director and Attorney Don Specter
told the Daily Press the settlement was a step in the right
direction in changing years of substandard health care conditions
and a culture of brutality at county jails.

"We believe that this settlement will allow people incarcerated
in the jail to receive essential health care and accommodations
for their disabilities," Specter said.

The settlement also includes a revised policy regulating the use
of force.  Mr. Spector said the new policy requires that two
experts -- independent from the county or the Prison Law Office
-- are on hand to monitor how deputies use force in jails.

"The agreement includes a completely new policy on when deputies
can use force, so we're hoping this will cure some, if not all,
of the excessive use of force and brutality problems we've seen
in the past years," Mr. Specter said.

While the county denies that existing conditions in the jails are
"unlawful," they tacitly seemed to acknowledge the need for
change, with Sheriff John McMahon stressing the department's
commitment in improving county jail services in the wake of
prison realignment legislation.

Mr. McMahon said that county jails have had to adapt to the
influx of inmates -- previously sent to state prisons -- now
serving longer sentences at county facilities.

"We have increased the medical and mental health services we
provide to the inmate population, we have given inmates greater
access to services and programs, and we have hired additional
deputies and medical personnel, and will continue our recruiting
efforts, so that we can ensure the safety and well-being of
inmates and staff," Mr. McMahon said.

Mr. Spector praised the sheriff for his transparency during the
Prison Law Office's investigation into the matter, which he said
began in 2014 as the firm looked into allegations at West Valley
Detention Center -- also the subject of several lawsuits from
inmates alleging abuse at the facility.

"The Sheriff and his staff have been very forthcoming,"
Mr. Spector said.  "They have been providing us with access to
the facilities, the staff and the people incarcerated so we can
fully investigate the conditions.  Albeit, it's taken quite a
long time, but they've worked with us continuously to arrive at
this consent decree."

And while he agreed with McMahon's assertion that county jails
were not adequately prepared for the increase in inmates due to
prison realignment, Mr. Spector said the issues addressed by the
decree have been ongoing for years.

"If anything, it exacerbated existing problems -- it didn't cause
the problems," Mr. Spector said.

The lawsuit alleged the county and Sheriff's Department "fails to
provide minimally adequate medical, dental and mental health care
to the people incarcerated in its jails, fails to prevent
unnecessary and excessive uses of force against inmates and
imposes on inmates the harmful and excessive use of solitary
confinement . . . as well as discrimination against certain
inmates with disabilities."

Sheriff's officials said they've devoted "significant resources
over the last several years" to ensure conditions at all county
jails meet all relevant standards.  A federal court hearing to
decide whether to give preliminary approval of the settlement is
scheduled for April 16.

"We have appreciated the willingness of the Prison Law Office to
work constructively with the County," Mr. McMahon said.  "We look
forward to continuing cooperative discussions, and are glad the
case has been resolved amicably."

A copy of the consent decree is available in full at
www.prisonlaw.com. [GN]


SETERUS INC: Refuses to Pay Interest to Borrowers, "Hyde" Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
R. LYMAN HYDE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. SETERUS, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-00565-MMA-BLM (C.D.
Cal., March 19, 2018), alleges that the Defendant systematically
and uniformly adopted a policy to violate California law by
refusing to pay the mandated interest to borrowers, thereby,
enriching itself on the free use of borrowers' escrow funds that
the Defendant earns interest on.

According to the complaint, this consumer fraud class action is
based on Seterus, Inc.'s direct, per se violation of California
laws requiring a mortgage lender making loans secured by property
located in California, to pay the borrower a minimum of 2% simple
interest for money received in advance from the borrower for tax
and insurance.  Seterus, like many mortgage lenders, require a
large percentage of their borrowers to maintain an impound escrow
account in connection with their mortgage.

Seterus is one of the nation's leading specialty loan servicing
companies and is a citizen of Delaware.  Through numerous
branches throughout California and the U.S., numerous mortgage
agreements are transferred to the Defendant, requires a large
percentage of its customers in California and many other states
to maintain escrow accounts, into which customers deposit
significant funds for the payment of property tax and insurance
on the property.  The true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sahar Malek, Esq.
          SAHAR MALEK LAW, APC
          424 South Beverly Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 788-3466
          Facsimile: (310) 362-0552
          E-mail: Sahar@saharmaleklaw.com


SHIKUN & BINUI: Class Action Over SBI Activities Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Shikun & Binui Ltd., a global construction and infrastructure
company headquartered in Israel, on April 1 provided updated on
claims related to the activities of SBI:

Claims of a former employee: In July 2017, a former employee of
SBI AG (a Switzerland-domiciled granddaughter company of Shikun &
Binui) filed a lawsuit in Israel's Labor Court against SBI AG,
SBI AG's parent company (SBI Infrastructure), SBI AG's sister
company (SBI E&M) and the manager of SBI AG's Kenyan office.  In
the suit, the worker claimed that he was owed various payments
due to his termination from the Kenyan company, and an
arbitration process between the two sides was initiated (a
process which was recently halted in light of a police
investigation, and which has not yet been completed).  Under the
framework of the lawsuit, the worker also made allegations
regarding the propriety of SBI AG's conduct in Africa.

Independent investigation: After becoming aware of the
allegations regarding its conduct in Africa, SBI AG consulted
with unrelated external investigative auditing experts in
Switzerland (the country in which it is domiciled) with the goal
of investigating the former employee's claims.  The
investigation, which was carried out intensively over several
months, brought a number of facts and documents to light.  On
February 20, 2018, after the allegations began to be investigated
by the Israeli police, the independent investigation was halted
at the request of the police, before it had been concluded.

Consultation with foreign compliance authorities: While the
external investigation was underway, the company consulted with
Swiss compliance authorities, informing them about the former
employee's allegations and the steps that SBI AG was taking to
investigate them, primarily including the independent
investigation.  The compliance authorities instructed SBI AG to
continue with their investigation.

Investigation by the World Bank: During January 2018, SBI AG was
notified by the INT department of the World Bank, the department
that investigates Integrity claims, that it intended to audit a
number of SBI AG's completed projects in Kenya, some of which had
been completed long ago.  SBI AG began fully cooperating with the
World Bank, including gathering the materials that has been
requested.  However, this process was also halted when the
investigation by the Israeli police was initiated.  The audit has
not yet been completed.

Israeli Police investigation: On and after February 20, 2018, a
number of current and former employees of SBI AG, Shikun & Binui
and the Shikun & Binui subsidiary that holds its shares in SBI AG
-- including employees who had completed their work for the
company over five years ago -- were held for investigation or
summoned for testimony by the Israeli police.  Some of those
investigated were incarcerated for various lengths of time and/or
released to house arrest and/or released with limitations.  In
parallel, the police seized various bank accounts of Shikun &
Binui Ltd. and of some of its subsidiaries -- accounts in which
were deposited a total of more than NIS 200 million -- as well as
other assets, and searched and seized documents in SGI AG's
offices in Israel and Kenya. The Group cooperated in full
throughout the investigation.

Deposit of funds in a forfeiture fund: On or near February 22,
2018, in an arrangement with the Israeli police, SBI AG deposited
the dollar value of ~NIS 250 million into a closed forfeiture
fund to secure the release of the assets and bank accounts that
had been seized, as described above.

Related lawsuits: Since the beginning of this chain of events, a
request has been filed with a court to approve a class action
against the company and its employees, and three requests against
the company have been filed to allow discovery of documents
related to investigation of the request.

At this stage, the Company is unable to assess its exposure
regarding the police investigation or to the investigation by the
World Bank, should it be renewed.

                 About the Shikun & Binui Group

The Shikun & Binui Group is a global construction and
infrastructure company that operates in Israel and
internationally in seven segments: 1) infrastructure and
construction contracting outside of Israel; 2) infrastructure and
construction contracting within Israel; 3) real estate
development within Israel; 4) real estate development outside of
Israel; 5) renewable energy; 6) concessions; The Group's
activities focus on large, highly complex projects carried out
for entities in private and public sectors with a focus on
sustainability. [GN]


SOLID BIOSCIENCES: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on March 27 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court District of Massachusetts on behalf of persons and entities
that acquired Solid Biosciences Inc. ("Solid Biosciences" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: SLDB) securities between January 25, 2018,
and March 14, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Solid
Biosciences investors have until 60 days from March 27, 2018, the
date of this notice to file a lead plaintiff motion.

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

On January 30, 2018, an article was published by various medical
experts highlighting the risks of studies using high doses of
gene therapies using adeno-associated virus (AAV)-the delivery
system used by Solid Biosciences' lead drug candidate SGT-001.
One of the article's co-authors was Dr. James Wilson, a former
member of the Solid Biosciences' advisory board.  On this news
the Company's shares fell $1.20 per share, or over 5%, to close
on January 30, 2018 at $22.50 per share.

Then on March 14, 2018, the Company announced that the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA") had placed a clinical hold on the
SGT-001 Phase I/II clinical trial, IGNITE DMD, because of adverse
events associated with the therapy.  On this news, Solid
Biosciences' share price fell $16.99 per share, or over 60%, to
close at $9.32 per share on March 15, 2018, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that, throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.  Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that
Solid Biosciences' lead drug candidate SGT-001 had a high
likelihood of causing adverse events in patients; (2) that Solid
Biosciences misled investors regarding the toxicity of SGT-001;
and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
statements in the Registration Statement regarding Solid
Biosciences' business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and/or misleading.

If you purchased shares of Solid Biosciences during the Class
Period you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date
of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff.
To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this
time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more
about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com

If you inquire by email please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased. [GN]


SOLID BIOSCIENCES: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP announces that
purchasers of Solid Biosciences Inc. (NasdaqGS: SLDB) have filed
a class action complaint pursuant to the company's January 25,
2018 initial public offering ("IPO") and/or between January 25,
2018 and March 14, 2018. The complaint is filed against the
company's officers and directors for alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933.
Solid Biosciences, a life science company, identifies and
develops various therapies for Duchenne muscular dystrophy
("DMD") in the United States. The company's lead product
candidate is known as SGT-001.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
www.robbinsarroyo.com/solid-biosciences-inc-mar-2018

Solid Biosciences Accused of Misrepresenting the Toxicity of its
Drug

According to the complaint, on January 25, 2018, Solid
Biosciences held its IPO, selling 7 million shares of common
stock for proceeds of approximately $112 million, which were
purportedly to be used to fund research and develop a cure for
DMD. Solid Biosciences subsequently stated on January 25, 2018,
that its SGT-001 Phase I/II clinical trial, IGNITE DMD, was
enrolling patients and that there was no indication of dangerous
toxicity levels. Despite presenting an encouraging picture of its
study, Solid Biosciences failed to disclose that SGT-001 had a
high likelihood of causing adverse events in patients. On March
14, 2018, Solid Biosciences announced that it received
notification from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that
IGNITE DMD had been placed on clinical hold. Since the
disappointing news was announced, Solid Biosciences' stock has
fallen over 71% to close at $7.50 per share on March 29, 2018--
53% below the company's January 26, 2018 IPO price of $16 per
share.

