CAR_Public/180424.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Tuesday, April 24, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 82



                            Headlines


ACE INDUSTRIAL: Berning Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
ACUITY BRANDS: Bid to Consolidate Class Suits Pending in Del.
AEGIS LIVING: Faces Class Action Over Staffing Concerns
AIG DIRECT: Maslo et al Sue over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
ALLERGAN INC: Louisiana Health Suit Transferred to E.D.N.Y.

AMCO INSURANCE: Rochas Sue over Good Driver Discount
ARL CITY: Fails to Timely Pay All Earned Wages, Amaya Claims
ARYAN NYC: Workers Seek Judicial Intervention in Labor Suit
ASSOCIATED BUILDING: "Urbino" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
ATLAS FINANCIAL: "Fryman" Class Suit Filed in Illinois

BEHRMAN BROTHERS: "Garner" Suit Transferred to N.D. Alabama
BENJAMIN MOORE: "Keats" Suit Moved to N.D. California
BIG BOY RESTAURANTS: Welch Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation
BIG LOTS: Briefing on Appeal on "Willis" Class Suit Completed
BOSSIER CITY, LA: Court Won't Certify Deaf Sex Offender's Class

BP PLC: 27,592 Claims Approved in Medical Benefits Class Deal
BP PLC: Settlement Payments Made in ADS Purchasers-Related Suit
BP PLC: Says 2012 Canadian Class Action to be Pursued Again
BP PLC: Faces Fishermen Class Action Suit in Mexico
BP PLC: BPXP Seeks Dismissal of Acciones Suit

CABOT EAST: CBRE, et al., File Appeal in Eleventh Circuit
CARRIAGE FUNERAL: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: "Phan" Suit Moved to Rhode Island Court
CBOE GLOBAL: Pels Alleges Commodity Exchange Act Violations
CENTURYLINK INC: Seeks to Enforce Arbitration of Customer Claims

CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Oral Arguments Held in Naylor Farms' Suit
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Appeal in "Donelson-Friend" Suit Still Pending
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Objection to Class Treatment in "West" Granted
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Notice of Dismissal Filed in "Griggs" Suit
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: "Butler" Suit Remains Stayed

CITIZENS INC: Bid to Dismiss "Gamboa" Suit Remains Pending
COMMUNITY CAR: "Arecio" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
COMMUNITY HOSPICE: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Flores Says
COMPASS GROUP: "Kuhn" Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida
CONN'S INC: October Trial Set in Texas Consolidated Class Suit

CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: "Robertson" Disputes Collection Letter
CREDIT SUISSE: "Chahal" Suit Seeks Remedies Under Exchange Act
CREDIT SUISSE: Faces Securities Class Action Over VIX Notes
CRYSTAL FARMS: Reyes Sues over "Made With Real Butter" Label
DADDYO'S ON RICHMOND: Fails to Pay Min. & OT Wage, Rodriguez Says

DENIHAN OWNERSHIP: Guestrooms Expensive for Disabled, Suit Says
DRYSHIPS INC: Response to "Silverberg" Suit Due May 25
EDWARD JONES: Class Action Reflects Concern Over Reverse-Churning
ELECTROLUX HOME: "Mauro" Product Suit Transferred to M.D. Pa.
FLORIDA: Nelson Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners

FLORIDA SURFACES: "Vincent" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA
FOOT LOCKER: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Denied in "Osberg"
FUNKO INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
GERDAU SA: Suits over Sale of American Depositary Receipts Nixed
GOLD FIELDS: Appellate Proceeding in Silicosis Suit Postponed

GOOGLE INC: Fisher Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling
GOOGLE INC: Ruling May Provide New Model for Pay Equity Cases
HARDINGE INC: Assad Trust Balks at Privet Fund Merger Deal
HOME POINT: Court Grants Leave to File FAC in "Norona"
HONDA MOTOR: Road Tested Airbag Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla.

HONEYWELL INT'L: Injunction on Healthcare Termination Reversed
HOST RG 54: "Smith" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Pay under FLSA
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Smolek Sues over Defective Theta II Engine
HYUNDAI MOTORS: Attorneys Seek En-Banc Rehearing of Split Ruling
ICICI BANK: Faces Class Action Risk in US Over Corruption

INTEL CORPORATION: Nathan Sues over CPU Security Flaws
IZEA INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
JESYN ACQUISITION: Shareholder Class Suit Pending in New Jersey
JG WENTWORTH: Illinois Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
JG WENTWORTH: Affiliate Faces "Dockery" Class Suit

JOHN DANNA: "Oliveras" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Talcum Powder Class Action in Illinois
KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT: "Brayman" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
KIRKLAND'S INC: Awaits 3rd Cir. Decision in Kamal v. J. Crew
LA SALLE, IL: Appel et al. Case in Initial Discovery Pilot

LIBERTY MUTUAL: Mass. App. Affirms Denial of Compensable Damages
LUX COSMETIC: Sopo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay under FLSA
MCKESSON CORPORATION: Hunt Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
MDL 2619: Confidential Settlements Inked in 2 Cases vs Twinlab
MDL 2826: "Ross" Suit vs Uber Consolidated in C.D. California

MEDLEY LLC: Faces Two Class Action Complaints in Virginia
MEGGITT-USA: Court Approves Settlement of "Trout" Suit
MELVA CONSTRUCTION: Violates Wage and Hour Laws, Puli Says
MEMORIAL HERMANN: "Romano" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
MONARCH RECOVERY: Settlement of "Hartman" Suit Has Final OK

MUFG UNION BANK: Seegert Sues over Continued Overdraft Fee
NEULION INC: Accord in Suit over Mayweather-McGregor Fight Okayed
OCALA, FL: Taps Consultants to Evaluate Fire User Fees
OCERA THERAPEUTICS: May 3 Hearing on Atty Fee Bid in "Franchi"
OKLAHOMA: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification in "Cowan"

OLD DOMINION: "Sanders" Case Removed to S.D. California
OLD DOMINION: Bid to Remand "Sanders" to State Court Denied
ORLEBAR BROWN: Fails to Design Website Accessible to Blind Person
PABST BREWING: "Peacock" Suit Alleges UCL Violation
PALADIN TOWING: "McCutcheon" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

PATENAUDE & FELIX: "Schultz" Suit Moved to W.D. Pennsylvania
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Parties Urged to Prepare for Lead Plaintiff Bid
PEACE OF MIND: "Bertolli" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
PENSYLVANIA: Class Certification Granted in Case Against DHS
PERNIX THERAPEUTICS: "Presswood" Suit Moved to E.D. Missouri

PHILLIPS 66: Court OKs $5.5MM Deal in "Buzas" Wage & Hour Suit
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Court Certifies Real Property Subclass
PLY GEM: Merger Class Suits Pending in Delaware Chancery Court
PONZIOS RD: Court Conditionally Certifies "Casco" Class
PRUDENCE HALL: Misclassifies Employees, Arguinzoni-Gil Claims

RAS LAVRAR: "Barrios" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
RAYMOND JAMES: Faces FCRA Class Action in Florida
RELIABLE MOBILE: "Brown" Claims Unpaid Overtime, Hits Retaliation
RENOVATE AMERICA: Nemore et al. Sue over PACE Program & Loan Fees
RESEARCH CENTERS: "Schoenthal" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations

RH: Securities Suit Moves Into Discovery Stage
RMG NEWORKS: Faces "Weinstein" Suit in Delaware
ROLLING IN: Court Conditionally Certifies Delivery Drivers' Class
ROYAL BANK: Bid to Dismiss Denied in FX-Related Antitrust Suit
ROYAL BANK: Bid to Dismiss Granted in Indirect Purchasers Suit

ROYAL BANK: Bid to Compel Arbitration Filed in Alpari Suit
ROYAL BANK: Discovery Ongoing in Swaps Antitrust Litigation
ROYAL BANK: Settlement in ISDAFIX Suit Awaits Final Approval
ROYAL BANK: NJ Health Fund Settlement Awaits Court Approval
SAM LEWIS: "Reyes" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

SANDY BRIMHALL: Faces Class Action Over Weight Loss Surgery
SHAMMAS INVESTMENT: Velasco Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
SIGMA DESIGNS: Rowley Law Files Securities Class Action
SIGNATURE FOOTCARE: "Beckert" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
SOLARCITY CORP: Dismissal of "Webb" Securities Suit Affirmed

SOLE TRANSPORT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Azaryan Says
SOLID BIOSCIENCES: Faces "Watkins" Class Action Suit
SORTIS HOLDINGS: Faces "Meintzinger" Suit in E.D. New York
STEADFAST INCOME: Records $350,851 as Reimbursement
SURNAIK HOLDINGS: "Snodgrass" Suit Moved to S.D. West Virginia

SYNACOR INC: Faces Class Action, June 4 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
TIGER BRANDS: Faces Enormous Challenges Over Listeriosis Outbreak
TIGER NATURAL: Court Narrows Claims in "Fishman" TCPA Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Fails to Pay All Overtime Wages, Gonzalez Says
TRANS WORLD: Ct. Won't Review Denial of "Roper" Bid to Intervene

TRUE VALUE: Faces "Reese" Suit over Buyout Deal in Del. Chancery
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Certifies "Congdon" Class Action
UBS FINANCIAL: Broker Files Class Action in California
ULTA BEAUTY: Wants "Ogurkiewicz" & "Smith-Brown" Suits Combined
US GEOTHERMAL: Assad Files Suit Over Sale to Ormat Nevada

WELLS FARGO: Court Dismisses "Lester" TCPA Claim
WELLS FARGO: Must Face Class Action Over Recorded Phone Calls
WESTERN EXPRESS: First Amended Complaint Filed in "Rivera" Suit
WILLIS GROUP: Alaska Laborers Trust Files Suit Over Willis Merger
ZAPPOS.COM INC: 9th Cir. Flips Dismissal of Identity Theft Claims

* Class Actions Filed in Israel Increase Exponentially
* Loot Box Controversy May Prompt Consumer Class Actions



                            *********


ACE INDUSTRIAL: Berning Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Berning and Galusha Farm, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. Ace
Industrial Supply, Inc. and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 18-
cv-01708, (N.D. Ill., March 8, 2018), is a class action suit
seeking damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal
or equitable remedies, for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Steven Berning operates Galusha Farm who purchased shop supplies
from Ace. Shortly after purchasing the supplies, Plaintiffs
received approximately eight automated telemarketing calls from
Ace during a time frame of less than one month. Plaintiffs share
a common number that it registered with the National Do-Not-Call
Registry. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David B. Levin, Esq.
      Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
      111 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Phone: (312) 212-4355
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com


ACUITY BRANDS: Bid to Consolidate Class Suits Pending in Del.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Acuity Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 4, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended February 28, 2018, that a motion to
consolidate the cases filed in the District of Delaware has been
filed and is presently pending, unopposed.

On January 3, 2018, a shareholder filed a class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
against the Company and certain of its officers on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock
between June 29, 2016 and April 3, 2017. On February 20, 2018, a
different shareholder filed a second class action complaint in
the same venue against the same parties on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock between
October 15, 2015 and April 3, 2017.