Solid Biosciences Shareholders Have Legal Options

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

         Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
         Robbins Arroyo LLP
         Tel: (619) 525-3990
         Toll Free (800) 350-6003
         E-mail: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN]


SR JUSTUS INC: Fails to Pay Overtime to Drivers, "Johnson" Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SR JUSTUS, INC., Case No. 5:18-cv-00184-DCR (E.D.
Ky., March 19, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated current and former parcel delivery drivers of
Justus regularly worked more than 40 hours per week without
receiving any overtime compensation as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Justus is a Kentucky corporation licensed to conduct business in
the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and which conducted business in
Lexington, in Fayette County, Kentucky, and throughout the
Commonwealth.

FedEx, an international parcel delivery company, contracts with
local vendors to pick up and deliver goods and packages to both
residential and business customers.  FedEx contracted with
Justus, which, in turn, employed parcel delivery drivers to
perform all pick-up and delivery services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew T. Lockaby, Esq.
          LOCKABY PLLC
          1795 Alysheba Way, Suite 4207
          Lexington, KY 40509
          Telephone: (859) 263-7884
          Facsimile: (844) 270-3044
          E-mail: mlockaby@lockabylaw.com


ST. JOSEPH'S ORATORY: Court to Hear Appeal in Class Action Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
CTV News reports that the Supreme Court of Canada will hear an
appeal from Montreal's iconic Saint Joseph's Oratory which seeks
to exclude the institution from a sexual assault class action
suit.

The Quebec Court of Appeal had allowed the suit against the
oratory and the Congregation of Holy Cross for alleged sexual
abuse.

The oratory was included in the suit amid allegations that some
of the abuse occurred there.

The Congregation of Holy Cross apologized and paid up to $18
million in 2013 in a mediated, out-of-court settlement to
compensate victims for abuse that occurred at three Quebec
institutions, not including the oratory, over a five-decade span.
[GN]


STARBUCKS CORP: Carlton Fields Atty Discusses Class Action Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adriana A. Perez, Esq. -- aperez@carltonfields.com -- of Carlton
Fields, in an article for Mondaq, wrote that on March 12, the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a proposed class action
against Starbucks.  The lead plaintiff alleged that Starbucks'
method of preparing its iced beverages deceives its customers by
misrepresenting the amount of liquid a customer receives when he
or she orders an iced drink. The plaintiff brought claims of
breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, fraud, and violations of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law,
and False Advertising Law.

The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff's claims failed because
a "reasonable consumer" would not think that "a 12-ounce 'iced
drink' . . . contains 12 ounces of coffee or tea and no ice."
Moreover, the plaintiff's fraud claims failed because he did not
show that consumers justifiably relied on Starbucks's
representation and "justifiable reliance" is a required element
of fraud.  Last, the claim for breach of express warranty failed
because plaintiffs did not allege that Starbucks ever promised
that its iced drinks contained a specific amount of liquid "as
distinct from a total amount of liquid and ice."

This decision comes on the heels of another proposed class action
that Starbucks defeated in January.  There, a group of consumers
alleged Starbucks was cheating its customers by under-filling
select drinks such as lattes.  The court held that because
plaintiffs conceded that milk foam was a component of these
drinks, Starbucks was not under-filling the drinks.

The case is Forouzesh v. Starbucks Corp., No. 16-56355, 2018 WL
1249187 (9th Cir. Mar. 12, 2018). [GN]


STP JJ TEAM: "Deschamp" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT DESCHAMP, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. STP JJ TEAM I, LLC, Case No. 0:18-cv-00751-JRT-FLN
(D. Minn., March 19, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid
overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act for the
Plaintiff and other current and former Assistant Managers or
Assistant Store Managers of the Defendants.

STP JJ Team I, LLC, is a Minnesota company whose registered
office is located in Oakdale, Minnesota.  The Company owns and
operates over 30 Jimmy John's franchised locations in multiple
states under one or more franchise agreements with Jimmy John's
Franchise, LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anna P. Prakash, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          E-mail: aprakash@nka.com

               - and -

          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
          Christopher M. Timmel, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
          E-mail: seth@klafterolsen.com
                  fran@klafterolsen.com
                  christopher.timmel@klafterolsen.com

               - and -

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          Michael Litrownik, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          Facsimile: (212) 977-4005
          E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com
                  mlitrownik@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Drew Legando, Esq.
          LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC
          1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 522-9000
          Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
          E-mail: drew@lgmlegal.com


SURLY BREWING: Settles Class Action Lawsuit for $2.5MM
------------------------------------------------------
Fox 9 reports that Surly Brewing Company has settled a $2.5
million class action lawsuit over allegedly making pooled tips
mandatory for its service employees.

Under the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act, businesses can not
require or coerce employees to share tips or participate in
employees' agreements to share tips.

The lawsuit involves about 140 servers and bartenders employed
from December 13, 2014 to July 17, 2017.

Each person will receive about $11,000 on average, according to
one of the attorneys representing the service employees. [GN]


SUTTELL & HAMMER: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Knutson Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DARLENE KNUTSON and all other similarly situated v. SUTTELL &
HAMMER, P.S., a Washington corporation; and PORTFOLIO RECOVERY
ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
2:18-cv-00101 (E.D. Wash., March 19, 2018), arises from the
Defendants' alleged actions of using unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in
abusive, deceptive, and unfair practices.

The Defendants are both collection agencies that are licensed to
conduct business in Washington State.  Portfolio's principal
business purpose is the collection of debts.  Suttell regularly
attempts to collect debts alleged to be due to another.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kirk D. Miller, Esq.
          KIRK D. MILLER, P.S.
          421 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 660
          Spokane, WA 99201
          Telephone: (509) 413-1494
          Facsimile: (509) 413-1724
          E-mail: kmiller@millerlawspokane.com


SUTTER HEALTH: Sued Over Alleged Anticompetitive Conduct
--------------------------------------------------------
Chad Terhune, writing for USA TODAY, reports that California's
attorney general announced a lawsuit on March 30 against Sutter
Health, alleging the hospital giant engaged in anticompetitive
conduct that drove up prices for patients and employers in the
state.

The lawsuit marked a bold move by state Attorney General Xavier
Becerra,Esq. against the dominant health care system in Northern
California as concerns mount nationally about consolidation among
hospitals, insurers and other industry middlemen.

"It's time to hold health care corporations accountable," Becerra
said at a news conference. "We seek to stop Sutter from
continuing this illegal conduct."

Sutter, which owns 24 hospitals, reported net income of $893
million last year on $12.4 billion in revenue.

In a statement on March 30, Sutter said it had not yet seen the
state's complaint and couldn't comment on specific claims.

Overall, Sutter said, "healthy competition and choice exists
across Northern California" for consumers seeking medical care,
and that its charges for an inpatient stay are lower than what
other nearby hospitals charge.

"Sutter Health is proud to save patients, government payers and
health plans hundreds of millions of dollars each year by
providing more efficient and integrated care," the statement
said.

This high-profile legal fight will attract attention from
employers and policymakers across the country amid growing alarm
about the financial implications of industry consolidation. Large
health systems are gaining market clout and the ability to raise
prices by acquiring more hospitals, outpatient surgery centers
and physicians' offices.

Martin Gaynor, a health care economist at Carnegie Mellon
University, said California's lawsuit may portend more litigation
at the state level.

"There are a number of markets in the U.S. that are dominated by
one very large, powerful health system," Gaynor said. "It could
be that we're going to see a new level of activity by state
antitrust enforcers looking at competition in their own
backyards."

The complaints about Sutter's high prices and market power have
persisted for years.

A 2016 study found that hospital prices at Sutter and Dignity
Health, the two biggest hospital chains in California, were 25
percent higher than at other hospitals around the state.
Researchers at the University of Southern California said the
giant health systems used their market power to drive up prices--
making the average patient admission at both chains nearly $4,000
more expensive.

Researchers at University of California-Berkeley issued a report
that examined the consolidation of the hospital, physician and
health insurance markets in California from 2010 to 2016. The
authors said 44 of California's 58 counties had "highly
concentrated" hospital markets.

The problem is worse in Northern California, and the report said
prices for medical procedures are often up to 30 percent higher
there than in Southern California, which has more competition.

"Consumers are paying more for health care as a result of market
consolidation. It is now time for regulators and legislators to
take action," according to the report by the Petris Center on
Health Care Markets and Consumer Welfare at UC-Berkeley.

After the report was issued on March 26, Becerra said his office
would be reviewing those findings and pledged to apply more
scrutiny to health care mergers and anticompetitive practices
across the state.

Sutter Health has gobbled up doctor practices across the Bay
Area, gaining market muscle that has pushed costs upward.
Obstetricians employed by Sutter Health, for example, are
reimbursed about three times more for the same service than
independent doctors, according to a KHN review of OB-GYN charges
on several insurers' online cost estimators. It's a key reason
why Northern California is the most expensive place in the
country to have a baby.

Becerra's lawsuit could build off a similar civil case filed in
2014 by a grocery workers' health plan.

The plaintiffs in that case, scheduled for trial next year,
allege Sutter is violating antitrust and fair competition laws.
The plaintiffs have been requesting documents related to
contracting practices, such as "gag clauses" that prevent
patients from seeking negotiated rates and choosing a cheaper
provider. They also are challenging "all-or-nothing" terms that
require every facility in a health system to be included in
insurance networks.

In November, the state judge handling the grocery workers' case
said Sutter was "grossly reckless" when it intentionally
destroyed 192 boxes of documents that employers and labor unions
were seeking in the lawsuit. San Francisco County Superior Court
Judge Curtis E.A. Karnow said Sutter destroyed documents "knowing
that the evidence was relevant to antitrust issues. . . . There
is no good explanation for the specific and unusual destruction
here."

The lead plaintiffs, the United Food and Commercial Workers and
its Employers Benefit Trust, are a joint employer-union health
plan that represents more than 60,000 employees, dependents and
retirees. The court certified its case as a class action in
August, allowing hundreds of other employers and self-funded
health plans to potentially benefit from the litigation.

In addition to its 24 hospitals, Sutter's nonprofit health system
has 35 surgery centers, 32 urgent-care clinics and more than
5,000 physicians in its network. [GN]


SUTTER HEALTH: AG Wants Suit Tried Together with Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Terhune and Ana B. Ibarra, writing for Kaiser Health News,
report that California's attorney general sued Sutter Health,
accusing the hospital giant of illegally quashing competition and
for years overcharging consumers and employers.

The lawsuit marked a bold move by state Attorney General Xavier
Becerra against the dominant health care system in Northern
California as concerns mount nationally about consolidation among
hospitals, insurers and other industry middlemen.

"It's time to hold health care corporations accountable,"
Mr. Becerra said at a news conference on March 31.  "We seek to
stop Sutter from continuing this illegal conduct."

The antitrust suit, filed in San Francisco County Superior Court,
asks the court to prevent Sutter from engaging in anticompetitive
practices and "overcharges."

It said Sutter employs a variety of improper tactics, such as gag
clauses on prices, "punitively high" out-of-network charges and
"all-or-nothing" contract terms that require all of its
facilities to be included in insurance networks.