A motion to consolidate the cases has been filed and is presently
pending, unopposed. The complaints allege that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by making false or
misleading statements and/or omitting to disclose material
adverse facts that (i) concealed known trends negatively
impacting sales of the Company's products and (ii) overstated the
Company's ability to achieve profitable sales growth. The
plaintiffs seek class certification, unspecified monetary
damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

The Company disputes the allegations in the complaints and
intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Estimating an
amount or range of possible losses resulting from litigation
proceedings is inherently difficult, particularly where the
matters involve indeterminate claims for monetary damages and are
in the stages of the proceedings where key factual and legal
issues have not been resolved. For these reasons, the Company is
currently unable to predict the ultimate timing or outcome of or
reasonably estimate the possible losses or a range of possible
losses resulting from the matters described. The Company is
insured, in excess of a self-retention, for Directors and
Officers liability.

Acuity Brands, Inc. is the parent company of Acuity Brands
Lighting, Inc. ("ABL") and other subsidiaries. The Company has
its principal office in Atlanta, Georgia. The Company is one of
the world's leading providers of lighting and building management
solutions and services for commercial, institutional, industrial,
infrastructure, and residential applications throughout North
America and select international markets.


AEGIS LIVING: Faces Class Action Over Staffing Concerns
-------------------------------------------------------
Lois Bowers, writing for McKnight's Senior Living, reports that a
lawsuit against Aegis Living accuses the Bellevue, WA-based
senior living community operator of putting its residents at risk
of injury by insufficiently staffing communities and not
informing residents that its assessment system is not used to
determine staffing.

"We are committed to defending this case every step of the way,"
Aegis Living said in a statement to McKnight's Senior Living.

Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling and three other law firms filed
the complaint March 18 in King County (WA) Superior Court and
hope to have it certified as a class action on behalf of all
older adults who live or lived in Aegis Living communities in
Washington over the past four years.  Such a class could include
thousands of people, the firms estimate.  Currently, there is one
plaintiff, John Shanahan, representing the estate of his mother,
Maxine.

"Selecting an assisted living facility is extremely stressful,
and people are not in a position to discover the risk of harm
they may face," attorney Kathryn Stebner of Stebner and
Associates, one of the firms representing plaintiffs, said in a
statement.  "The plaintiff brought this case wanting Aegis to
adequately disclose the facts about its resident assessments and
staffing practices so residents and families can make informed
decisions before entering Aegis' facilities."

Stebner and Associates also is one of three law firms
representing plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Brookdale Senior
Living.  In that complaint, seven current or former residents
maintain that the country's largest senior living community
operator did not accommodate their disabilities and that
understaffing led to their activities of daily living needs not
being met according to their residency agreements.

That lawsuit initially was filed in July and has been amended
twice to add plaintiffs.  The Brookdale-related complaint could
become the first class-action lawsuit against an assisted living
operator to be brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
the law firms believe.

Stebner and Associates also is suing Oakmont Senior Living over
its handling of evacuation during October wildfires in California
and staffing levels in its communities there.

"It should be known that this meritless lawsuit was spearheaded
by California class action lawyers conspiring with one another to
replicate claims," Aegis Living said in its statement. "They've
filed six identical lawsuits against various elder care providers
in California and Washington. The false allegations made by these
attorneys are insulting to our company's culture, insulting to
our employees who work so hard for our residents, and we are
committed to defending this case every step of the way."

Aegis Living operates 14 assisted living or memory care
communities in Washington as well as 14 in California and one in
Nevada.  Three more communities are scheduled to open in
Washington within the next year.

The company, according to the lawsuit, does not disclose to
residents that its resident assessment system is not used to
determine staffing levels in its communities.  Instead, the
complaint contends, community staffing is based on pre-determined
budgets designed to increase the company's profit and, therefore,
staffing is insufficient to provide the care, services and
supervision that were deemed necessary based on resident
assessments and for which residents pay.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Aegis Living has
violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act and has
financially exploited vulnerable adults.  The plaintiff is
seeking damages and a court order requiring the company to
disclose how it makes staffing decisions and other remedial
measures.

"Aegis Living provides exceptional and loving care to the
residents we serve," the company told McKnight's Senior Living.
"One of the ways we accomplish this is by staffing our
communities to meet the needs of our residents and their families
-- including parents of our own employees.  In that regard, we
have consistently received awards for being the best family-owned
business, best retirement facility and corporate citizenship."

In 2016, Aegis Living became the first senior living operator
named to Glassdoor's list of the Top 50 Best Places to Work. [GN]


AIG DIRECT: Maslo et al Sue over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARY ANNE MASLO, SHELLY FRAZIER, JAMES GUFFEY, and NIVIA LANDON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. AIG DIRECT INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00741-CAB-AGS (S.D. Cal., April 16,
2018), seeks to stop Defendant's practice of making unsolicited
telemarketing calls to the telephone of consumers nationwide, and
to obtain redress for all persons injured by their conduct.

According to the complaint, the Defendant, in an effort to
solicit potential customers, recruited or employed call center
agents who began making telephone calls, en masse, to consumers
across the country beginning as early as 2012. The Defendant and
its agents purchase "leads" containing consumers' contact
information and create electronic databases from which Defendant
and or its agent makes automated calls.

The Defendant conducted wide scale telemarketing campaign and
repeatedly made unsolicited calls to consumers' telephones --
whose numbers appear on the National Do Not Call Registry --
without consent, all in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

AIG Direct Insurance Services provides life insurance agency
services in the United States. It offers term, return of premium
term, whole, universal, and permanent life, as well as estate
planning, disability, and accidental death insurance
products.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Michael R. Dufour, Esq.
          SOUTHWEST LEGAL GROUP
          22440 Clarendon Street, Suite 200
          Woodlands Hills CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 591 4300
          Facsimile: (818) 591 4315
          E-mail: mdfour@swlegalfgrp.com

               - and -

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


ALLERGAN INC: Louisiana Health Suit Transferred to E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Louisiana Health Service and Indemnity Company
(d/b/a Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana) and HMO Louisiana,
Inc. on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Allergan, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00186
(M.D. La., February 26, 2018) was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on March 8,
2018,under Case No. 18-cv-01430.

The action seeks damages, injunctive relief, and all other relief
available under the Sherman Anti-trust Act and Clayton Act
accusing Defendants of conspiring to fix, maintain, and/or
stabilize the prices of prescription cyclosporine emulsion.
Plaintiff indirectly purchased, paid, and/or provided
reimbursement for these products made by one or more Defendants
at supracompetitive prices.

Allergan is a diversified global pharmaceutical company into
global generics, dermatology and aesthetics, CNS, eye care,
urology, gastro-intestinal, cystic fibrosis, cardiovascular and
infectious diseases. It is based in Dublin, Ireland and has U.S.
Administrative Headquarters in Parsippany, New Jersey, USA.

Plaintiff is a health insurance corporation involved in the
business of providing health benefits, third party administrative
services and managing health care services for its insureds and
members. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Dugan, II, Esq.
      Douglas R. Plymale, Esq.
      David S. Scalia, Esq.
      Bonnie A. Kendrick, Esq.
      THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC
      365 Canal Street, Suite 1000
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Telephone: (504) 648-0180
      Facsimile: (504) 648-0181
      Email: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com
             dplymale@dugan-lawfirm.com
             dscalia@dugan-lawfirm.com
             bonnie@dugan-lawfirm.com

             - and -

      Charles A. O'Brien, Esq.
      HMO LOUISIANA, INC. (BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF LOUISIANA)
      5525 Reitz Ave.
      P.O. Box 98029
      Baton Rouge, LA 80809
      Telephone: (225) 295-24454
      Facsimile: (225) 297-2760


AMCO INSURANCE: Rochas Sue over Good Driver Discount
----------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO ROCHA, an individual; and ESTER ROCHA, an individual,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs. v. AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY, a California entity;
NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a California entity;
ALLIED PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a California
entity; VICTORIA FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, a California entity;
CRESTBROOK INSURANCE COMPANY, a California entity; DEPOSITORS
INSURANCE COMPANY, a California entity; NATIONWIDE MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, a California entity; and TITAN INDEMNITY
COMPANY, a California entity, the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-
00769 (C.D. Cal., April 16, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiffs
and the Class are all policyholders of Defendant insurers who are
or were statutorily defined Good Drivers in the State of
California during the Class Period. The Plaintiffs contend that
they and the Class were entitled to the legally required lowest
Good Driver rate for a PPA policy offered by the agents and
representatives of the Nationwide Corp. Group. The Defendants,
through their agents and representatives, have systematically and
uniformly failed to provide the lowest Good Driver premium rates
to Plaintiffs and the Class, rather overcharging Plaintiffs and
the Class and thereby engaging in and continuing to engage in
unlawful, unjust, bad faith, fraudulent and/or unfair business
practices.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated:

          Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
          Shant A. Karnikian, Esq.
          KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
          644 S. Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 217-5000
          E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com
                  sk@kbklawyers.com

               - and -

          John J. Reagan, Esq.
          Alberto R. Nestico, Esq.
          KISLING NESTICO & REDICK, LLC
          3412 W. Market Street
          Akron, OH 44333
          Telephone: (330) 729 1090
          E-mail: reagan@knrlegal.com
                  nestico@knrlegal.com


ARL CITY: Fails to Timely Pay All Earned Wages, Amaya Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
HILDA PARADA AMAYA, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ARL CITY CENTER MANAGEMENT L.P.;
LUXE WORLDWIDE HOTELS, LLC; LUXE CITY CENTER HOTEL; and DOES 1 to
100, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC702392 (Cal. Super.
Ct., April 17, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid premium wages and
interest due to Defendants' policy, practice, and/or procedure of
failure to authorize or permit required rest periods; pay rest
period premium wages for missed rest periods; statutory penalties
for failure to provide accurate wage statements; injunctive
relief and other equitable relief; reasonable attorney's fees
pursuant to the California Labor Code sections 226(e); costs; and
interest.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employed policies and
procedures which ensured Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees would not receive legally required rest periods.
Defendants did not authorize or permit and therefore failed to
provide any of the legally required rest periods of ten net
minutes. In the event that Defendants authorized or permitted
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to take rest periods,
they were not able to take rest periods that were duty free
because Defendants required Plaintiffs and those similarly
situated to perform functions for the benefit of Defendants
during that time. Defendants' requirement resulted in Plaintiffs
and similarly situated employees, on occasions they were able to
take rest periods, taking rest periods that were not duty-free.

The Defendants also employed policies and procedures which
ensured the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees did not
receive any premium wages to compensate them for workdays that
they did not receive all legally required rest periods. These
practices resulted in Plaintiff and all other similarly situated
employees not receiving wages to compensate them for workdays
which Defendants did not provide them with all rest periods
required by California law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432 0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432 0001


ARYAN NYC: Workers Seek Judicial Intervention in Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a request for judicial intervention on March 8,
2018, in the case captioned Apolonio Fragoso Vazquez, Juan Tzunox
Tum, Abelino Herrera Angeles, Gregorio Fragoso Vazquez,
Individually and on behalf of all other collective persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rashid Aryan, Ali Aryan,
Mohammad Rashid, Wall Street Construction LLC, Aryan NYC
Construction Inc., and ABC Corp. formerly known as R&S General
Contracting, Inc., Jointly and Severally, Defendants, Case No.
703610/2017 (N.Y. Sup., March 17, 2017).

Plaintiffs are hourly-paid construction workers who claim
overtime wages, applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York Labor Law for unpaid overtime hours in excess of
40 per week.