Taken together, Sutter's actions "improperly block any and all
practical efforts to foster or encourage price competition
between Sutter and any rival Healthcare Providers or Hospital
Systems," according to the state's complaint.  "Sutter's conduct
injured the general economy of Northern California and thus of
the state."

Sutter, which owns 24 hospitals, reported net income of $893
million last year on $12.4 billion in revenue.  Sutter's
nonprofit health system also has 35 surgery centers, 32 urgent-
care clinics and more than 5,000 physicians in its network.

In a statement on March 31, Sutter said it had not yet seen the
state's complaint and couldn't comment on specific claims.

Overall, Sutter said, "healthy competition and choice exists
across Northern California" for consumers seeking medical care.
It also said its charges for an inpatient stay are lower than
what other nearby hospitals charge.

"Sutter Health is proud to save patients, government payers and
health plans hundreds of millions of dollars each year by
providing more efficient and integrated care," the statement
said.

This high-profile legal fight caught the attention of employers
and policymakers across the country amid growing alarm about the
financial implications of industry consolidation.  Large health
systems are gaining market clout and the ability to raise prices
by acquiring more hospitals, outpatient surgery centers and
physicians' practices.

Martin Gaynor, a health care economist at Carnegie Mellon
University, said California's lawsuit may portend more litigation
at the state level.

"There are a number of markets in the U.S. that are dominated by
one very large, powerful health system," Gaynor said. "It could
be that we're going to see a new level of activity by state
antitrust enforcers looking at competition in their own
backyards."

Glenn Melnick, an economist and expert on hospital finances at
the University of Southern California, said if the state prevails
against Sutter it could put "a chill on anticompetitive practices
that are being adopted across the U.S. and that could help slow
down hospital price increases.  That would be good news for
consumers."

The complaints about Sutter's high prices and market power have
persisted for years.

The state said its investigation started in 2012 under Kamala
Harris, California's previous attorney general and now a U.S.
senator.  Six years ago, her office sent subpoenas to several
health systems and insurers seeking information about market
concentration and its effect on medical prices.

A 2016 study found that hospital prices at Sutter and Dignity
Health, the two biggest hospital chains in California, were 25
percent higher than at other hospitals around the state.
Researchers at the University of Southern California said the
giant health systems used their market power to drive up prices -
- making the average patient admission at both chains nearly
$4,000 more expensive.

Researchers at University of California-Berkeley issued a report
that examined the consolidation of the hospital, physician and
health insurance markets in California from 2010 to 2016.  The
authors said 44 of California's 58 counties had "highly
concentrated" hospital markets.

The problem is worse in Northern California, and the report said
prices for medical procedures are often up to 30 percent higher
there than in Southern California, which has more competition.

"Consumers are paying more for health care as a result of market
consolidation.  It is now time for regulators and legislators to
take action," according to the report by the Petris Center on
Health Care Markets and Consumer Welfare at UC-Berkeley.

After the report was issued on March 26, Mr. Becerra said his
office would be reviewing those findings and pledged to apply
more scrutiny to health care mergers and anticompetitive
practices across the state.

Sutter Health has gobbled up doctors' practices across the Bay
Area, gaining market muscle that has pushed costs upward.
Obstetricians employed by Sutter Health, for example, are
reimbursed about three times more for the same service than
independent doctors, according to a KHN review of OB-GYN charges
on several insurers' online cost estimators.  It's a key reason
why Northern California is the most expensive place in the
country to have a baby.

At his news conference, Becerra said he's committed to
scrutinizing other players besides Sutter in the health care
industry who may be engaging in anticompetitive behavior and
potentially harming consumers.

"We hope what we do with this case sends a signal -- watch what
you do and obey the law," Becerra said.

Consumer advocates and state lawmakers applauded Mr. Becerra's
aggressive action because of the toll high prices take on
millions of Californians.  Many residents struggle to pay rising
insurance premiums and out-of-pocket expenses for emergency room
visits or routine hospital tests.

"Consumers bear the burden of these monopolistic activities,"
said state Sen. Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina), chairman of the
Senate health committee.  "To ensure health care is affordable
and accessible to all, we have to get a handle on predatory
pricing."

In many ways, Mr. Becerra's lawsuit mirrors a similar civil case
filed in 2014 by a grocery workers' health plan.

The plaintiffs in that case allege Sutter is violating antitrust
and fair competition laws.  The plaintiffs have been requesting
documents related to contracting practices, such as "gag clauses"
that prevent patients from seeking negotiated rates and choosing
a cheaper provider.  They also are challenging "all-or-nothing"
terms that require every facility in a health system to be
included in insurance networks.

In November, the state judge handling the grocery workers' case
said Sutter was "grossly reckless" when it intentionally
destroyed 192 boxes of documents that employers and labor unions
were seeking in the lawsuit.  San Francisco County Superior Court
Judge Curtis E.A. Karnow said Sutter destroyed documents "knowing
that the evidence was relevant to antitrust issues. . . . There
is no good explanation for the specific and unusual destruction
here."

The lead plaintiffs, the United Food and Commercial Workers and
its Employers Benefit Trust, are a joint employer-union health
plan that represents more than 60,000 employees, dependents and
retirees.  The court certified its case as a class action in
August, allowing hundreds of other employers and self-funded
health plans to potentially benefit from the litigation.

The attorney general's office filed a motion in court asking for
its lawsuit and the class action to go to trial together before
the same judge.  The trial is scheduled for June 2019 in San
Francisco.

"While we certainly would have preferred this happened earlier,
we respect the attorney general's care in conducting a thorough
investigation before filing charges," said Richard Grossman, the
lead plaintiffs' lawyer representing the class of more than 1,500
employer-funded health plans.  "This lends additional credibility
to the allegations we made in our complaint four years ago."

In its lawsuit, the attorney general's office blamed Sutter for
much of the increase in health care costs across Northern
California because "Sutter embarked on an intentional, and
successful, strategy of securing market power in certain local
markets."  State lawyers also pointed out that Sutter's conduct
triggered an "umbrella effect" by encouraging other providers to
raise their own prices.

The state's lawsuit said Sutter used its windfall from excessive
prices to acquire more hospitals and medical groups.  It also
enabled Sutter to "bestow extremely high salaries for its
officers and upper management," according to the state complaint.

Patrick Fry, Sutter's chief executive from 2005 to 2016, had
$13.4 million in total compensation during his last year there,
according to Sutter's 990 tax filing for 2016, the most recent
year available.

Overall, 18 executives at Sutter had $1 million or more in total
compensation during 2016, the federal tax filing shows.

Karen Garner, a Sutter spokeswoman, said Fry's compensation in
2016 reflects retirement benefits he accrued over many years.
She added that "industry comparisons show our salaries are
reasonable and competitive, given the size, scope and complexity
of our organization."

KHN senior correspondent Jenny Gold contributed to this report.

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news
service.  It is an editorially independent program of the Henry
J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser
Permanente. [GN]


TARGET CORP: Settlement Reached in Data Breach Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The following release is being distributed on behalf of the
Quebec Target Data Breach Settlement Claims Administrator and Lex
Group Inc.

Proceedings

On January 18, 2017, the Honourable Justice Hamilton of the
Superior Court of Quebec authorized a class action brought by the
Plaintiff on behalf of all Quebec residents whose payment card
data and/or personal information was lost by and/or stolen from
the Defendant Target Corporation (USA) as a result of a breach of
its computer network by unknown hackers. A Settlement Agreement
was reached between the parties, subject to the approval of the
Superior Court of Quebec.

Proposed Settlement Agreement

The settlement provides that Target Corporation, without
admission of liability, will pay an amount not exceeding $345,000
which will be used to pay an amount of up to $5,000 to each Class
Member who provides documentary evidence of their losses and up
to $50 to each Class Member without such evidence.

Target Corporation will separately pay: 1) the fees of the Claims
Administrator; 2) the cost related to the notice program; 3) the
Plaintiff's lawyers' fees in the amount of $150,000 plus taxes,
and; 4) the Plaintiff's claim in the amount of $4,999.99.

A copy of the settlement agreement and other related
documentation is available online at
www.TargetDataBreachSettlementQuebec.ca and www.lexgroup.ca [GN]


TESLA: Shareholders' Suit Over Solarcity Acquisition Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Ayre, writing for Clean Technica, reports that the class
action lawsuit filed against Tesla by a group of shareholders in
relation to the firm's 2016 acquisition of SolarCity has been
given the go-ahead to proceed by a judge in Delaware -- following
a push by Tesla to have the lawsuit thrown out.

To be extra clear here, the class action lawsuit is actually
directed at Tesla CEO Elon Musk and the company's board of
directors, not directly at the firm itself.

The idea behind the lawsuit is reportedly that the firm's
leadership breached their responsibilities to shareholders by
pursuing the acquisition. Tesla execs have of course come out in
response and argued that the acquisition provides the firm with
product and sales synergies that wouldn't exist otherwise.

The Tesla solar roof products, for instance, are a direct result
of the acquisition -- and arguably represent a good add-on sales
opportunity for people already purchasing home or commercial
energy storage systems from the company.

In my opinion, for what it's worth, there do seem to be
substantial sales synergies possible through the offering of
combined plug-in electric vehicles + home energy storage systems
+ home solar energy systems.

Reuters provides more information: "Tesla bought solar panel
installer SolarCity for $2.6 billion in an all-stock deal in
2016. Musk was then biggest shareholder in both Tesla and
SolarCity, and his SolarCity shares were converted to $500
million of Tesla shares. It is 'conceivable that Musk, as a
controlling stockholder, controlled the Tesla board' during the
SolarCity deal, the judge said."

Speaking to Reuters, a spokesperson for Tesla stated: "We do not
agree with the decision and will be taking appropriate next
steps. . . . It's important to emphasize that this was a motion
to dismiss in which the court was required to assume as true all
of the allegations that are made in the complaint."

Just to be clear, in case you missed this information back then,
Elon Musk and other board members with ties to both SolarCity and
Tesla did recuse themselves from the acquisition vote. The
lawsuit seems to claim that even despite that, Elon Musk and
others on the board had too much influence over the vote. [GN]


TESLA: Must Face Class Action Over SolarCity Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Logan, writing for Business Insider, reports that a judge
refused to dismiss Tesla shareholders' claim that CEO Elon Musk
and Tesla's board of directors acted improperly amid the
electric-car company's acquisition of SolarCity.  The judge's
ruling on March 28 effectively allows the class-action suit to
move forward.

In the claim, shareholders point to Tesla's $2.6 billion,
all-stock deal to absorb SolarCity in late 2016, a move that
happened while Musk held a majority stake in Tesla.

The claim alleges that Musk and the board exercised improper
influence in the deal "to, among other things, orchestrate Board
approval of the Acquisition," the filing said.  If true, that
would violate US laws prohibiting publicly traded companies from
engaging in actions that do not serve the shareholders' best
interests.

The SolarCity deal came during a difficult time for that company,
which had $3 billion in debt when the board approved the
acquisition in November 2016. Tesla absorbed that debt as part of
the arrangement.