Defendants currently own and operate a company that provides
services including, but not limited to, general contracting for
construction projects. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sang J. Sim, Esq.
      PARK & SIM GLOBAL LAW GROUP, LLP
      39-01 Main Street, Suite 608
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: (718) 445-1300
      Fax: (718) 445-8616


ASSOCIATED BUILDING: "Urbino" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
CESAR URBINO, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ASSOCIATED BUILDING SERVICES, LLC,
and TROY STRAHAN, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04006-SM-JCW
(E.D. La., April 17, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed as a general construction laborer by
Defendants. While working for the Defendants, Plaintiff was not
paid one-and-a-half times his regular hourly rate for all hours
worked in excess of forty hours a workweek, in violation of the
FLSA. The Defendants paid Plaintiff $14.00 per hour. For every
hour that he worked in excess of 40 in any particular week he was
still only paid $14.00 per hour.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 534 5005
          E-mail: rlc@beaumontcostales.com
                  whb@beaumontcostales.com
                  eaw@beaumontcostales.com


ATLAS FINANCIAL: "Fryman" Class Suit Filed in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Financial Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 3,
2018, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the
company faces a putative class action suit entitled, Fryman v.
Atlas Financial Holdings, Inc., et al.

On March 5, 2018, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois asserting claims
under the federal securities laws against the Company and two of
its executive officers on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of the Company's securities, styled Fryman v. Atlas
Financial Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-01640 (N.D. Ill.).

In the complaint, the plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of a
putative class consisting of purchasers of the Company's
securities between March 13, 2017 and March 2, 2018. The
complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and misleading
statements or failing to disclose certain information regarding
the adequacy of the Company's reserves.

The complaint seeks, among other remedies, unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees and other costs, equitable and/or injunctive
relief, and such other relief as the court may find just and
proper. Under applicable provisions of the federal securities
laws, motions for appointment as lead plaintiffs must be filed
within sixty days after a notice announcing the filing of the
Fryman complaint.

The Company and the other defendants anticipate that they will
file a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. Under the federal
securities laws, discovery and other proceedings automatically
will be stayed during the pendency of any such motion to dismiss.

Atlas Financial Holdings, Inc. is a financial services holding
company whose subsidiaries specialize in the underwriting of
commercial automobile insurance policies, focusing on the "light"
commercial automobile sector. This sector includes taxi cabs,
non-emergency para-transit, limousine, livery and business auto.
The company is based in Schaumburg, Illinois.


BEHRMAN BROTHERS: "Garner" Suit Transferred to N.D. Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled WINIFRED MARIE GARNER and SOPHIA
THEUS, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BEHRMAN BROTHERS IV, LLC
and BEHRMAN BROTHERS MANAGEMENT CORP., the Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-06968, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama (Southern) on April 16, 2018.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-00603-AKK to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Abdul K.
Kallon.

The case is a class action for the recovery, by Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated employees of the Defendants, of damages
in the amount of 60 days' pay and benefits under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by reason of Defendants'
violation of the Plaintiffs' rights under the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class:

          Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
          LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
          132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 581 5005
          Facsimile: (212) 581 2122
          E-mail: sjm@lankmill.com

               - and -

          Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
          M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
          THE GARDNER FIRM, P.C.
          210 S. Washington Avenue
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 433 8100
          Facsimile: (251) 433 8181
          E-mail: molsen@thegardnerfirm.com

Attorneys for Behrman Brothers IV L.L.C. and Behrman Brothers
Management Corp.:

          Andrew Glenn Devore, Esq.
          Douglas Brayley, Esq.
          Jeffrey F Webb, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY LLP
          800 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 01845
          Telephone: (617) 951 7000


BENJAMIN MOORE: "Keats" Suit Moved to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Adam Keats, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Benjamin
Moore & Co., the Defendant, Case No. RG18893683, was removed from
the Alameda County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California (Oakland) on April 4, 2018.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-02050-YGR to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Yvonne
Gonzalez Rogers.

Benjamin Moore & Co., also known as Benjamin Moore Paints or
simply Benjamin Moore, is an American company that produces
paint. It is owned by Berkshire Hathaway. Founded in 1883,
Benjamin Moore is based in Montvale, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric Somers, Esq.
          Ryan Berghoff, Esq.
          LEXINGTON LAW GROUP
          503 Divisadero Street
          San Francisco, CA 94117
          Telephone: (415) 913 7800
          Facsimile: (415) 759 4112
          E-mail: esomers@lexlawgroup.com
                  rberghoff@lexlawgroup.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Robert James Herrington, Esq.
          Leanna Christine Costantini, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 586 7700
          Facsimile: (310) 586 7800
          E-mail: herringtonr@gtlaw.com
                  costantinil@gtlaw.com


BIG BOY RESTAURANTS: Welch Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY WELCH, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BIG BOY RESTAURANTS INTERNATIONAL,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-11222-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich.,
April 17, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and all
other relief to which they are entitled under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to pay them overtime
wages owed in violation of the federal FLSA. The Defendant
improperly classifies employees who work for Defendant as general
managers in Defendant's restaurants as exempt employees under the
FLSA and does not pay them overtime compensation for hours over
forty in a workweek even though general managers regularly work
more than forty hours per workweek.[BN]

Big Boy Restaurants International, LLC is an American restaurant
chain headquartered in Warren, Michigan, in Metro Detroit.
Frisch's Big Boy Restaurants is a restaurant chain with its
headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BIG LOTS: Briefing on Appeal on "Willis" Class Suit Completed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 3, 2018, for the
fiscal year ended February 3, 2018, that the briefing on the
appeal in case captioned as, Willis, et al. v. Big Lots, Inc., et
al., was completed.

On July 9, 2012, a putative securities class action lawsuit
captioned Willis, et al. v. Big Lots, Inc., et al., 2:12-cv-00604
(S.D. Ohio) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio on behalf of persons who acquired our common
shares between February 2, 2012 and April 23, 2012. This lawsuit
was filed against the company, Lisa Bachmann, Mr. Cooper, Mr.
Fishman and Mr. Haubiel.

The complaint in the putative class action generally alleges that
the defendants made statements concerning the company's financial
performance that were false or misleading. The complaint asserts
claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and seeks damages in an unspecified
amount, plus attorneys' fees and expenses.

The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 4, 2013,
which added Mr. Johnson as a defendant, removed Ms. Bachmann as a
defendant, and extended the putative class period to August 23,
2012. On May 6, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the putative class action complaint. On January 21, 2016, the
Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion
to dismiss, allowing some claims to move forward.

On May 27, 2016, the lead plaintiff moved for class certification
(requesting a class period from March 2, 2012 through August 23,
2012) and to appoint class representatives and class counsel.
Defendants opposed the motion.

On March 17, 2017, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion,
certifying the class and appointing class representatives and
class counsel.

On March 31, 2017, defendants filed a petition pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) for appeal of the Court's
ruling with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Defendant's petition was granted on August 23, 2017, and briefing
on the appeal was completed January 12, 2018.

Big Lots said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended October 28, 2017, that Defendant's petition was granted on
August 23, 2017, and briefing on the appeal proceeded.  On August
28, 2017, defendants filed a motion in the District Court to stay
all further proceedings pending the resolution of defendants'
appeal of class certification. On September 19, 2017, the
District Court granted defendants' motion and stayed all
proceedings, except for the exchange of expert reports, pending
the resolution of defendants' appeal. Fact discovery in the
District Court was substantially completed on May 26, 2017.

Big Lots Stores, Inc. operates retail stores that sell foods,
home furnishings, furniture, merchandise, and other household
items in the United States. It offers consumables, seasonal
items, furniture, house wares, toys, electronics, home decor,
tools, and gifts. The company is based in Columbus, Ohio.


BOSSIER CITY, LA: Court Won't Certify Deaf Sex Offender's Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana, Shreveport Division, denied Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification in the case captioned WILLIAM EDWARD HAAB, v.
CITY OF BOSSIER CITY, Civil Action No. 16-cv-1663.(W.D. La.).

William Edward Haab is a deaf resident of Bossier City who
primarily communicates using American Sign Language (ASL).  His
status as a sex offender requires that he register with law
enforcement agencies including the Bossier City Police
Department.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Department violates
the Americans with Disabilities Act because it does not provide
adequate access to an ASL interpreter.

The Plaintiff proposes the certification of a class defined as:

     All deaf or hard of hearing persons who communicate in
American Sign Language and have interacted with, or have cause to
interact with, the Bossier City Police Department in a non-
emergency setting.

Numerosity

Rule 23(a)(1) provides that a member of a class may sue as a
representative party on behalf of all members only if the class
is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The
mere number of members in a proposed class is not determinative
of whether joinder is impracticable. Courts must obviously look
to the numbers, but they should also consider the geographical
dispersion of the class, the ease with which members may be
identified, the nature of the action, the size of each claim, and
the judicial economy arising from avoiding multiple actions.

The number of known persons with potentially similar claims is
small, but the Plaintiff testified that there could be additional
deaf citizens in the future who would reside in Bossier City or
otherwise encounter the Bossier City Police. Some courts have
relaxed the numerosity requirement where the putative class seeks
injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and
future claimants were possible. That does not mean, however, that
any claim for injunctive relief merits class action status
without a suitable showing that members of the potential class
are so numerous that their joinder is impracticable.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff has not met his burden of
showing that there are sufficient number of persons, current or
future, who are members of the class he proposes.  The Plaintiff
offers speculation based on statistics, but there is no actual
evidence to suggest that those statistics result in real
claimants in this situation that warrant an expensive and
resource-demanding class action proceeding. If there are three,
or eight, or ten such persons in Bossier, the court can
accommodate their claims by joining them in this suit or
entertaining their individual suits.
There is no meaningful showing that there are enough interested
claimants to allow the Plaintiff to litigate their claims on
their behalf rather than allowing them to pursue their own
claims.

Furthermore, a win by the Plaintiff in an ordinary civil action
will likely result in an injunction that will, for practical
purposes, equally benefit the other members of the community
whether they are parties, non-parties, or members of a class.

Accordingly, the Motion for Class Certification is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 8, 2018 Memorandum
Ruling is available at https://tinyurl.com/y93pp82f from
Leagle.com.

William Edward Haab, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew David
Bizer, Bizer Law Firm, Garret Scott DeReus, Bizer Law Firm & Marc
P. Florman, Bizer Law Firm, 3319 Saint Claude Ave, New Orleans,
LA, 70117-6142

City of Bossier City, Defendant, represented by Michael D. Lowe -
- michael.lowe@keanmiller.com -- Kean Miller.


BP PLC: 27,592 Claims Approved in Medical Benefits Class Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
BP p.l.c. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that as of 26 January 2018, 27,592 claims
(comprising 22,796 SPC and 4,796 PMPC only) have been approved
for compensation totalling approximately $67 million

The Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement (Medical Settlement)
involves payments to qualifying class members based on a matrix
for certain Specified Physical Conditions (SPCs), as well as a
21-year Periodic Medical Consultation Program (PMCP) for
qualifying class members, and also includes provisions regarding
class members pursuing claims for later-manifested physical
conditions (LMPCs).

The deadline for submitting SPC and PMCP claims was 12 February
2015. The Medical Claims Administrator has reported the total
number of claims submitted is 37,225. As of 26 January 2018,
27,592 claims (comprising 22,796 SPC and 4,796 PMPC only) have
been approved for compensation totalling approximately $67
million; 9,546 claims have been denied; and 87 claims are pending
determination. In addition, there are 16 pending lawsuits brought
by class members claiming LMPCs.

BP p.l.c. engages in energy business worldwide. It operates
through three segments: Upstream, Downstream, and Rosneft. The
Upstream segment is involved in the oil and natural gas
exploration, field development, and production; midstream
transportation, storage, and processing; and marketing and
trading of liquefied natural gas (LNG), biogas, power and natural
gas liquids (NGLs).


BP PLC: Settlement Payments Made in ADS Purchasers-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
BP p.l.c. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that all settlement payments were made in 2017
in the post-explosion ADS purchasers-related class suit.

Following various legal proceedings, a class of post-explosion
ADS purchasers from 26 April 2010 to 28 May 2010 was certified,
and in June 2016, BP agreed with plaintiffs' representatives to
settle the class claims for $175 million, subject to approval by
the court.

The parties filed the settlement agreement and other papers in
support of approval with the court on 15 September 2016 and a
class notice was issued on 14 November 2016. On 13 February 2017
the court granted final approval of the class settlement, and all
settlement payments were made in 2017.

BP p.l.c. engages in energy business worldwide. It operates
through three segments: Upstream, Downstream, and Rosneft. The
Upstream segment is involved in the oil and natural gas
exploration, field development, and production; midstream
transportation, storage, and processing; and marketing and
trading of liquefied natural gas (LNG), biogas, power and natural
gas liquids (NGLs).


BP PLC: Says 2012 Canadian Class Action to be Pursued Again
-----------------------------------------------------------
BP p.l.c. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the plaintiffs in a purported class
action that was filed in 2012 in Alberta, Canada, and not
pursued, filed an application seeking advice and directions
regarding continuing their action.

Following various legal proceedings, on 26 February 2016, a
plaintiff seeking to assert claims under Canadian law against BP
on behalf of a class of Canadian residents who allegedly suffered
losses because of their purchase of BP ordinary shares and ADSs
filed a motion in the Court of Appeal for Ontario to lift a stay
on the action. The plaintiff's motion was granted on 29 July
2016.

On 23 June 2017, BP moved for summary judgment and on 1 September
2017 the court granted in part and denied in part that motion,
limiting the case to three alleged misstatements and narrowing
the class period. On 29 September 2017, plaintiff filed a notice
of appeal of that decision.

On 15 December 2017, plaintiffs in a purported class action that
was filed in 2012 in Alberta, Canada, and not pursued, filed an
application seeking advice and directions regarding continuing
their action; a conference on that application has not yet been
scheduled.

BP p.l.c. engages in energy business worldwide. It operates
through three segments: Upstream, Downstream, and Rosneft. The
Upstream segment is involved in the oil and natural gas
exploration, field development, and production; midstream
transportation, storage, and processing; and marketing and
trading of liquefied natural gas (LNG), biogas, power and natural
gas liquids (NGLs).


BP PLC: Faces Fishermen Class Action Suit in Mexico
---------------------------------------------------
BP p.l.c. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that BP has not been formally served with the
class certification decision, which is required before the action
can go forward.

On 18 October 2012, before a Mexican Federal District Court
located in Mexico City, a class action complaint was filed
against BPXP, BPAPC and other BP subsidiaries. BPXP has since
been dismissed. The plaintiffs, who allegedly are fishermen, are
seeking, among other things, compensatory damages for the class
members who allegedly suffered economic losses, as well as an
order requiring BP to remediate environmental damage resulting
from the Incident, to provide funding for the preservation of the
environment and to conduct environmental impact studies in the
Gulf of Mexico for the next 10 years.

BP has not been formally served with the action. However, after
learning that the Mexican Federal District Court issued a
resolution certifying the class on 2 December 2015, BP filed a
constitutional challenge (amparo) in Mexico on 13 April 2016
asserting that BP has never been formally served with process in
the class action. This amparo was denied on 22 November 2016 and
the appeal was also denied on 17 August 2017. BP has not been
formally served with the class certification decision, which is
required before the action can go forward.

BP p.l.c. engages in energy business worldwide. It operates
through three segments: Upstream, Downstream, and Rosneft. The
Upstream segment is involved in the oil and natural gas
exploration, field development, and production; midstream
transportation, storage, and processing; and marketing and
trading of liquefied natural gas (LNG), biogas, power and natural
gas liquids (NGLs).


BP PLC: BPXP Seeks Dismissal of Acciones Suit
---------------------------------------------
BP p.l.c. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that BPXP opposed class certification and
sought dismissal, principally on the basis that that no oil
reached Mexican waters or land and there was no economic or
environmental harm in Mexico.

On 3 December 2015 and 29 March 2016, Acciones Colectivas de
Sinaloa (ACS) filed two class actions (which have since been
consolidated) in a Mexican Federal District Court on behalf of
several Mexican states against BPXP, BPAPC, and other purported
BP subsidiaries. In these class actions, plaintiffs seek an order
requiring the BP defendants to repair the damage to the Gulf of
Mexico, to pay penalties, and to compensate plaintiffs for damage
to property, to health and for economic loss.

A Mexican BP entity was served with the complaint on 23 January
2018 and opposed class certification and sought dismissal on 30
January 2018 on the basis that the entity did not exist at the
time of the spill. BPXP was formally served with the action on 8
December 2017. BPXP opposed class certification and sought
dismissal on 1 February 2018, principally on the basis that that
no oil reached Mexican waters or land and there was no economic
or environmental harm in Mexico.

BP p.l.c. engages in energy business worldwide. It operates
through three segments: Upstream, Downstream, and Rosneft. The
Upstream segment is involved in the oil and natural gas
exploration, field development, and production; midstream
transportation, storage, and processing; and marketing and
trading of liquefied natural gas (LNG), biogas, power and natural
gas liquids (NGLs).


CABOT EAST: CBRE, et al., File Appeal in Eleventh Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------
CBRE INC. and GLORIA HERNANDEZ, the Petitioners, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CABOT EAST BROWARD
2 LLC AND CABOT EAST BROWARD 34 LLC, the Respondents, Case No.
16-55228 (11th Cir, April 4, 2018), is an appeal filed before the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from a
lower court decision in the lawsuit, Case No. 0:16-cv-61218-WPD
(S.D. Fla., June 7, 2016).

A petition for permission to appeal pursuant to Rule 23(f) has
been filed by the Petitioners.

Attorneys for the Petitioners, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated:

          Matthew W. Buttrick, Esq.
          Mary Barzee Flores, Esq.
          Jason P. Hernandez, Esq.
          Joseph J. Onorati, Esq.
          Eugene E. Stearns, Esq.
          Ryan T. Thornton, Esq.
          STEARNS WEAVER MILLER
          WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, PA
          150 W Flagler St Ste 2200
          Miami, FL 33130

               - and -

          Joseph H. Lang, Jr., Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, PA
          4221 W BOY SCOUT BLVD STE 1000
          Po Box 3239
          Tampa, FL 33607
          Telephone: (813) 223 7000

Attorneys for CABOT EAST BROWARD 2 LLC AND CABOT EAST BROWARD 34
LLC:

          Ishmael A. Green, Esq.
          James Michael Miller, Esq.
          Akerman, LLP
          3 Brickell City Ctr
          98 Se 7th St Ste 1100
          Miami, FL 33131
          Business: (305) 982 5600
          Personal: (305) 374 5600


CARRIAGE FUNERAL: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco labor law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP filed a class action lawsuit against
Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc., alleging that the company failed
to provide mandatory meal and rest breaks to its California
employees.  The Carriage Funeral Holdings lawsuit, Case No. C18-
00606, is currently pending in the Contra Costa County Superior
Court for the State of California.

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

The class action complaint also alleges DEFENDANT as a matter of
corporate policy, practice and procedure, intentionally,
knowingly and systematically failed to reimburse and indemnify
the PLAINTIFFS and the other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for
required business expenses incurred by the PLAINTIFFS and other
CALIFORNIA CLASS Members in direct consequence of discharging
their duties on behalf of DEFENDANT.  Under California Labor Code
Section 2802, employers are required to indemnify employees for
all expenses incurred in the course and scope of their
employment.

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

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


CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: "Phan" Suit Moved to Rhode Island Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Amy Phan, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Carrington
Mortgage Services, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. PC-17-05636, was
removed from the Providence/Bristol County Superior Court, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island (Providence)
on April 17, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:18-cv-00208-JJM-LDA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. District Judge John J. McConnell, Jr.

Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC provides mortgage loan
servicing support services to borrowers and investors in the
United States. It also offers home loans through its retail and
wholesale channels. The company was founded in 2007 and is based
in Santa Ana, California. It has branches in Warrenton,
Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd S. Dion, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TODD S. DION ESQ.
          628 Park Avenue, Suite 2C
          Cranston, RI 02910
          Telephone: (401) 965 4131
          E-mail: toddsdion@msn.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          William M. Gantz, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          101 Federal Street, Suite 2750
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 235 6816
          Facsimile: (617) 235 6899
          E-mail: bill.gantz@dentons.com


CBOE GLOBAL: Pels Alleges Commodity Exchange Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN PELS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CBOE GLOBAL MARKETS, INC., CBOE
EXCHANGE, INC., CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02757 (N.D. Ill., April 17,
2018), seeks to recover damages as a direct and foreseeable
result of Defendants' aiding and abetting manipulation of prices
of contracts.

The CBOE Defendants created the Volatility Index ("VIX") to
measure the volatility of the S&P 500 Index. Billions of dollars
of derivatives are now tied to the value of VIX, allowing
investors to trade "volatility." There is abundant evidence that
the John Doe Defendants have colluded to manipulate VIX and, in
doing so, have reaped hundreds of millions (if not billions) of
ill-gotten profits due to their holdings of derivatives linked to
VIX. Among other things, the settlement value of VIX frequently
substantially deviates (by as much as 10%) from the value of VIX
that is calculated just seconds later. Manipulation is the only
rational explanation for these instantaneous jumps in the value
of VIX right at the moment of settlement. As a result of this
manipulation, investors have suffered losses in the billions.

The John Doe Defendants' collusion to manipulate VIX is a per se
illegal price fixing conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, see 15 U.S.C. sections 1, 15, and is a violation of
the prohibitions on manipulation in the Commodity Exchange Act,
see 7 U.S.C. sections 6b, 6c, 9, 13(a)(2), 25(a). The precise
identity of the John Doe Defendants it not currently known but
can be readily determined through trading records that the CBOE
Defendants have a statutory duty to maintain. See 7 U.S.C.
section 7(d)(10).

The CBOE Defendants are also culpable for the manipulation. They
have long known - or should have known - that VIX was capable of
manipulation and that it was being manipulated. However, the CBOE
Defendants turned a blind-eye because VIX is the CBOE Defendants'
premier product. The CBOE Defendants earn hundreds of millions of
revenue every year by taking a small fee for every VIX
transaction. Had the CBOE Defendants cracked down on manipulation
-- as they should have -- they would have spooked investors and
harmed their bottom line. Instead, the CBOE Defendants put the
reputation of VIX -- and the profits they earn from VIX -- ahead
of protecting investors.

By failing to prevent VIX manipulation, the CBOE Defendants have
violated their obligations under the Commodity Exchange Act to,
among other things, "prohibit[] abusive trade practices,"
"prevent manipulation," and not allow trading in instruments
"readily susceptible to manipulation."