Shareholders in the class-action suit claim Musk and a handful of
Tesla board members improperly benefited from the acquisition.

In an emailed statement on March 28, a Tesla spokesperson told
Business Insider:

"We do not agree with the decision and will be taking appropriate
next steps.  It's important to emphasize that this was a motion
to dismiss in which the court was required to assume as true all
of the allegations that are made in the complaint.  We of course
contend the allegations in the complaint are false."
The news adds to a fresh slate of negative headlines around
Tesla.

Moody's downgraded the company's corporate credit rating on
March 27, citing Tesla's ongoing struggle to produce the Model 3
entry level sedan.  And federal investigators are also looking
into a fatal crash involving a Tesla Model X SUV that caught fire
after slamming into a highway barrier in Northern California.
[GN]


TEXAS: Audit Finds Flaws in Oversight of New Foster Care Model
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allie Morris, writing for Express News, reports that a recent
audit found flaws in the state's oversight of a new foster care
model that further privatizes the system and is set to roll out
in Bexar County soon.

In the new model, a contractor manages foster care providers
within a certain region, instead of the state.

The Legislature approved expansion of the model last session as a
way to improve the embattled foster care system, which is facing
a long-running class-action lawsuit by foster children who claim
they faced abuse, constant movement and overmedication.

The state audit found the Department of Family and Protective
Services conducted site visits to ensure contractor ACH Child and
Family Services was in compliance.  But the state didn't have
documentation to show whether it verified that ACH monitored all
107 foster care providers in its seven-county area, which
includes Fort Worth, or whether their oversight was effective.

In one instance, state auditors reported that ACH hadn't
monitored one foster care provider for more than 18 months as
children continued being placed there.  It did complete annual
oversight for other providers in the sample, the audit found.

"Without documentation of Department monitoring, there is an
increased risk that issues at ACH or foster care providers may
not be identified or resolved," said the audit, which was
released in March by the Texas State Auditor's Office.  "The
Department's documentation of its monitoring activities will be
increasingly important in ensuring the well-being of children in
foster care as foster care redesign expands to other regions of
the state."

DFPS agreed with the findings, but said it already is in
compliance.

"DFPS agrees that it is critical to document monitoring
activities and believe that it has always done so through
existing policy and tools," the agency said in a written response
included in the audit.

ACH officials were unavailable for comment on March 31.  But in
the audit, AHC pointed out that foster care providers are also
regularly monitored by the state's licensing office within the
Health and Human Services Commission.

Bexar County is next in line for so-called community-based foster
care.  The state is in the process of selecting a contractor and
at least one San Antonio provider, The Children's Shelter,
applied.

Proponents of the model say it's meant to put decision-making at
the local level to help ensure children remain in their home
communities and aren't bounced between foster homes.  Critics,
however, say the eventual shift of case management duties from
the state to the contractor will outsource decisions the state
agency should be making.

To ensure the model is working, the contract relies on
performance metrics, such as percent of sibling groups kept
together and percent of children who don't experience abuse.

Auditors found nearly half of the 13 performance metrics rely on
self-reported data, which wasn't independently verified for
accuracy.  State agency officials said the agency would make
changes to ensure data is verified. [GN]


TIGER BRANDS: Dream Team of Experts Tapped in Listeriosis Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Flynn, writing for Food Safety News, reports that a dream
team of world-class food safety experts is ready to go on behalf
of the victims and their family members, according to the mammoth
501-page lawsuit dropped on Tiger Brands on March 29 by South
African trial lawyer Richard Spoor.

In the complaint, seeking $2 billion in damages in the worst
listeria outbreak in history, Spoor discloses who he has already
enlisted to assist the High Court of South Africa with the
scientifically complicated case.

Top of the list is American food safety attorney Bill Marler, who
Mr. Spoor previously announced would be consulting on the case.

"Mr. Marler is an accomplished trial attorney and national expert
in food safety," Spoor says in court documents.  "Mr. Marler has
become the most prominent foodborne illness lawyer in America and
a major force in food policy in the U.S. and around the world.
Marler Clark, The Food Safety Law Firm, has represented tens of
thousands of individuals in claims against food companies whose
contaminated products have caused life-altering injury and even
death."

Court documents also show that together, Messrs. Spoor and Marler
have enlisted these experts:

   -- Professor David Coetzee of the Division of Public Health
Medicine at the School of Public Health and Family Medicine at
the University of Cape Town, South Africa.  He is a public health
specialist with 25 years of experience in infectious diseases.
Professor Chris Griffith, an independent consultant on aspects of
food quality and safety and editor of the British Food Journal.
Kevin Elfering, with Rio Rancho, NM-based Southwest Food Safety
Systems, an expert on traceback investigations of food products
involved in foodborne illnesses investigations.  He previously
headed Minnesota's Food Inspection Division.

   -- Professor Jorgen Schlundt of the Food Science and
Technology division of Nanyang Technological University;
Professor, Food Science and Technology, Nanyang Technological
University Director, NTU Food Technology Centre (NAFTEC),
Singapore.

   -- Dr. Mansour Samadpour, the CEO of IEH Laboratories &
Consulting Group.

   -- Professor Martin Wiedmann, the Gellert Family Professor in
Food Safety of the Department of Food Science at Cornell
University.

   -- Professor Michael Osterholm, the director of the Center for
Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the School of Public
Health at the University of Minnesota.

   -- Professor Craig Hedberg of the Division of Environmental
Health Science at the School of Public Health at the University
of Minnesota.

The ongoing listeria outbreak stretches back 15 months, a period
when South Africa has confirmed 982 cases of listeriosis with 189
deaths.  The food source was bologna or "polony" as it is known
in South Africa.  Enterprise Foods, a unit of Tiger Brands,
produced it in Polokwane, SA.

Mr. Spoor is a widely known attorney in South Africa, most
recently for representing as many as 30,000 mineworkers who
contracted silicosis in one of the most significant class actions
ever certified in South Africa.

In the class action against Tiger Brands, Mr. Spoor wants the
court to certify four separate victim classes.  They are:

   -- First Class -- Those who personally consumed contaminated
processed meat products and fell ill.

   -- Second Class -- Children whose mothers consumed
contaminated processed meat products while pregnant and passed
the infections to them in utero, causing harm at birth.

   -- Third Class -- Dependents of people who died from eating
contaminated processed meat products.

   -- Fourth Class -- Individuals liable for the care of persons
from eating contaminated processed meat.  Their duty to care for
others who fell ill from consuming the contaminated meat products
causes them to suffer damages.

The class action "applicants" listed in the lawsuit illustrate
how the classes will be applied if the court goes along with the
plan.  "The applicants are among the many victims of the
epidemic. Each applicant has suffered profound loss as a result
of the epidemic," writes Mr. Spoor.

"Some contracted and survived listeriosis.  Others lost family
members. Some applicants are parents, whose newborn babies
contracted serious illnesses that will haunt them for life.
Other applicants are parents whose babies were stillborn as a
direct result of listeriosis."

Tiger Foods has acknowledged receipt of the class action but has
not yet responded to it.

Mr. Spoor frames the case against the meat processor in stark
terms.

"Those who profit from the preparation and distribution of food
products have a duty to take reasonable measures to avoid their
foodstuffs being contaminated with pathogens," he says.  "The
production of food in general, and ready-to-eat foods, in
particular, involves immense public trust.  At the heart of this
case is the respondents' breach of this trust and the
consequences of the breach.

"The respondents make substantial profits from preparing and
distributing processed, ready-to-eat meat products, such as
polony, Russian sausages, and Vienna sausages.  The respondents'
products are popular.  This is especially so among poor people
because the products provide a relatively inexpensive source of
protein." [GN]


TIGER BRANDS: Listeria Class Action Filed in South Africa
---------------------------------------------------------
Reuters , reports that a class action lawsuit was filed on March
29 against South Africa's Tiger Brands, after one of its food
factories was linked to a listeria outbreak that has killed 180
people since early 2017, the lawyer running the case said.

Richard Spoor, Esq., a human rights advocate who previously
masterminded a massive class action on behalf of gold miners with
silicosis, filed the lawsuit on behalf of families affected by
the listeria outbreak. The case against Tiger Brands was clear,
Spoor said.

"Their fingerprints are all over this outbreak," he told Reuters.

A spokeswoman for Tiger Brands confirmed the company had received
the filing, the first lawsuit against the company following the
outbreak, and was reviewing its contents.

Tiger Brands said it had received notice of two class action
suits against the firm, with the total amount claimed against the
company estimated at 425-million rand ($36-million).

Tiger Brands' Chief Financial Officer Noel Doyle said at the time
in an interview on Radio 702 that the company had yet to
calculate the total financial impact of the suits.

The food producer has suspended production at its Polokwane,
Germiston, Pretoria and Clayville sites in South Africa, which
produce polony, and other cold meats.

Separately, the World Health Organization said in a statement
that it was ready to provide support in cases where countries do
not have well-established surveillance systems and laboratory
diagnostic services in place to detect listeria, and "has reached
out to 16 African nations."

Kenya, Zimbabwe and Zambia have banned imports of South African
processed meat, dairy products, vegetables and fruit since the
listeria outbreak. Mozambique and Namibia halted imports of
processed meat products and Botswana said it was recalling them.
Malawi has stepped up screening of South African food imports.
[GN]


TIGER BRANDS: Class Action Suit Launched in Johannesburg Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lizeka Tandwa, writing for Fin24, reports that a class action
suit has been launched against Tiger Brands and Enterprise Foods
at the Johannesburg High Court.

The group of ten applicants, who are demanding declaratory relief
as well as damages, include:

   * Those who contracted but did not die as a result of
Listeriosis.

   * Those who (in utero) contracted but did not die as a result
of Listeriosis as a result of their mothers ingesting food
products originating from or having passed through the Enterprise
meat processing facility at Polokwane

   * Those who were dependent upon persons who died from
Listeriosis

   * Those who were dependent upon persons who died as a
consequence of contracting the disease.

Attorney Richard Spoor, Esq., said on his Facebook page that they
were buoyed by Justice Dikgang Moseneke's decision in the Life
Esidimeni arbitration, where he awarded constitutional damages to
the families of the victims. More than 100 mentally ill patients
died last year after they were moved from Life Esidimeni to 27
unlicensed NGOs.

"We are confident that we can persuade the court to follow this
great jurist's decision. Tiger Brands and Enterprise Foods have
done terrible harm to the victims of the contaminated food they
distributed from their Polokwane factory, to their reputation and
to the Enterprise brand," he wrote.

The bacteria infected at least a thousand cases around the
country last year. At the beginning of March 183 deaths had
already been reported.

Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi announced that the outbreak of
listeriosis had been traced to an Enterprise Foods facility.

"We can now conclude scientifically that the source of the
present outbreak is the Enterprise Food production facility
located in Polokwane," he said at the time at the offices of the
National Institute of Communicable Diseases (NICD) in
Johannesburg.

The National Consumer Commission issued safety recall notices to
the affected manufacturers and facilities, and the products were
recalled.

The World Health Organisation has previously announced that the
listeriosis outbreak in SA was considered the largest ever. [GN]


TIGER BRANDS: Richard Spoor Files Listeria Outbreak Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Cropley and Nqobile Dludla, writing for Reuters, report that a
class action lawsuit was filed on March 29 against South Africa's
Tiger Brands, after one of its food factories was linked to a
listeria outbreak that has killed 180 people since early 2017,
the lawyer running the case said.

Richard Spoor, a human rights advocate who previously
masterminded a massive class action on behalf of gold miners with
silicosis, filed the lawsuit on behalf of families affected by
the listeria outbreak.  The case against Tiger Brands was clear,
Mr. Spoor said.

"Their fingerprints are all over this outbreak," he told Reuters.

A spokeswoman for Tiger Brands confirmed the company had received
the filing, the first lawsuit against the company following the
outbreak, and was reviewing its contents.

Tiger Brands said in March it had received notice of two class
action suits against the firm, with the total amount claimed
against the company estimated at 425 million rand ($36 million).

Tiger Brands' Chief Financial Officer Noel Doyle said at the time
in an interview on Radio 702 that the company had yet to
calculate the total financial impact of the suits.

The food producer has suspended production at its Polokwane,
Germiston, Pretoria and Clayville sites in South Africa, which
produce polony, and other cold meats.

Separately, the World Health Organization said in a statement
that it was ready to provide support in cases where countries do
not have well-established surveillance systems and laboratory
diagnostic services in place to detect listeria, and "has reached
out to 16 African nations."

Kenya, Zimbabwe and Zambia have banned imports of South African
processed meat, dairy products, vegetables and fruit since the
listeria outbreak.  Mozambique and Namibia halted imports of
processed meat products and Botswana said it was recalling them.
Malawi has stepped up screening of South African food imports.
[GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Discrimination Class Action for $10MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manas Mishra and Rama Venkat Raman, writing for Reuters, report
that Uber Technologies Inc has agreed to pay $10 million to
settle a class-action lawsuit brought by two women engineers who
accused the ride-services company of gender and race
discrimination.

The settlement, disclosed in a filing in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, says Uber also agreed to
reforms to its system for compensation, reviews and promotions.

According to the filing, the settlement compensates for financial
and emotional harm to about 285 women and 135 men of color.

The settlement arises out of two actions filed in October, one in
the San Francisco Superior Court and another in the California
district court.

On Oct. 24, Roxana del Toro Lopez and Ana Medina, who described
themselves as Latina software engineers, filed an action in the
Superior Court, followed by another three days later in the
district court alleging classwide gender and race discrimination.

The lawsuit said Uber's employee ranking system was "not based on
valid and reliable performance measures" and favored men and
white or Asian employees.  As a result they lost out on earnings,
promotions and benefits, they added.

The lawsuit followed a widely read blog post in February 2017
from another female engineer that described Uber's work
environment as one that tolerated and fostered sexual harassment.

The settlement includes regular reporting of demographic data to
Uber's workforce and to the court, as well as developing a
validated promotion assessment process. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Two Immigration Detainees File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Nate Gartrell, writing for East Bay Times, reports that  two
federal immigration detainees filed a class action lawsuit
against U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions and other high
ranking Trump administration officials, alleging the two were
being unlawfully denied bond hearings.

The suit was filed on March 27 by plaintiffs Esteban Aleman
Gonzalez and Jose Gutierrez Sanchez, two Mexican nationals who
have each been held more than six months at the West Contra Costa
Detention Facility in Richmond.  Both are resisting deportation
by filing asylum petitions.

Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union announced they
had filed legal action in a news release on March 27.

The suit alleges both plaintiffs petitioned for a bond hearing
after they had been detained more than six months, and were
denied one.  It says that in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals' jurisdiction -- which covers California, Arizona, Alaska
and the Pacific Northwest -- there are at least 60 immigration
detainees being unlawfully denied bond hearings.

"There have been at least 20 district court decisions in the
Ninth Circuit overturning immigration judge decisions denying
individuals the right to a prolonged detention bond hearing due
to a purported lack of jurisdiction, yet immigration judges
continue to deny requests for such hearings," the suit reads.

The suit says a Department of Homeland Security officer
determined Aleman Gonzalez was in danger of being tortured by the
Zeta drug cartel if he should return to Mexico, and that DHS
determined Gutierrez-Sanchez would be subject to harm because he
is bisexual.

The suit alleges Aleman Gonzalez came to the U.S. in 2000, was
deported the same day, then re-entered later that year, where he
has been living ever since.  It says he has two children who are
U.S. citizens and no criminal convictions.  It says he was
arrested in Antioch last August -- but does not say why -- and
has been in federal custody ever since.

Mr. Gutierrez Sanchez, meanwhile, was deported in 2009, weeks
after coming to the U.S. the first time.  Later, he tried to
cross the border again after being attacked in Mexico, but was
removed again. In 2015, he returned to the United States, and was
detained in San Lorenzo last September.  The suit says he too has
two children who are U.S. citizens.

The U.S. Department of Justice did not respond to a request for
comment. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Ct. Grants Summary Judgment in Asylum Class-Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Sherry, writing for the Jurist, reports that the US
District Court for the Western District of Washington on March 29
granted summary judgment in favor of several groups of immigrants
seeking asylum both in and out of Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) custody. The ruling in the class-action lawsuit requires
DHS to provide adequate notice of the one-year application
deadline.

The immigrant groups asserted that DHS' failure to provide all
the class members with notice of the one-year asylum application
deadline and failure to implement procedural mechanisms essential
for a timely submission of their asylum applications violated the
Immigration and Nationality Act, Administrative Procedure Act,
governing regulations, and due process.

DHS opposed the motion arguing the immigrant groups sought to
impute notice requirements that neither Congress nor the U.S.
Constitution mandated.

First turning to the legislative history of the passing of
Sec 1158 of the Title VIII Aliens and Nationality Chapter, the court
indicated that congress was "concerned about potential
limitations on the rights of applicants with legitimate claims"
and would be "watching how the one-year time limit was being
implemented to make sure it was implemented fairly." The court
noted that the failure to provide all class members with notice
of the one-year application period violated the congressional
intent to ensure that asylum is available for those with
legitimate claims of asylum and was particularly true where
unsuccessful efforts to seek asylum failed due to technical
defects.

The court next dismissed the DHS claim that the public notice
from the recording of the statute alone was sufficient to apprise
the plaintiffs of the one-year period. Pointing to the
limitations of the persons seeking asylum, as many class members
suffered severe trauma, did not speak English, were unfamiliar
with the complicated US immigration system, and did not have
access to counsel, the court concluded that the individuals were
reasonably unaware that they should seek out information about
any possible deadline, and thus failed to receive sufficient
notice.

In granting the motion, Chief Judge Ricardo Martinez stated:

Within 90 days of this Order, DHS ... shall adopt a notice of the
one-year filing deadline, in consultation with class members, and
to thereafter provide this notice to all class members who have
already been released. For all future class members who have not
been released, DHS ... shall provide this notice prior to or at
the time that these individuals are released from custody.
[DHS is] ordered to accept as timely filed any asylum application
from a class member that is filed within one year of the date of
adoption of the notice described in [this Order].

Within 120 days of this Order, [DHS] shall adopt and publicize,
in consultation with class members, uniform procedural mechanisms
that will ensure that class members are able to file their asylum
applications in a timely manner, and to thereafter immediately
implement this procedure. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Trump Travel Ban
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Dinan, writing for The Washington Times, reports that a
federal judge in Washington who had been a thorn in the side of
the Trump administration reversed course on March 27 and ruled
she could not force the State Department to grant visa lottery
approvals to would-be immigrants from Iran and Yemen.

The complicated case doesn't directly challenge President Trump's
travel ban, but it does deliver a rare lower-court legal victory
on one aspect of the rules, which have restricted visits and
immigration from a number of majority-Muslim nations.

Judge Tanya S. Chutkan ruled that the government had managed to
run out the clock on would-be immigrants from Yemen and Iran, and
there is no longer anything she can do to preserve their pathway
to immigration.

"There is no longer any meaningful relief this court can provide.
Therefore, it must dismiss this case as moot," she wrote.

The case had been at the nexus of two controversial policies: Mr.
Trump's limits on travel and the diversity visa lottery, which
doles out immigration passes based on chance. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Stopped From Blocking Undocumented's Abortions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Stevens, writing for The New York Times, reports that a
federal judge in Washington issued a sweeping order on March 30
that temporarily prevents the government from blocking access to
abortion services for undocumented, pregnant minors who have been
detained in federal immigration custody.

In issuing the preliminary injunction, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of
United States District Court barred the government from
interfering with hundreds of teenagers' access to medical
appointments, counseling, abortion procedures or other care,
writing that the government's practice of doing so infringed on
the teenagers' constitutional rights.

Judge Chutkan also allowed the case to proceed as a class action
that will include four plaintiffs whose high-profile cases date
to October 2017.

Since March 2017, the Office of Refugee Resettlement had
instructed employees at federally funded shelters to not take
"any action that facilitates an abortion without direction and
approval from the director of O.R.R.," court documents say. The
Trump administration has argued that their policies do not create
a so-called undue burden because undocumented teenagers seeking
an abortion can obtain one by finding a sponsor or voluntarily
deporting themselves to their home country.

"This court does not find that either of these 'options'
mitigates the undue burden that O.R.R.'s policy imposes on the
young women in its custody," Judge Chutkan wrote, calling the
government's proposal a "Hobson's choice."

While the Office of Refugee Resettlement and its director "are
certainly entitled to maintain an interest in fetal life," and
even to prefer that pregnant teens in their custody choose one
course over the other, federal officials "may not create or
implement any policy that strips" the undocumented children "of
their right to make their own reproductive choices," Judge
Chutkan, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, continued.

Brigitte Amiri, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties
Union Reproductive Freedom Project, said in a statement that the
group was "relieved that the court issued an order preventing the
administration from continuing this practice while our case
proceeds."

"With today's rulings, we are one step closer to ending this
extreme policy once and for all and securing justice for all of
these young women," she said.

It was unclear on March 30 whether the Trump administration would
appeal the ruling. The Justice Department did not immediately
respond March 30 night to email and phone messages seeking
comment. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Judge Okays Immigrant Teens' Abortion Access Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ann E. Marimow, Spencer S. Hsu and Maria Sacchetti, writing for
Washington Post, report that a federal judge issued a nationwide
order temporarily preventing the government from blocking access
to abortion services and counseling for teens detained in
immigration custody, saying current administration policy and
practices probably are unconstitutional.

The order came in a case brought last fall on behalf of a Central
American girl in a government-funded shelter that set off a
national debate over the constitutional rights of such
undocumented teens to terminate their pregnancies.

The March 30 ruling, by U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of
Washington, allowed the case to proceed as a class action on
behalf of any other teens who have crossed the border illegally
and while in federal custody may want to seek abortion services.
In filings, the U.S. government acknowledged there were at least
420 pregnant unaccompanied minors in custody in 2017, including
18 who requested abortions.