CBOE Global Markets is an American company that owns the Chicago
Board Options Exchange and the stock exchange operator BATS
Global Markets.[BN]

Counsel for John Pels:

          Richard J. Prendergast, Esq.
          Michael T. Layden, Esq.
          Collin M. Bruck, Esq.
          RICHARD J. PRENDERGAST, LTD.
          111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 641 0881
          E-mail: rprendergast@rjpltd.com
                  mlayden@rjpltd.com
                  cbruck@rjpltd.com

               - and -

          David C. Frederick, Esq.
          Daniel V. Dorris, Esq.
          David K. Suska, Esq.
          1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 100
          KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD,
          FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C.
          400 Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 326 7900
          E-mail: dfrederick@kellogghansen.com
                  ddorris@kellogghansen.com
                  dsuska@kellogghansen.com


CENTURYLINK INC: Seeks to Enforce Arbitration of Customer Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Brodkin, writing for Ars Technica, reports that CenturyLink
is trying to force customers into arbitration in order to avoid a
class-action lawsuit from subscribers who say they've been
charged for services they didn't order.  To do so, CenturyLink
has come up with a surprising argument -- the company says it
doesn't have any customers.

While the customers sued CenturyLink itself, the company says the
customers weren't actually customers of CenturyLink.  Instead,
CenturyLink says they were customers of 10 subsidiaries spread
through the country.

CenturyLink basically doesn't exist as a service provider --
according to a brief CenturyLink filed on April 2.

"That sole defendant, CenturyLink, Inc., is a parent holding
company that has no customers, provides no services, and engaged
in none of the acts or transactions about which Plaintiffs
complain," CenturyLink wrote.  "There is no valid basis for
Defendant to be a party in this Proceeding: Plaintiffs contracted
with the Operating Companies to purchase, use, and pay for the
services at issue, not with CenturyLink, Inc."

CenturyLink says those operating companies should be able to
intervene in the case and "enforce class-action waivers," which
would force the customers to pursue their claims via arbitration
instead of in a class-action lawsuit.  By suing CenturyLink
instead of the subsidiaries, "it may be that Plaintiffs are
hoping to avoid the arbitration and class-action waiver
provisions," CenturyLink wrote.

Like other traditional phone companies, such as AT&T, CenturyLink
does business through numerous local entities.  In this case, the
CenturyLink subsidiaries are Qwest Corporation; Embarq Florida,
Inc.; Embarq Missouri, Inc.; Carolina Telephone and Telegraph
Company LLC; Central Telephone Company; CenturyTel of Idaho,
Inc.; CenturyTel of Larsen-Readfield, LLC; CenturyTel of
Washington, Inc.; CenturyTel Broadband Services, LLC; and Qwest
Broadband Services, Inc.

Internet, phone, and TV customers deal with CenturyLink, though
the old URLs for Qwest and Embarq simply redirect to
CenturyLink.com, for example.

"Shell entities" are "a fiction"
CenturyLink also filed a motion to halt discovery in the case
until after the arbitration question is decided by the court.
CenturyLink wants to "stop the case and let us bring in these
entities no one's ever heard of," plaintiffs' attorney
Benjamin Meiselas told Ars.  Mr. Meiselas said it is "a fiction"
that CenturyLink is merely a collection of subsidiaries "that
consumers don't even know exist."

"We reject these heavy-handed, anti-consumer tactics and the
absurdity of these shell entities that CenturyLink claims to
operate under," Mr. Meiselas said.

Customers from 14 US states are involved in the putative class
action against CenturyLink in US District Court in Minnesota.
Nine lawsuits filed last year were consolidated into one, and the
consolidated complaint says:

[C]ustomers have routinely reported: (1) being promised one rate
during the sales process but being charged a higher rate when
actually billed; and (2) being charged unauthorized fees,
including billing for services not ordered, for fake or duplicate
accounts, for services ordered but never delivered, for services
that were canceled, for equipment that was properly returned, and
for early termination fees.

When customers complained -- and many thousands have --
CenturyLink not only encouraged but rewarded its agents to deny
remedying the wrongful charges and keep as much of the
overcharges in the Company as possible.

The customers suing CenturyLink are from Arizona, Colorado,
Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico,
North Carolina, Oregon, Utah, Washington State, and Wisconsin.

Mandatory arbitration
The plaintiffs haven't filed a response yet, but they will argue
that CenturyLink is the proper defendant and that the company is
trying to enforce arbitration clauses that customers never agreed
to or that didn't exist until after the lawsuit began.

CenturyLink has recently been including arbitration clauses in
monthly bills, Mr. Meiselas told Ars.

"The arbitration clauses they're trying to enforce post-date the
litigation," he said.  CenturyLink frequently offered service to
customers without contracts, often via door-to-door salespeople
who signed up elderly customers, he said.  If the customers
didn't have a contract, they couldn't have agreed to an
arbitration clause, he said.

The case also includes allegations that CenturyLink created fake
accounts in order to overcharge customers.  Since customers never
signed contracts for those fake accounts, they couldn't have
agreed to arbitration in those instances, Mr. Meiselas said. "It
logically follows that you didn't sign a contract for something
you didn't contract for in the first place," he said.

CenturyLink says that the arbitration clauses are not new. "The
operating companies have a longstanding policy of requiring
customers to agree to arbitration and class-action waivers,"
CenturyLink said in another brief.

CenturyLink says that 37 of the 38 named plaintiffs "agreed to
broad, all-compassing arbitration, and class-action waiver
clauses in their service contracts with the Operating Companies"
and that the 38th agreed to a class-action waiver.

CenturyLink said that its subsidiaries will provide evidence that
the plaintiffs agreed to arbitration in a future motion to compel
arbitration. So far, the operating companies have filed a "motion
to intervene for the limited purposes of moving to compel
arbitration." If that motion is granted, the companies intend to
follow it up with the motion to compel arbitration.

Mr. Meiselas said there are "millions of victims" in the
potential class, including the named plaintiffs who "never signed
arbitration clauses and certainly never agreed to any contracts
on fake and fraudulent accounts.  Also, CenturyLink's recent
attempts at sticking in arbitration clauses that post-date the
lawsuit to deprive victims of their day in court are also
unenforceable and a disgrace to consumers."

CenturyLink has faced multiple lawsuits over its billing
practices.  One such lawsuit was filed by Minnesota Attorney
General Lori Swanson, who obtained a court order in October 2017
that forced the company to better disclose its prices and fees at
the time of sale.

Mandatory arbitration clauses are controversial; some Democratic
lawmakers and consumer advocates say the clauses deprive
customers of their rights to seek justice in courts.  AT&T has
aggressively pushed customers into arbitration clauses, but it
lost a recent ruling on the issue.  In a case involving AT&T's
throttling of unlimited mobile data plans, a US District Court
judge in California ruled that AT&T could not force customers
into arbitration because California law makes certain forced
arbitration clauses unenforceable. [GN]


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Oral Arguments Held in Naylor Farms' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that oral arguments were held on March
20, 2018 in the case captioned as, Naylor Farms, Inc.,
individually and as class representative on behalf of all
similarly situated persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C.

On June 7, 2011, an alleged class action was filed against the
company in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma ("Naylor Trial Court") alleging that the
company improperly deducted post-production costs from royalties
paid to plaintiffs and other royalty interest owners as
categorized in the petition from crude oil and natural gas wells
located in Oklahoma.

Plaintiffs indicated they seek damages in excess of $5.0 million,
the majority of which would be comprised of interest and may
increase with the passage of time. The purported class includes
non-governmental royalty interest owners in oil and natural gas
wells we operate in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs have alleged a
number of claims, including breach of contract, fraud, breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek
termination of leases, recovery of compensatory damages,
interest, punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of the
alleged class.

The company responded to the Naylor Farms petition, denied the
allegations and raised arguments and defenses. Plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification in October 2015. In addition, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court
to determine as a matter of law that natural gas is not
marketable until it is in the condition and location to enter an
interstate pipeline. On May 20, 2016, the company filed a Notice
of Suggestion of Bankruptcy with the Naylor Trial Court.

On January 17, 2017, the Naylor Trial Court certified a modified
class of plaintiffs with oil and gas leases containing specific
language. The modified class constitutes less than 60% of the
leases the plaintiffs originally sought to certify. After
additional briefing on the subject, on April 18, 2017, the Naylor
Trial Court issued an order certifying the class to include only
claims relating back to June 1, 2006.

Chaparral Energy said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that on May 1, 2017, the company
filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal Class Certification
Order with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Tenth
Circuit"), which was granted. The company filed its appellate
brief on September 14, 2017, to which the plaintiffs must respond
by November 16, 2017.

In its Form 10-K Report, the Company said the appeal has been
fully briefed, and oral arguments were held on March 20, 2018.

                           *     *     *

Chaparral Energy said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that the case, Amanda Dodson,
individually and as class representative on behalf of all
similarly situated persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C., was
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on July 19, 2017.

On May 10, 2013, Amanda Dodson filed a complaint against us in
the District Court of Mayes County, Oklahoma, ("Dodson Case")
with an allegation similar to those asserted in the Naylor Farms
case related to post-production deductions, and includes claims
for breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment, and other claims and seek termination of leases,
recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and
attorney fees on behalf of the alleged class.

The alleged class included non-governmental royalty interest
owners in oil and natural gas wells the company operates in
Oklahoma. The company responded to the Dodson petition, denied
the allegations and raised a number of affirmative defenses. The
case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on July 19,
2017.

Chaparral Energy, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Oklahoma City which has been engaged in the onshore oil and
natural gas acquisition, exploitation, exploration and production
business in the United States since 1988.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Appeal in "Donelson-Friend" Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that the court has not ruled on the
appeal made by the plaintiffs in the case, Martha Donelson and
John Friend, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C.

On August 11, 2014, an alleged class action was filed against the
company, as well as several other operators in Osage County, in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma, alleging claims on behalf of the named plaintiffs and
all similarly situated Osage County land owners and surface
lessees. The plaintiffs challenged leases and drilling permits
approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs without the
environmental studies allegedly required under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The plaintiffs assert claims seeking recovery for trespass,
nuisance, negligence and unjust enrichment. Relief sought
includes declaring oil and natural gas leases and drilling
permits obtained in Osage County without a prior NEPA study void
ab initio, removing us from all properties owned by the class
members, disgorgement of profits, and compensatory and punitive
damages.

On March 31, 2016, the Court dismissed the case against all
defendants as an improper challenge under NEPA and the
Administrative Procedures Act. On April 29, 2016, the plaintiffs
filed motions to alter or amend the court's opinion and vacate
the judgment, and to file an amended complaint to cure the
deficiencies which the court found in the dismissed complaint.

On May 20, 2016, the Company filed a Notice of Suggestion of
Bankruptcy, and as a result has not responded to the plaintiffs'
motions.

Chaparral Energy said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that after plaintiff's motion
for reconsideration was denied, plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Appeal on December 6, 2016. The Court has not ruled on the
appeal, and scheduled oral arguments for November 14, 2017.

In its Form 10-K Report, the Company said oral argument regarding
the appeal was held on November 14, 2017.  The Court has not
ruled on the appeal.

Chaparral Energy said "We anticipate any monetary liability
related to this claim will be discharged. We dispute plaintiffs'
allegations and dispute that the case meets the requirements for
a class action."