The Trump administration has refused to "facilitate" such
procedures for pregnant teenagers traveling alone on the grounds
that they had the option to voluntarily return to their home
countries or to find private sponsors in the United States to
assist them in obtaining procedures.

The policy position marked a departure from that of the Obama
administration, whose Office of Refugee Resettlement did not
block immigrants in U.S. custody from having abortions at their
own expense, and paid for services for teens in cases of rape,
incest or a threat to the woman's life.

In her 28-page opinion, Judge Chutkan, a 2014 Obama appointee,
said the change in policy posed irreparable harm to pregnant
teens, writing that "ORR's absolute veto nullifies a UC's right
to make her own reproductive choices," referring to unaccompanied
children.

"The court concludes that ORR's policies and practices infringe
on female UC's constitutional rights by effectively prohibiting
them from 'making the ultimate decision' on whether or not to
continue their pregnancy prior to viability -- a quintessential
undue burden," the judge wrote.

A Justice Department spokesman did not immediately comment on the
ruling.

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the teens,
expressed relief at the court action.

"The Trump administration's cruel policy of blocking young
immigrant women in federal custody from accessing abortion is a
blatant abuse of power," Brigitte Amiri, deputy director of the
ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, said in a statement.  "With
rulings, we are one step closer to ending this extreme policy
once and for all and securing justice for all of these young
women."

In all, four pregnant teens in custody have asked Judge Chutkan
to force the administration to stop blocking access to abortion
services.  The initial case involving the teen in Texas is still
pending in the Supreme Court after the Justice Department took
the unusual step of asking the justices to consider disciplining
the teen's lawyers.

[Trump administration suggests possibility of disciplinary action
against ACLU lawyers in abortion case]

Abortion rights advocates and some Democrats in Congress have
called for the firing of E. Scott Lloyd, the head of the refugee
resettlement office within the Department of Health and Human
Services.  Court records show that Mr. Lloyd has personally
intervened to try to block abortion services.

In one case, referenced in court filings, he refused to sign off
on an abortion for a 17-year-old who said she had been raped
before crossing the border.  She threatened to hurt herself if
she could not end the pregnancy, court records show.

That minor's individual case ended when the Justice Department
dropped its appeal of a lower-court ruling in her favor, allowing
the teen to obtain an abortion.

Judge Chutkan's opinion stated that government filings attributed
the basis of the ORR's decision to not sign off on the girl's
abortion to "Director Lloyd's belief that abortion constitutes
'violence that has the ultimate destruction of another human
being as its goal,' that 'abortion does not here cure the reality
that she is the victim of an assault,' that "[t]o decline to
assist in an abortion here is to decline to participate in
violence against an innocent life.'"

Judge Chutkan's opinion also cited information submitted in that
case that she said showed Lloyd also stated, "How could abortion
be in [the] best interest [of the young woman and her child]
where other options are available, and where the child might even
survive outside the womb at this stage of the pregnancy? Here
there is no medical reason for abortion, it will not undo or
erase the memory of the violence committed against her, and it
may further traumatize her.  I conclude that it is not in her
interest."

Judge Chutkan called Mr. Lloyd's reasoning rendered the exercise
of constitutional rights "a Hobson's choice, wherein one set of
rights must be waived in order to effectuate another," including
the risk that an unaccompanied teen could expose herself to the
risk of further abuse by voluntarily leaving the United States.

"The court will not sanction any policy or practice that forces
vulnerable young women to make such a choice," Judge Chutkan
wrote.  "While ORR and its Director are certainly entitled to
maintain an interest in fetal life, and even to prefer that
pregnant UCs in ORR custody choose one course over the other, ORR
may not create or implement any policy that strips UCs of their
right to make their own reproductive choices." [GN]


UNITED STATES: Certification of Class Sought in "Damus" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned Ansly DAMUS, et al., on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Kirstjen
NIELSEN, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, in her
official capacity, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00578-JEB (D.D.C.),
move the court to certify a class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and Rule
23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule
23.1.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AWW9zF1n

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Judy Rabinovitz, Esq.
          Michael K.T. Tan, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          FOUNDATION, IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2618
          E-mail: jrabinovitz@aclu.org
                  mtan@aclu.org

               - and -

          Stephen B. Kang, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          FOUNDATION, IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT
          39 Drumm Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 343-0783
          E-mail: skang@aclu.org

               - and -

          Hardy Vieux, Esq.
          Laura Gault, Esq.
          HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST
          805 15th Street, N.W., Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 547-5692
          E-mail: Vieuxh@humanrightsfirst.org

               - and -

          Eleni Bakst, Esq.
          Josie Cardoso-Rojo, Esq.
          HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST
          75 Broad Street, 31st floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 845-5200

               - and -

          Dennis B. Auerbach, Esq.
          Philip J. Levitz, Esq.
          Julia H. Brower, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          One CityCenter
          850 Tenth St., N.W.
          Washington, DC 20001-4956
          Telephone: (202) 662-6000
          E-mail: dauerbach@cov.com
                  plevitz@cov.com
                  jbrower@cov.com

               - and -

          Eunice Lee, Esq.
          Blaine Bookey, Esq.
          CENTER FOR GENDER & REFUGEE STUDIES
          200 McAllister St.
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 565-4877
          E-mail: leeeunice@uchastings.edu
                  bookeybl@uchastings.edu

               - and -

          Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF THE
          DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
          915 15th Street, NW, 2nd floor
          Washington, DC 20005-2302
          Telephone: (202) 457-0800
          E-mail: aspitzer@acludc.org

               - and -

          Farrin R. Anello, Esq.
          Edward Barocas, Esq.
          Jeanne LoCicero, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW JERSEY FOUNDATION
          P.O. Box 32159
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 642-2084
          E-mail: ebarocas@aclu-nj.org
                  jlocicero@aclu-nj.org

               - and -

          Michael J. Steinberg, Esq.
          Abril Valdes, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FUND OF MICHIGAN
          2966 Woodward Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 578-6814
          E-mail: msteinberg@aclumich.org

               - and -

          Leon Howard, Esq.
          Kristin Greer Love, Esq.
          ACLU OF NEW MEXICO
          1410 Coal Ave. SW
          Albuquerque, NM 87104
          Telephone: (505) 266-5915

               - and -

          Witold J. Walczak, Esq.
          Golnaz Fakhimi, Esq.
          ACLU OF PENNSYLVANIA
          247 Ft. Pitt Blvd., 2nd floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 681-7864
          E-mail: vwalczak@aclupa.org

               - and -

          Freda J. Levenson, Esq.
          ACLU OF OHIO
          4506 Chester Ave.
          Cleveland, OH 44103
          Telephone: (216) 472-2220
          E-mail: flevenson@acluohio.org

               - and -

          Ahilan T. Arulanantham, Esq.
          Sameer Ahmed, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          1313 West 8th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977-5232
          E-mail: aarulanantham@aclu-sc.org
                  sameer.ahmed@wilmerhale.com

               - and -

          Edgar Saldivar, Esq.
          Andre Segura, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF TEXAS, INC.
          1500 McGowen, Suite 250
          Houston, TX 77004
          Telephone: (713) 942-8146
          E-mail: esaldivar@aclutx.org
                  asegura@aclu.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kathleen Connolly, Esq.
          Sarah Fabian, Esq.
          Alex Halaska, Esq.
          Genevieve Kelly, Esq.
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530-0001
          Telephone: (202) 305-8627
          Facsimile: (202) 307-8781
          E-mail: kathleen.a.connolly@usdoj.gov
                  sarah.b.fabian@usdoj.gov
                  alexander.j.halaska@usdoj.gov
                  genevieve.m.kelly@usdoj.gov


UNITED AIRLINES: Sued for Charging Online Reservation Change Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
United Airlines is facing a class action complaint from customers
who said they were charged online change fees, despite the
airlines' assurances they would not, if they rebooked a flight
with United within a year of cancelling their reservations.

John Sacchi and Stephen Simoni filed a complaint March 23 in Cook
County Circuit Court, accusing United Continental Holdings, Inc.,
and United Airlines, Inc., of breach of contract by misleading
customers by promoting on its website that customers who chose to
cancel a reservation and use the ticket's value toward another
United flight within a year would not be charged a change fee.

"This statement was false," the complaint alleged, noting the
United.com text was live for about nine months -- from October
2016 to July 2017 -- and United allegedly charged the fees to
customers who canceled and rebooked within a year.

"United effectively required customers' exclusive use of its
website and reinforced the need to read-before-clicking by
explaining that customers 'save money by changing or canceling
(their) reservation online, as a service charge applies to all
charges made by phone," the complaint said.

Both men say they used the website to cancel a flight reservation
in June 2017.  The complaint includes a screenshot showing that
by clicking the "choose to cancel" option their tickets were
irrevocably canceled. Yet each said when they attempted to use
the canceled ticket's value toward a new purchase, they had to
pay a $125 booking fee.

The complaint also cited comments other United customers posted
online, such as one customer who got a $296 credit after
canceling a flight, but had to pay an extra $200 when buying a
new ticket within 12 months.  Another, they said, claimed in a
post on United's Facebook page United charged a $125 per-ticket
change fee when trying to use credits from canceled reservations.

"Despite multiple such complaints by customers nationwide, United
continued for months to execute these contracts on its website by
assuring customers with the identical statement that 'no change
fee will be required,' all while United continued to impose a fee
of $125 to $200 per traveler to apply the value of customers'
canceled ticket toward a new flight," the complaint alleged.

According to Sacchi and Simoni, United's own records show it
assessed such fees on at least 4,220 transactions, or roughly
$441,000 "in improper fees."

In addition to class certification and a jury trial, the
plaintiffs want the court to award compensatory, punitive and
statutory damages as well as restitution "and all other forms of
equitable monetary relief."

Representing the plaintiffs, and putative class attorneys, are
attorneys Kyle Shamberg -- kshamberg@litedepalma.com -- and
Katrina Carroll -- kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- from the Chicago
firm of Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC. [GN]


WALMART: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Coupon Sales Tax
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fritz Mayer, writing for The Mayer Reporter, reports that flyers
on display in Walmart in Honesdale have announced a class-action
lawsuit making the claim the chain charged too much tax on items
purchased with coupons.  An Alleghany County man named Brian
Farmuth has sued the company, alleging that when he bought items
with a coupon, the store charged him tax for the full cost of the
item, which is a violation of state law.  The case was first
brought in 2013, and the court determined a year ago that it
would continue as a class-action lawsuit.  The flyers went up.

An online notice approved by the Allegheny County Court of Common
Pleas (walmartcouponclassaction.com) says that anyone who
purchased an item after June 8, 2007 using a coupon is
automatically a member of the class suing Walmart, and if such a
person wants to not be a member of the class he or she should
contact the law firm of Rothman & Goldman
(www.rothmangordon.com.)

The notice says, "The Class Representative is asking the Court
and/or a jury to find that Walmart misappropriated money
belonging to its customers by engaging in a pattern of unfair
trade practices which resulted in overcharging sales tax.  The
Class Representative is asking the Court and/or a jury to require
Walmart to reimburse all Class Members for their losses, and in
addition, to pay all Class Members a statutory damage under the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law in
an amount of up to $100 per transaction or person.  The Class
Representative also seeks payment of all counsel fees from
Walmart, and may ask the Court to award counsel fees and costs of
suit if the lawsuit is successful or settles.  If money or
benefits are obtained, you will be notified about how that money
or benefits will be reimbursed to the Class, if you are a Class
Member."

Walmart maintains that it did nothing wrong and that it received
an opinion from the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue allowing
it to collect sales tax of the full cost of items when they were
purchased with coupons that reduced the final cost. [GN]


WASHINGTON, DC: Homeless Files Class-Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Seattle Times reports that a group of homeless people, with the
help of a team of attorneys, has filed a class-action lawsuit,
claiming Washington, D.C. workers are improperly throwing out
their belongings during sweeps of street encampments.

The Washington Post reports the lawsuit filed March 28 claims the
city government and the mayor are violating the 4th Amendment's
protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The lawsuit alleges government workers have ignored a city
protocol requiring that possessions confiscated during the
clearing of homeless encampments be stored for up to 60 days. Its
claims the city has followed a practice of destroying unattended
belongings whenever the owner is absent for some or all of a
clearing.

Sean Barry with the city's deputy mayor for health and human
services says the district cleared encampments in a manner that's
respectful of the homeless and their belongings. [GN]


WEINSTEIN CO: Lead Plaintiff in Class Action Serves on Committee
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit pending against
Harvey Weinstein, The Weinstein Company (TWC) and certain TWC
directors on March 28 disclosed that lead plaintiff
Louisette Geiss has been selected to serve on the Official
Committee of Unsecured Creditors by the United States Trustee in
the bankruptcy case filed by The Weinstein Company, according to
her attorneys at Hagens Berman and The Armenta Law Firm.

After an extensive application and interview process with T.
Patrick Tinker, Assistant U.S. Trustee, District of Delaware,
Region 3, Ms. Geiss was selected to serve on one of the five
seats, along with Sandeep Rehal, William Morris Endeavor, Light
Chaser Animation and Access Digital parent company, Cinnedine.

"Hundreds of people were mistreated by The Weinstein Company and
lost their ability to work in the entertainment industry because
they took a stand.  I am proud to have been chosen to vigorously
represent the interests of those who courageously said 'no,'"
said Geiss, who was one of the first women to speak up and
disclose her harrowing experiences with Harvey Weinstein.
Ms. Geiss is a businesswoman, actor, producer, mother and vocal
activist in the #MeToo movement.

In this capacity, Ms. Geiss will have a voice in assessing the
procedures and wisdom of the sale of the debtor's assets,
proposed by TWC to Lantern Asset Capital Management.  Her role
will extend to representing all unsecured creditors, including
the claims of the victims who were harassed and targeted by
Harvey Weinstein, as well as those parties that enabled his
systemic sexual harassment.

Ms. Geiss was selected after an extensive interview process,
based on her merit, her commitment and her ability to perform the
complex function of a member of the committee with tenacity and
passion.  Ms. Geiss's candidacy to the committee was supported
with letters of support from victims throughout the country,
expressing their views of the importance of seating a survivor to
the committee.

Ms. Geiss's work began immediately, with participation in the
selection of the professionals who will advise the Official
Committee of Unsecured Creditors, assessing the quick sale
proposed by TWC and participation to ensure that all unsecured
creditors are treated fairly, including the victims, whose claims
are anticipated to dwarf the claims of the other unsecured
creditors such as Viacom and Sony.

Ms. Geiss will be advised by co-lead counsel, Hagens Berman, M.
Cris Armenta and Credence Sol of The Armenta Law Firm, Ed Neiger
of ASK LLP of New York and Mark Horoupian of Sulmeyer, Kupetz,
Baumann & Rothman.

"Ms. Geiss has several duties, including determining if the
proposed sale is the best transaction.  We want to ensure that it
will not leave Harvey's victims without compensation, contrary to
what he himself and The Weinstein Company have claimed since
October," said M. Cris Armenta, counsel to the lead plaintiffs
and to Ms. Geiss.  "The Weinstein Company has a responsibility to
ensure that victims' claims are honored as fairly as its
obligations to its other creditors."

"It is crucial that the victims have a voice on this Committee
because this committee will play a vital role in the direction
and outcome of the bankruptcy case.  Ms. Geiss intends to
passionately advocate for the victim constituency as part of her
broader duty to all unsecured creditors," said Ed Neiger.

"While sales in bankruptcy are often designed to cleanse a
company of its debts and shield the buyer from successor
liability, Ms. Geiss intends to use her position on the Committee
to assure that victim claims are adequately addressed through the
sale process, and that victims and trade creditors alike are not
left holding the bag," said Mark Horoupian.

The Weinstein Company filed a Chapter 11 Petition in the United
States Bankruptcy Court in Delaware, asking the court for short
time frames to potentially approve the sale of all of its assets
to a private equity fund with no or scant experience in the
entertainment industry.  TWC's attorneys argued to Judge Mary
Walrath that interim funding and a quick sale were needed in
order to keep existing employees.

Ms. Geiss was one of six plaintiffs who stepped forward in
December of 2017 to publicly sue Harvey Weinstein, Miramax, The
Weinstein Company and its board of directors in a class-action
lawsuit representing a proposed class of hundreds of actresses
who suffered sexual assault, false imprisonment, battery, rape
and other heinous sexual acts at the hands of Harvey Weinstein.
Find out more about the class action against Harvey Weinstein.

                       About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- https://www.hbsslaw.com -- is
a consumer-rights class-action law firm with 11 offices across
the country.  The firm has been named to the National Law
Journal's Plaintiffs' Hot List eight times.

                  About The Armenta Law Firm

Cris Armenta -- http://www.crisarmenta.com-- is the founder of
The Armenta Law Firm APC, located in Southern California.
Ms. Armenta began her career by clerking for the late Honorable
J. Kelleher in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  Cris is an alumni and former Senior
Litigation Associate of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom.
Cris's clients include CEOs, clients with civil and criminal
matters needing coordination, and celebrities with crisis
management needs.  Cris is a past board member of the American
Civil Liberties Union in Los Angeles, and a graduate of U.C.
Berkeley and Loyola Law School.  Cris's pro bono work is
dedicated to finding missing and abducted children. [GN]


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Abarca's Renewed Bids for Class Cert. Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Joseph F. Bataillon adopted in its entirety the Findings
and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge in the
consolidated class action lawsuits captioned EZEQUIEL OLIVARES
ABARCA, ALFREDO ALESNA Jr., DAVID CAGLE, STEPHEN L. DAVIS, FRANK
EADS and KENNETH J. SURMAN, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., DRIVERS
MANAGEMENT, LLC, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 8:14-cv-
00319-JFB-MDN; and WILLIAM SMITH, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v.
WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Case No. 8:15-cv-00287-JFB-MDN (D. Neb.).

According the Court's memorandum and order, the objections filed
by Defendants Werner Enterprises, Inc. and Drivers Management,
LLC, are overruled.  The plaintiffs' renewed motions for class
certification are granted.

The lawsuits are consolidated actions for alleged violations of
wage and hour laws.  The actions were removed from Superior Court
for the State of California, County of Alameda, to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b) and then transferred to this
Court under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

These classes are certified:

   a. All truck drivers who were or are California residents and
      who, while working for Werner, picked up and/or dropped off
      a load in the state of California after the completion of
      training at any time since four years before the filing of
      this legal action until such time as there is a final
      disposition of this lawsuit ("the California Class"); and

   b. All truck drivers who worked or work anywhere for Werner
      after the completion of training at any time since four
      years before the filing of this legal action until such
      time as there is a final disposition of this lawsuit ("the
      Nebraska Class").

Ezequiel Olivares Abarca, Alfredo Alesna Jr., David Cagle,
Stephen L. Davis, Frank Eads, William Smith, and Kenneth J.
Surman are appointed as the class representatives.

Justin L. Swidler, Esq., and Richard S. Swartz, Esq., of Swartz
Swidler LLC; James M. Sitkin, Esq., of Law Offices of James M.
Sitkin; David A. Borgen, Esq., Laura L. Ho, Esq., and Raymond A.
Wendell, Esq., of Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho; and William
D. Turley, Esq., David T. Mara, Esq., and Jamie Serb, Esq., of
the Turley Law Firm are appointed as Class Counsel.

Copies of the Memorandum and Order are available at no charge at:

   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9jcHDKBE
   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VDdaG3Cz


XSPORT FITNESS: Faces FLSA Class Action in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------
Hannah Meisel, writing for Law360, report that XSport Fitness, a
gym chain with locations in Chicago, New York and Washington,
D.C., was hit with a putative class action in Illinois federal
court on March 27 in a suit that claims it violates the Fair
Labor Standards Act and two Illinois laws by allegedly failing to
pay managers for overtime or commission fees on gym membership
sales.

Until earlier in March, the suit's lead plaintiff Lundon Gooden
had worked as an assistant manager for an XSport location in the
West Chicago suburb of Naperville.

The case is Gooden v. XSport Fitness Inc, Case No. 1:18-cv-02200
(N.D. Ill.).  The case is assigned to Judge Honorable Manish S.
Shah.  The case was filed March 27, 2018. [GN]


* 108 Black People Employment Bias Suits Filed From 2005-2015
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Davidson, writing for Washington Post reports that if Uncle
Sam is committed to increasing the level of racial, ethnic and
gender diversity in his government, particularly at the highest
levels of the civil service, you sure can't tell it from the
latest statistics.

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) figures show diversity
levels have improved little, stayed flat or, in some cases,
regressed over the most recent period studied.

"The percentage of minorities in the Senior Executive Service
(SES) remained the same in FY 2016 as it was in FY 2015 at
21.2%," according to the recently released Federal Equal
Opportunity Recruitment Program Report to Congress for fiscal
year 2016, which was under the Obama administration.  Women
demonstrated the largest SES increase, with a 1 percentage-point
bump to 35.3 percent, still far below their portion of the
workforce.  While there certainly have been advances since the
first report, covering fiscal year 2001, the gap between white
men in top positions and other groups has always been
substantial. White males made up 36.1 percent of the nation's
civilian labor force in 2016.

White people accounted for 78.8 percent of senior executives in
2015 and 2016 and were 66.4 percent of the national labor force.

Bill Valdez, president of the Senior Executives Association,
cited three reasons that diversity and inclusion (D&I) "efforts
have stalled in the Federal government":

"An absence of a link between mission accomplishment and D&I
programs."

"An inability to articulate the return on investment (ROI) for
D&I programs."

"The lack of a rigorous and analytical basis for D&I programs."

"Hiring decisions that create a workforce that does not reflect
the changing demographics of our nation are likely to have
unintended consequences," Mr. Valdez said, "such as investment
decisions that do not address the needs of women and minorities,
or the perpetuation of federal policies that have contributed to
underrepresentation in the federal workforce."