Chaparral Energy, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Oklahoma City which has been engaged in the onshore oil and
natural gas acquisition, exploitation, exploration and production
business in the United States since 1988.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Objection to Class Treatment in "West" Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that the court in the case, Lisa West
and Stormy Hopson, individually and as class representatives on
behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Chaparral Energy,
L.L.C., granted the company's objection to class treatment of a
proof of claim.

On February 18, 2016, an alleged class action was filed against
the company, as well as several other operators in the District
Court of Pottawatomie County, State of Oklahoma, alleging claims
on behalf of named plaintiffs and all similarly situated persons
having an insurable real property interest in eight counties in
central Oklahoma (the "Class Area"). The plaintiffs allege the
oil and gas operations conducted by the company and the other
defendants have induced earthquakes in the Class Area.

The plaintiffs did not seek damages for property damage, instead
asked the court to require the defendants to reimburse plaintiffs
and class members for earthquake insurance premiums from 2011
through the time at which the court determines there is no longer
a risk of induced earthquakes, as well as attorney fees and costs
and other relief.

The company responded to the petition, denied the allegations and
raised a number of affirmative defenses. On March 18, 2016, the
case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma under the Class Action Fairness Act.
On May 20, 2016, the company filed a Notice of Suggestion of
Bankruptcy, informing the court that the company had filed
voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the United
States Bankruptcy Code. On October 14, 2016, the plaintiffs filed
an Amended Complaint adding additional defendants and increasing
the Class Area to 25 Central Oklahoma counties.

Chaparral Energy said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the action which was granted on May 12, 2017.
On July 18, 2017, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint
adding additional named plaintiffs as putative class
representatives and adding three additional counties to the
putative class area.  In the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiffs
seek damages for nuisance, negligence, abnormally dangerous
activities, and trespass. Due to Chaparral's bankruptcy,
plaintiffs specifically limit alleged damages related to
Chaparral's disposal activities occurring after our emergence
from bankruptcy on March 21, 2017.  The company moved to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint on September 15, 2017.

In its Form 10-K Report, the Company said Plaintiffs' attorneys
filed a proof of claim on behalf of the putative class claiming
in excess of $75.0 million in our Chapter 11 Cases. The company
filed an objection to class treatment of the proof of claim filed
by the West plaintiffs in our Bankruptcy proceeding. The
Bankruptcy Court had a hearing on the company's objection and on
February 9, 2018, the Court granted the company's objection to
class treatment of the proof of claim.

Chaparral Energy said "We dispute the plaintiffs' claims, dispute
that the case meets the requirements for a class action, dispute
the remedies requested are available under Oklahoma law, and are
vigorously defending the case."

Chaparral Energy, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Oklahoma City which has been engaged in the onshore oil and
natural gas acquisition, exploitation, exploration and production
business in the United States since 1988.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Notice of Dismissal Filed in "Griggs" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that the company filed a notice of the
dismissal in the case entitled, Lisa Griggs and April Marler, on
behalf of themselves and other Oklahoma citizens similarly
situated v. New Dominion, L.L.C. et al., in the state court
action on January 31, 2018.

Chaparral Energy said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that on July 21, 2017, an
alleged class action was filed against the company and other
operators, in the District Court of Logan County, State of
Oklahoma. The named plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of
themselves and Oklahoma citizens owning a home or business
between March 30, 2014, and the present in a Class Area which
encompasses nine counties in central Oklahoma. The plaintiffs
allege disposal of saltwater produced during oil and gas
operations induced earthquakes in the Class Area, and each
defendant has liability under theories of ultra-hazardous
activities, negligence, nuisance, and trespass.

On October 24, 2017, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class
Petition in Logan County, Oklahoma, adding Creek County, Oklahoma
to the Class Area, and adding an additional earthquake to the
list of seismic events allegedly caused by the defendants. The
plaintiffs asked the court to award unspecified damages for
damage to real and personal property and loss of market value,
loss of use and enjoyment of the properties, and emotional harm,
as well as punitive damages and pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest.

In its Form 10-K Report, the Company said the case was removed to
the Western District of Oklahoma on December 15, 2017, and on
December 18, 2017, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the company
from the suit without prejudice. Due to subsequent remand to
state court, the company filed notice of the dismissal in the
state court action on January 31, 2018.

Chaparral Energy, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Oklahoma City which has been engaged in the onshore oil and
natural gas acquisition, exploitation, exploration and production
business in the United States since 1988.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: "Butler" Suit Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that in the case, James Butler et al. v.
Berexco, L.L.C., Chaparral Energy, L.L.C, et al., the judge has
granted a motion to stay proceedings, ruling from the bench that
the Butler case was stayed pending final judgment or denial of
class certification in the Lisa West et al. v. ABC Oil Company,
Inc. case.

Chaparral Energy said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that on October 13, 2017, a
group of 52 individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the District
Court of Payne County, State of Oklahoma against twenty six named
defendants, including the company, and twenty five unnamed
defendants. Plaintiffs are all property owners and residents of
Payne County, Oklahoma, and allege salt water disposal activities
by the defendants, owners or operators of salt water disposal
wells, induced earthquakes which have caused damage to real and
personal property, and emotional damages.

Plaintiffs claim absolute liability for ultra-hazardous
activities, negligence, gross negligence, public and private
nuisance, trespass, and ask for compensatory and punitive
damages.

In its Form 10-K Report, the Company said that on December 18,
2017, the Company moved the court to dismiss the claims against
it.  "Prior to plaintiffs responding to our motion, a hearing on
a motion to stay the Butler case was held on January 4, 2018. The
judge granted the motion to stay proceedings, ruling from the
bench that the Butler case was stayed pending final judgment or
denial of class certification in the Lisa West et al. v. ABC Oil
Company, Inc. case. Our motion to dismiss will not be considered
until the stay is lifted, at which time, if necessary, we will
dispute plaintiffs' claims, dispute that the remedies requested
are available under Oklahoma law, and vigorously defend the
case."

Founded in 1988 and headquartered in Oklahoma City, Chaparral
Energy, Inc. is a Mid-Continent independent oil and natural gas
exploration and production company.


CITIZENS INC: Bid to Dismiss "Gamboa" Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Citizens, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the motion to dismiss filed by the
company in a putative class action lawsuit initiated by Juan
Gamboa, remains pending.

The Company said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that on or about March 16, 2017, Juan
Gamboa filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company
and five of its current and former directors and executive
officers in the United States District Court, Western District of
Texas. The lawsuit alleges the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by making false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failing to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations and prospects.  The
complaint seeks an award of damages in an unspecified amount on
behalf of a putative class consisting of persons who purchased
the Company's common stock between March 11, 2015 and March 8,
2017, inclusive.

In its Form 10-K Report, the Company said that on May 25, 2017,
the court appointed lead plaintiffs, and on July 31, 2017, the
lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint
seeks an award of damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of a
putative class consisting of persons who purchased the Company's
common stock between March 11, 2015 and March 8, 2017, inclusive.

On September 28, 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss,
which remains pending before the court.

The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit, and it
intends to vigorously defend against all claims asserted. At this
time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the outcome of
this litigation.

Citizens, Inc. is an insurance holding company incorporated in
Colorado serving the life insurance needs of individuals in the
United States since 1969 and internationally since 1975. Through
its insurance subsidiaries, the company pursues a strategy of
offering traditional insurance products in niche markets where
the company believes it will be able to achieve competitive
advantages.


COMMUNITY CAR: "Arecio" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosario Arecio, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Community Car Service Priscilla Corp. dba Priscilla
Community Car Service, Ramon Donato Guzman Bencosme, Juan
Bencosme, Arsenio de la Mota, Juan Mejia, Felix Betances, Mario
Ovalles, Rafael Doe, Benito Heredia, and Gil Fuentes, Case No.
2:18-cv-01653 (E.D. N.Y., March 16, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Rosario Arecio is a resident of Queens County, New
York. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a dispatcher from
1987 until October 23, 2017.

Defendants own, operate, and/or control a car service located at
896 Wyckoff Ave., Brooklyn, NY, 11237. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COMMUNITY HOSPICE: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Flores Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HILDA FLORES, individually and on behalf of other individuals
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COMMUNITY HOSPICE, INC., a
California Corporation; PERSONNEL STAFFING GROUP, LLC, a Florida
Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC700547 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 4, 2018),
seeks to recover compensation for all hours worked under the
Industrial Welfare Commission Order and California Labor Code.
The Defendants have willfully prevented and discouraged, and
continue to prevent and discourage Plaintiff from taking meal and
rest breaks and failed to compensate Plaintiff for missed breaks
in violation of Labor Code.

As a direct result of the alleged wage and hour violations, the
Plaintiff and members of Plaintiff's Class have suffered, and
continue to suffer, substantial losses related to the use and
enjoyment of wages, lost interest on such wages, and expenses and
attorneys' fees in seeking to compel Defendants to fully perform
their obligations under state law, all to her respective damage
in amounts according to proof at the time of trial.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, the
Plaintiff and Plaintiffs Class were employed by Defendants as
hourly employees.  Members of the putative class were paid hourly
wages for hours worked. The Plaintiff was assigned as a store
assistant by Defendants on or around October 11, 2017.

Community Hospice is the largest and oldest nonprofit hospice
agency in the Central Valley.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Young W. Ryu, Esq.
          Jesse Yanco, Esq.
          Jordan T. Wada, Esq.
          LOYR, APC
          3130 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 402
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (888) 365 8686
          Facsimile: (800) 576 1170
          E-mail: young.ryu@loywr.com
                  jesse.yanco@loywr.com
                  jordan.wada@loywr.com


COMPASS GROUP: "Kuhn" Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lisa Kuhn, on behalf of herself
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Compass Group USA, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2018-CA-000831,
was removed from the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, in and for Lee County, Florida to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida (Ft. Myers) on April 17,
2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-00253-
UA-CM to the proceeding.

Compass Group USA, Inc. provides foodservice management and
support services in the United States and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq.
          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          Marc Reed Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          600 N Pine Island Rd., Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318 0268
          Facsimile: (954) 333 3515
          E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com
                  rmorgan@forthepeople.com
                  MEdelman@forthepeople.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Brett Purcell Owens, Esq.
          Christine E. Howard, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP
          101 E. Kennedy Blvd Ste 2350
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 769 7500
          Facsimile: (813) 769 7501
          E-mail: bowens@fisherphillips.com
                  choward@laborlawyers.com


CONN'S INC: October Trial Set in Texas Consolidated Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Conn's Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 5, 2018, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that trial is scheduled for
October 2018, in the case captioned as, In re Conn's Inc.
Securities Litigation, Cause No. 14-CV-00548.

The company said "We and two of our former executive officers are
defendants in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas (the "Court"), captioned In re Conn's Inc.
Securities Litigation, Cause No. 14-CV-00548 (the 'Consolidated
Securities Action").

According to the Company, "The Consolidated Securities Action
started as three separate purported securities class action
lawsuits filed between March 5, 2014 and May 5, 2014 in the Court
that were consolidated into the Consolidated Securities Action on
June 3, 2014. The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities
Action allege that the defendants made false and misleading
statements or failed to disclose material adverse facts about our
business, operations, and prospects. They allege violations of
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seek to certify a class
of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Conn's common stock or call options, or sold or wrote Conn's put
options between April 3, 2013 and December 9, 2014. The complaint
does not specify the amount of damages sought."

"On June 30, 2015, the Court held a hearing on the defendants'
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. At the hearing, the
Court dismissed Brian Taylor, a former executive officer, and
certain other aspects of the complaint. The Court ordered the
plaintiffs to further amend their complaint in accordance with
its ruling, and the plaintiffs filed their Fourth Consolidated
Amended Complaint on July 21, 2015. The remaining defendants
filed a motion to dismiss on August 28, 2015. The defendant's
motion to dismiss was fully briefed and the Court held a hearing
on defendants' motion on March 25, 2016 and on May 5, 2016, the
Court issued a ruling that dismissed 78 of 91 alleged
misstatements.

"The parties have submitted their respective briefs in support
of, and in opposition to, class certification, and also engaged
in discovery pursuant to the Court's scheduling order. In late
June 2017, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and shortly thereafter, Defendants filed a
petition for permission to appeal to the United States Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Fifth Circuit").

"The Fifth Circuit granted leave to appeal on August 21, 2017.
Briefing on the appeal is complete and the Fifth Circuit has
scheduled oral arguments for May 2, 2018. We anticipate that the
appellate court may issue its ruling in the summer of 2018. Trial
is scheduled for October 2018."

Conn's, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a holding company with
no independent assets or operations other than its investments in
its subsidiaries. Conn's is a leading specialty retailer that
offers a broad selection of quality, branded durable consumer
goods and related services in addition to proprietary credit
solutions for its core credit-constrained consumers. The company
is based in Woodland, Texas.


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: "Robertson" Disputes Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jade Robertson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc.
and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00552, (D. Minn.,
February 26, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive
relief pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. is a "debt collector" who attempted
to collect a debt from Robertson via a collection letter. Said
letter indicated a total balance due on the debt being collected
as $474.65 with a proposed settlement amount of $237.33. However,
the letter mentioning that Internal Revenue Service (IRS) may
require that a 1099-C form may be filed in this case is false as
there is no way that the amount of debt forgiveness could reach
$600.00, say the complaint. The invocation of the IRS in the
Letter only served to scare Plaintiff for fear of tax
repercussions and served to overshadow the settlement offer thus
falsely threatened her, the complaint adds. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Avraham Zvi Cutler, Esq.
      BALLON STOLL BADER & NADLER
      729 7th Ave., 17th Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Tel: (718) 578-7711
      Email: avicutler@gmail.com


CREDIT SUISSE: "Chahal" Suit Seeks Remedies Under Exchange Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rajan Chahal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Credit Suisse Group AG, David R. Mathers and Tidjane
Thiam, Case No. 1:18-cv-02268 (S.D. N.Y., March 14, 2018), seeks
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This is a federa1 securities class action on behalf of all
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Credit Suisse
Velocity Shares Daily Inverse VIX Short Term exchange traded
notes between January 29, 2018 and February 5, 2018.

Rajan Chahal asserts that the bank, Chief Executive Officer
Tidjane Thiam and David Mathers, finance chief, failed to
disclose the company was manipulating its VelocityShares Daily
Inverse VIX Short-Term exchange-traded notes, known by the
trading symbol XIV.

"Credit Suisse was actively manipulating the Inverse VIX Short
ETNs by liquidating its holdings in various financial products to
avoid a loss," Chahal's attorneys wrote in the complaint, notes
Bloomberg News.

Plaintiff Rajan Chahal purchased Inverse VIX Short ETNs within
the Class Period and, as a result, was damaged thereby.

Defendant Credit Suisse Group AG is a corporation with its
principal executive offices located at Paradeplatz 8, CH 8001
Zurich, Switzerland. Credit Suisse AG is the direct bank
subsidiary of Credit Suisse. Credit Suisse issued and offered the
Inverse VIX Short ETNs to investors through Credit Suisse AG and
its Nassau Branch located at Shirley & Charlotte Streets, Bahamas
Financial Centre, 4th Floor, P.O. Box N-4928, Nassau, Bahamas.
Inverse VIX Short ETNs were listed and actively traded on the
Nasdaq Stock Market under the ticker symbol "XIV."

Defendant, Tidjane Thiam was the Chief Executive Officer of the
Company and the direct bank subsidiary Credit Suisse AG at all
relevant times.

Defendant David R. Mathers was the Chief Financial Officer of the
Company and the direct bank subsidiary Credit Suisse AG at all
relevant times. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 363-7500
      Fax: (212) 363-7171
      E-mail: ek@zlk.com



CREDIT SUISSE: Faces Securities Class Action Over VIX Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood on April 4 disclosed that on March 15, 2018,
a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Credit Suisse
AG and Janus Index & Calculation Services LLC on behalf of a
class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Credit Suisse VelocityShares Inverse VIX Short Term ETNs
(NYSE:XIVH) ("Notes").  The complaint alleges violations of
federal securities laws, during the Class Period, which is
January 29, 2018 through February 5, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all investors who
purchased the Notes during the class period and are therefore a
member of the Class as described above.  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
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com

Or, visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com [GN]


CRYSTAL FARMS: Reyes Sues over "Made With Real Butter" Label
------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Reyes individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Crystal Farms Refrigerated
Distribution Company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02250
(E.D.N.Y., April 16, 2018), contends that the Defendant's
representations that its products are "made with real butter" are
misleading because despite the centrality of butter to their
marketing and labeling, they also contain margarine, as the third
ingredient.

Crystal Farms Refrigerated Distribution Company distributes,
markets, labels and sells refrigerated ready-to-eat mashed
potatoes under the "Diner's Choice" brand. The Products are
available in no fewer than the following varieties: Traditional
Mashed Potatoes, Garlic Mashed Potatoes, Country Style Mashed
Potatoes, and Sweet Mashed Potatoes. The Products are sold to
consumers by third-parties from brick-and-mortar stores and
online, and available in 24 and 32-ounce packages. The front
labels include an image of mashed potatoes, ingredients which
distinguish that variety (i.e., garlic is represented as a
graphical image) and "Made With REAL BUTTER" in a golden "seal"
form, and "Made With Fresh Whole Potatoes," which is also
contained on the side flaps of the Products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          1 Penn Plaza, Suite 2527
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 792 0046

               - and -

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


DADDYO'S ON RICHMOND: Fails to Pay Min. & OT Wage, Rodriguez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AVERY RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DADDYO'S ON RICHMOND VALLEY LLC;
DADDYO'S BBQ & SPORTS BAR INC.; DADDYOS ON BAY INC; and JOHN
ZAFARANLOO, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02261 (E.D.N.Y.,
April 17, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and
overtime compensation, unpaid spread of hours, penalties and
damages for illegal deductions from wages, tips unlawfully
deprived, liquidated damages, and prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York
State Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The work performed by Plaintiff was directly essential to the
businesses operated by Defendants. The Defendants knowingly and
willfully failed to pay Plaintiff his lawfully earned wages for
each hour of employment in direct contravention of the FLSA and
New York Labor Law's minimum wage requirements. The Defendants
knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff his lawfully
earned overtime compensation and "spread of hours" premium.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
          675 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (718) 669 0714
          E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com


DENIHAN OWNERSHIP: Guestrooms Expensive for Disabled, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
HELEN SWARTZ, Individually, the Plaintiff, v. DENIHAN OWNERSHIP
COMPANY, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03302 (S.D.N.Y., April 16, 2018),
seeks to recover injunctive relief, and attorney's fees,
litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and for damages pursuant to N.Y. Exec. Law
Section 296, et seq. and New York Civil Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has discriminated
against the Plaintiff and others similarly situated by denying
them access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods,
services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the buildings, as prohibited by 42 U.S.C.
'12182 et seq. Furthermore, the Defendant has discriminated
against the individual Plaintiff and others similarly situated by
having its ADA accessible guestrooms for the disabled in a more
expensive category than the non-ADA guestrooms.

The Defendant has discriminated, and is continuing to
discriminate, against the Plaintiff in violation of the ADA by
failing to, inter alia, have accessible facilities by January 26,
1992 (or January 26, 1993, if Defendant has 10 or fewer employees
and gross receipts of $500,000 or less). A preliminary inspection
of The Shelbourne NYC has shown that violations exist. These
violations that Ms. Swartz has personally observed or
encountered, and which were confirmed by Plaintiff's ADA
expert.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence A. Fuller, Esq.
          FULLER, FULLER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          12000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 502
          North Miami, FL 33181
          Telephone: (305) 891 5199
          Facsimile: (305) 893 9505
          E-mail: Lfuller@fullerfuller.com


DRYSHIPS INC: Response to "Silverberg" Suit Due May 25
------------------------------------------------------
DryShips Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 4, 2018, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the response in the
class action complaint filed by Herbert Silverberg is due on May
25, 2018.

On August 2, 2017, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York (No. 17-cv-04547) by Herbert Silverberg on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated against, among others,
the Company and two of its executive officers.

The complaint alleges that the Company and two of our executive
officers violated Sections 9, 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

DryShips said "The Company will respond to the complaint by the
appropriate deadline to be set in the future, which is presently
set at May 25, 2018. The Company and our management believe that
the complaint is without merit and plan to vigorously defend
themselves against the allegations."

DryShips, Inc., incorporated on October 9, 2004, is a holding
company. The Company owns drybulk carriers and offshore support
vessels. The Company operates through two segments: the drybulk
carrier and the offshore support.


EDWARD JONES: Class Action Reflects Concern Over Reverse-Churning
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schoeff Jr., writing for Investment News, reports that as
more broker-dealers move clients from commission-based accounts
to those that charge annual fees -- in some cases as a way to
insure they are complying with the Department of Labor's
fiduciary rule -- they may be in danger of exposing themselves to
reverse churning charges.
Commissions are seen as a more conflicted compensation method
than fees.  But if clients don't execute many investment
purchases, a firm is likely to generate higher revenue if it puts
them in accounts that charge annual fees.

After a final DOL rule was released in 2016 and through its
partial implementation last summer, there was a trend in the
brokerage industry to move clients from commission to fee
accounts.

And now, a class action suit has been filed against Edward Jones
that highlights the dangers of reverse-churning, and may be a
harbinger for similar cases.

In a complaint filed against Edward Jones and three other
advisory firms, the plaintiffs alleged that they had been moved
from commission-based accounts into fee-based accounts between
2013 and 2018 despite the fact that they did little trading.

The suit alleges that Edward Jones transitioned the plaintiffs
into fee-based accounts under the cover of the DOL fiduciary
rule, which requires brokers to act in the best interests of
their clients in retirement accounts.

"Due to the disclosure requirements that would be imposed on
Edward Jones if it continued to offer commission-based accounts
after the DOL fiduciary rule was implemented, the company began
to pivot its business strongly towards fee-based accounts by
pushing its customers from commission-based accounts into
Advisory Solutions accounts -- regardless of whether the switch
would be in the customer's best interest," the claim states.

In October letters to the DOL and other securities regulators,
the Consumer Federation of America said that the DOL rule
prohibits inappropriate shifting of clients from commission to
fee accounts and that any effort to do so should be investigated.

Barbara Roper, CFA director of investor protection, said that she
could not assess the validity of the claim against Edward Jones.
But she said she has been told about situations similar to the
one described in the case.

"We have heard persistent reports that this is happening at a
number of firms, and I have heard that from sources I consider
reliable," Ms. Roper said.

"It's not a universal practice, but you did see a shift from
commission-based accounts to fee-based accounts in response to
the rule," said Joshua Lichtenstein, a partner at Ropes & Gray.
"Whether there's merit to the claims or not, I could imagine
people trying to bring similar types of claims."