A deeper look into the generally stagnant people-of-color
percentages reveals some ups and downs, albeit slight, among the
groups.  The largest variation was among African Americans, who
are going backward in the SES, the highest civil-service rank.
Their percentage dropped from 11.4 percent to 11 percent from
2015 to 2016.  Asians increased from 3.2 percent to 3.5 percent,
while Hispanics rose from 4.4 percent to 4.6 percent.

That jump did little to bring SES Hispanics closer to their
portion of the civilian labor force, which is 15 percent.
Hispanics also are far behind in overall government employment,
making up just 8.6 percent of federal employees.  African
Americans are 10.5 percent of the civilian labor force but 18.4
percent of federal employees. Civilian labor force percentages
commonly are lower than population percentages.

"It is obvious that Hispanic parity in the federal workforce will
never be reached when compared with their numbers in the national
civilian labor force," said Gilbert Sandate, chair of the
Coalition for Fairness for Hispanics in Government.  It estimates
that this gap equals $8.5 billion in annual salaries lost to the
Hispanic community.

Government-wide data obscures wide variations among agencies.
Black representation in executive departments, for example,
ranges from about 38 percent in Education and Housing and Urban
Development to a low of 5.6 percent in Interior.  For Hispanics,
the highest representation is 22 percent in Homeland Security;
the lowest is 3.3 percent in Health and Human Services.

HHS, however, has the highest percentage of women, at 64.9
percent.  Transportation has the lowest, 26.2 percent.

Using a Freedom of Information Act request, the Coalition for
Change, an organization that focuses on bias in the federal
workforce, found that from 2005 to 2015, 108 class-action
complaints were filed regarding federal employment discrimination
against black people.

"Year after year, thousands of black Americans, like the Black
U.S. Marshals who have a pending class action against the U.S.
Department of Justice, allege federal officials deprive them of
career opportunities, such opportunities provide black Americans
the avenue to attain Senior Executive Service Level positions,"
Tanya Ward Jordan, the coalition's founder and president, said in
an email.

The OPM report does not cover President Trump's administration,
but no one expects things to improve under this president.  Quite
the opposite.

"Our federal government functions best when it is equipped with
qualified individuals who meaningfully reflect and represent the
country they serve," said Vanita Gupta, president and CEO of the
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.  "There is a
stunning lack of diversity in the nominations Trump has put
forward for judicial seats and executive branch positions.  It's
clear he does not value diversity and inclusion."

The Leadership Conference pointed to a USA Today article that
said 92 percent of Trump's judicial picks are white, adding,
"President Trump's search for deeply conservative federal judges
appears to have eliminated most African Americans and Hispanics
from the running.  Among Trump's first 87 judicial nominees, only
one is African American and one is Hispanic.  Five are Asian
Americans.  Eighty are white."

For Sandate, information like this means "the prospects for
brighter days ahead are dim when it comes to diversity in the
federal workforce.  At the end of its first year in power, the
Trump administration has shown no signs of taking its foot off
the pedal when it comes to emasculating agencies' budgets,
missions and programs, and of marginalizing the rights of
minorities, immigrants and people of color." [GN]


* Class Action Lawsuits in South Africa Gaining Traction
--------------------------------------------------------
Politics Web reports that with a class action in the works for
the recent listeriosis outbreak, careful consideration should be
given as to how these actions can be beneficial in assisting
victims who suffered on a group scale.

This brief considers the emerging legal field of class and group
action law suits in South Africa.

Class Action Suits - a South African History and Context

Class and group action suits are a phenomenon aboard, especially
in countries like the United States.  These actions differ from
traditional civil litigation whereby a single litigant sues
another single party for damages in that the matter involves a
group of litigants against a single party who allegedly caused
the damage.

Prior to 1994, class actions were foreign to South African law
and judges took and an extremely cautious approach to standing.
Traditionally, a litigant would have to show personal interest in
the case or be formally joined.  This notion changed in the
democratic era when Chaskalson P remarked

"Whilst it is important that this Court should not be required to
deal with abstract or hypothetical issues, and should devote its
scarce resources to issues that are properly before it, I can see
no good reason for adopting a narrow approach to the issue of
standing in constitutional cases. On the contrary, it is my view
that we should rather adopt a broad approach to standing."[5

In our Final Constitution, section 28(c) provides standing to
approach a court for "anyone acting as a member of, or in the
interest of, a group or class of persons".  We see that there is
opportunity to bring a class action suit.  However, this
opportunity seems to only present itself in cases where a right
in the Bill of Rights has been infringed or threatened, as
implied by the lead-in language of the provision.  In support of
this notion, Traverso DJP, in the 2008 Firstrand Bank case, noted
that other that in constitutional matters, "the South African
common law does not recognise class actions.

Despite the above seeming limitations, there is no statutory
definition that defines the requirements of a class action and
what constitutes it.  As the years have gone on, there has been
legislation enacted that seems to permit class action in cases
where a constitutional right is not necessarily affected.  The
Consumer Protection Act allows standing for "a person acting as a
member of, or in the interest of, a group or class of affected
persons".  The National Environmental Management Act similarly
provides "any person or group of persons" relief in terms of the
Act

Jurisprudence has served to give content to class actions.  The
Children's Resources Centre Trust case sets out procedure for
certification of class actions.  The court must consider the
existence of a class identifiable by objective criteria;

   -- a cause of action raising a triable issue;

   -- that the right to relief depends upon the determination of
issues of fact, or law, or both, common to all members of the
class;

  -- that the relief sought, or damages claimed, flow from the
cause of action and are ascertainable and capable of
determination;

-- that where the claim is for damages there is an appropriate
procedure for allocating the damages to the members of the class;

-- that the proposed representative is suitable to be permitted
to conduct the action and represent the class;

-- whether given the composition of the class and the nature of
the proposed action a class action is the most appropriate means
of determining the claims of class members.

From this we see a recognition from the Supreme Court of Appeal
that class actions can be brought but must first be certified by
a court.  The Constitutional Court has subsequently held[11] that
the above considerations are not requirements and conditions
precedent but rather factors to be taken into account in
determining where the interests of justice lie in a particular
case.

Current Class Action Cases

In 2016, the 'silicosis' case allowed damages for former
mineworkers suffering from silicosis and tuberculosis to be paid
by mining companies.  The case allowed for the certification of
two classes of cases -- the silicosis case tuberculosis case.
Since the evidence of the miners was similar and would have to be
repeated in each case, it was economical as well as practical to
certify the class action suit.  The case was appealed to the
Supreme Court of Appeal by the mining companies on the main
ground that the "class" of claimants was too broad as the
litigants had worked at various mines over a period of 50 years.
While the case is set to be heard by the Supreme Court of Appeal,
there are also discussions about possible settlement agreements
with the mining companies having allocated money in a trust for
this purpose.

Most recently, the listeriosis outbreak allegedly caused by Tiger
Brands products including cold meats have caused deaths and
illness to many.  Most of these victims are poor.  Two law firms
have called on claimants who have suffered loss or harm due to
the outbreak to form a class action suit.  At the time of writing
this brief, the case seems to be gaining traction with nearly
1000 parties coming forward to join the class action.

Concluding Remarks

Class actions may be useful especially in countries like South
Africa where the majority of the population is poor and would not
be able to afford costs associated with litigation.  In an
environment where the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) should afford
South Africans extensive consumer protection, many people are
still unaware of their rights especially in terms of receiving
fair value, good quality and safety.  Even if one is aware of
their rights, they will likely need to litigate to enforce these
rights.  The CPA makes it easier for a consumer claim -- section
61 allows claims for damages even if no negligence is proved.
The CPA does not provide for a specific platform as to where a
claim for damages is to be lodged.  The courts' power to
determine whether harm has been caused and, if so, the extent of
the harm, is alluded to in section 61(6).  We see therefore that
litigation is involved.  As mentioned, the majority of the
population would struggle to afford the costs of these pursuits.
For a case to be viable, the desired outcome must exceed the
expense bared.  Further, a poor litigant will be at a
disadvantage in comparison to the well-represented and endowed
corporate supplier.  Class actions allow for litigation for small
claims on a mass scale.  They allow for claimants to band
together and for evidence in common to be pooled to make a strong
case.

Class actions have the additional benefit of promoting good
quality goods and services and decrease the risk that corporate
suppliers could get away with injustices, that on a mass scale
amount to large financial gain to them at the expense of a
consumer.

While the outcome of the proposed listeriosis case is uncertain,
what is clear is that class action law suits in South Africa are
gaining traction.  It will be interesting to see how courts and
law firms deal with this emerging field of law. [GN]


* Class Actions May Be Useful in Countries Such as South Africa
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ernest Mabuza, writing for Times Live, reports that class action
lawsuits may be useful in countries such as South Africa, where
the majority of the population is poor and would not be able to
otherwise afford costs associated with litigation.

This is the view of the Helen Suzman Foundation as a class action
is in the works following deaths and illnesses linked to the
recent listeriosis outbreak, in which over 180 people have died.

Richard Spoor Attorneys indicated in March that it has teamed up
with US law firm Marler Clark LLC to launch a class action
against Tiger Brands, one of the companies government has
fingered for blame.  The two law firms have called on claimants
who suffered loss or harm due to the outbreak to form a class
action suit.

The case seems to be gaining traction, with nearly 1,000 parties
coming forward to join the class action, the foundation said.

The foundation said in an environment where the Consumer
Protection Act (CPA) should afford South Africans extensive
consumer protection, many people were still unaware of their
rights especially in terms of receiving fair value, good quality
and safety.

"Even if one is aware of their rights, they will likely need to
litigate to enforce these rights."

The foundation said the Act made it easier for a consumer claim.
It said Section 61 allowed claims for damages, even if no
negligence was proved.

"The CPA does not provide for a specific platform as to where a
claim for damages is to be lodged.  We see therefore that
litigation is involved."

The foundation said in those instances, the majority of the
population would struggle to afford the costs of the legal
pursuit.

"For a case to be viable, the desired outcome must exceed the
expense bared.  Further, a poor litigant will be at a
disadvantage in comparison to the well-represented and endowed
corporate supplier."

It said class actions allowed for litigation for small claims on
a mass scale.

"They allow for claimants to band together and for evidence in
common to be pooled to make a strong case."

The foundation said while the outcome of the proposed listeriosis
case was uncertain, what was clear was that class action law
suits in South Africa were gaining traction.

"It will be interesting to see how courts and law firms deal with
this emerging field of law."

The only other class action that has come before courts is the
silicosis case.

In May 2016, the high court in Johannesburg certified a class
action by mineworkers against gold mining companies in South
Africa.

The classes comprise current and former underground workers who
had worked for two years in one of the gold mines from 1965 and
contracted tuberculosis, and the workers who contracted
silicosis.  The class also constitutes dependants whose parents
died after contracting silicosis and TB while working at the
mines.

The respondents in the case were 30 mining companies, which
represent the entire gold mining industry in South Africa.

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) by the
mining companies.

While the case is set to be heard by the SCA, there are also
discussions about possible settlement agreements with the mining
companies having allocated money in a trust for this purpose.
[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  * * *