Brokerage firms that have emphasized fee-based accounts are doing
their best to comply with the DOL rule, according to Steven W.
Rabitz, a partner at Stroock, Stroock & Lavan.

"It put institutions in a real bind," Mr. Rabitz said.  "I find
it hard to believe that there would be an untoward push to one
business model or another. Just because [there's a transition]
doesn't mean there's a per se problem."

That's what's Edward Jones asserts.

"Edward Jones has consistently offered both fee-based and
commission-based client accounts that adhere to all regulatory
requirements," spokesman John Boul wrote in an email.  "We
believe Edward Jones client accounts are among the best options
in the industry, and we intend to vigorously defend this action."

The fate of the DOL rule is in limbo after the 5th Circuit Court
of Appeals recently stuck it down. It's not clear whether the
agency will continue to defend it or let it die in court. If it's
the latter, it could be a setback for potential litigation.

"It will be hard to see credible plaintiffs' law firms bringing
cases under a rule that has been vacated in its entirety,"
Mr. Rabitz said. [GN]


ELECTROLUX HOME: "Mauro" Product Suit Transferred to M.D. Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Dean Mauro, Individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Electrolux Home
Products, Inc., Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
17-cv-01397, (N.D. N.Y., November 20, 2017), was transferred to
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania on March 8, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-00539.

Mauro seeks redress for defective stainless steel handle of
Electrolux Over-The-Range Microwave Ovens. Said oven's stainless
steel handle heats to excessive temperatures rendering the handle
unfit for use with a bare hand and exposing anyone who touches it
to a substantial risk of permanent and/or serious injury. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony Shapiro
     ROHAN, GOLDFARB & SHAPRIO, P.S.
     1601 One Union Square
     600 University Street
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Tel: (206) 223-1600

            - and -

     Jason Zweig, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN - NEW YORK OFFICE
     555 Fifth Ave, Suite 1700
     New York, NY 10017
     Tel: (212) 752-5455
     Email: jasonz@hbsslaw.com

            - and -

     Charles Kocher, Esq.
     Simon Paris, Esq.
     SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT BENDESKY, PC
     120 Gibraltar Road, Suite 218
     Horsham, PA 19044
     Tel: (215) 575-3985
     Email: ckocher@smbb.com
            sparis@smbb.com

            - and -

     Jeniphr Breckenridge, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN - SEATTLE OFFICE
     1918 8th Ave., Ste. 3300
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Tel: (206) 623-7292
     Email: jeniphr@hbsslaw.com

Electrolux Home Products, Inc. is represented by:

     Loly Tor, Esq.
     K&L GATES LLP - NEWARK OFFICE
     One Newark Center, 10th Floor
     Newark, NJ 07052
     Tel: (973) 848-4000
     Fax: (973) 848-4001
     Email: loly.tor@klgates.com

            - and -

     Patrick J. Perrone, Esq.
     K&L GATES, LLP
     10th Floor, One Newark Center
     Newark, NJ 07102
     Tel: (973) 848-4034
     Email: patrick.perrone@klgates.com


FLORIDA: Nelson Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners
---------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOHNHENRY NELSON, et al., Inmates Serving
Indefnite Sentences in Florida Prisons, the Plaintiffs, v. THE
FLORIDA LEGISLATURE of The State of Florida, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-21501-CMA (S.D. Fla.), Mr. Nelson asks the Court to
certify a class of:

   "al1 Florida Prisoners serving (Life) indefinite sentencing in
   the Florida Department of Corrections as a Class for the
   purpose of this action."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7JvtNgOb

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


FLORIDA SURFACES: "Vincent" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN VINCENT and COURTNEY LOPEZ-CHAVEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AMY
SANDERS, SHAD SANDERS, and CENTRAL FLORIDA SURFACES, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-00177-JSM-PRL (Fla. Cir. Ct., Marion
Cty., April 16, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants contracted with an
employee leasing company to borrow their servants to perform work
for Defendants. The employee leasing company paid the wages of
the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class for the first 40 hours of
labor in a workweek. The Plaintiffs, Opt-in Plaintiffs and the
Putative Class were then paid by Defendants "straight-time in
cash when they worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek without
being paid overtime as required by the FLSA.

Central Florida Surfaces helps create interior and exterior home
designs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean Culliton, Esq.
          SEAN CULLITON, ESQ., LLC
          150 John Knox Road
          Talahassee, FL, 32303
          Telephone: (850) 385 9455
          Facsimile: (813) 441 1999
          E-mail: Sean.Culliton@gmail.com


FOOT LOCKER: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Denied in "Osberg"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Foot Locker, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
February 3, 2018, that the Company's Petition for Writ of
Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Osberg v. Foot
Locker Inc. et ano., was denied.

The Company and the Company's U.S. retirement plan are defendants
in a class action (Osberg v. Foot Locker Inc. et ano., filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York) in
which the plaintiff alleges that, in connection with the 1996
conversion of the retirement plan to a defined benefit plan with
a cash balance formula, the Company and the retirement plan
failed to properly advise plan participants of the "wear-away"
effect of the conversion.

Plaintiff's claims were for breach of fiduciary duty under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, and
violation of the statutory provisions governing the content of
the Summary Plan Description.

Foot Locker, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended October 28, 2017, that during the third quarter of
2015, the trial court ruled that the retirement plan be reformed.
As a result of this development, the Company recorded a charge of
$100 million pre-tax ($61 million after-tax) during the third
quarter of 2015.

The Company appealed the trial court's decision, and the judgment
was stayed pending the outcome of the appeal process. During the
second quarter of 2017, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial court's decision. In light of this
development, the Company reassessed its estimate of the
liability. The Company's updated reasonable estimate of this
liability is a range between $150 million and $260 million. The
high end of the range reflects the estimated cost to reform the
retirement plan in accordance with the court ruling; however, it
excludes any legal fees that may be awarded to plaintiff's
counsel.

No amount within that range is more probable than any other
amount and therefore, in accordance with U.S. GAAP, the Company
recorded a charge of $50 million pre-tax ($30 million after-tax)
during the second quarter of 2017, bringing the cumulative amount
accrued for this matter to $150 million. The accrual has been
classified as a long-term liability. The Company on November 8,
2017, filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S.
Supreme Court.

In its Form 10-K Report, the Company said that in February 2018,
the Company's Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S.
Supreme Court was denied. Accordingly, the Company must reform
the pension plan consistent with the trial court's judgment, and
will be working with plaintiffs' counsel and the court on the
specific steps needed to implement the judgment.

The Company also said it has estimated that the cost of plan
reformation is $278 million as of February 3, 2018 and this
amount will continue to increase with interest until paid, as
required by the provisions of the required plan reformation. The
previous amount accrued was $150 million. Accordingly, during the
fourth quarter of 2017, the Company recorded an additional charge
of $128 million, bringing the cumulative amount accrued for this
matter to $278 million.

The Company is currently formulating the actions and steps
necessary to reform the plan and has determined that it will make
a $128 million contribution during 2018 to the pension trust to
fund a portion of this obligation.

Also during the fourth quarter of 2017, the Company established a
qualified settlement fund in the amount of $150 million, which
will also be used to fund future pension contributions that may
be required as a result of the plan reformation and plaintiffs'
legal fees.

Foot Locker, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
athletic shoes and apparel retailer. The company operates in two
segments, Athletic Stores and Direct-to-Customers. The company is
based in New York.


FUNKO INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on April 4 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court Western District of Washington (Docket Number: 2:18-cv-
00481) on behalf of persons and entities that acquired the common
stock ("stock" or "shares") of Funko (NasdaqGS: FNKO) pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's false and/or misleading
registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's
November 1, 2017 initial public offering ("IPO" or the
"Offering"), seeking to pursue remedies under Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act").  Funko investors have 60 days from the date of this notice
to file a lead plaintiff motion.

To obtain information or actively participate in the class
action, please visit the Funko page on our website at
www.glancylaw.com/case/funko-inc.  Investors that suffered losses
on their Funko 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.

Funko is a pop culture consumer products company that sells a
broad range of pop culture consumer products, featuring
characters from a range of media and entertainment content,
including movies, TV shows, video games, music and sports.  Its
products combine its proprietary brands and designs into
properties it licenses from content providers.

The lawsuit claims that the Company's Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO were materially
misleading by failing to disclose known trends in the Company's
sales and inventory.

On November, 2 2017, Bloomberg published an article entitled
"Funko Extends Playtime to Its Accounting," stating, among other
things, that "[p]rofits . . . are slowing," "just $7 million, or
10 percent, of Funko's $69 million increase in adjusted Ebitda .
. . was from actual earnings growth," and questioning the
Company's claim of "intellectual property worth $250 million"
which the article author claimed was "odd for a company whose
main products are based on others' intellectual property." On
this news, Funko's stock price closed at $7.07 per share, which
was a decline of $4.93, or 41%, from the IPO price of $12.00 per
share. On January 5, 2017, Funko's stock price closed at $6.12,
which was a decline of $5.88, or 49%, from the IPO price of
$12.00 per share, thereby injuring investors.

If you acquired shares of Funko issued in connection with the IPO
you have 60 days from the date of this notice to file a lead
plaintiff motion 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]


GERDAU SA: Suits over Sale of American Depositary Receipts Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerdau S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 3, 2018, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the securities class
action complaint related to the American Depositary Receipts
(ADRs) of the Company that trade on the New York Stock Exchange
has been dismissed.

On May 26, 2016, a securities class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against Gerdau and certain executives and former executives
of the Company by purchasers of American Depositary Receipts
(ADRs) of the Company that trade on the New York Stock Exchange.

On August 9, 2016, the court appointed the Policemen's Annuity
and Benefit Fund of Chicago as lead plaintiff. On October 31,
2016, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers of Gerdau ADRs between April
23, 2012 and May 16, 2016.

Among other things, the amended complaint alleged that the
Company and certain executives had engaged in a bribery scheme
involving members of the Brazilian Board of Tax Appeals (CARF),
which had purportedly resulted in the nonpayment of approximately
US$429 million in taxes and resulted in defendants' statements in
Gerdau's securities filings about Gerdau's business, operations,
and prospects being false and misleading and/or lacking a
reasonable basis.

The amended complaint did not specify an amount of alleged
damages, and it also included claims pertaining to the
transaction relating to the acquisition of equity interests.

On January 17, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, but
before its review by the Court, the parties asked for a stay of
the proceedings, so that they could engage in a mediation
process. As a result of the mediation process. On July 5, 2017
lead plaintiff and the defendants reached a settlement, in the
amount of US$ 15 million, which was approved by the Court on
October 20, 2017.

As a result, the action was dismissed, with prejudice, as against
lead plaintiff and the class of purchasers of Gerdau ADRs. The
amount of the settlement was substantially covered by insurance.
The settlement does not acknowledge any liability by the
defendants and, in the opinion of the Company and its legal
advisors, was the best alternative to eliminate the
uncertainties, burdens and costs to be incurred if the dispute
were to continue.

Gerdau S.A. provides steel-related products and services
worldwide. The company operates through Brazil Operations, North
America Operations, South America Operations, and Special Steel
Operations.


GOLD FIELDS: Appellate Proceeding in Silicosis Suit Postponed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gold Fields Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 4, 2018, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the Supreme Court of
Appeal of South Africa has granted approval for the postponement
of the appeal proceedings in a class action suit related to
mineworkers who have contracted silicosis and/or tuberculosis.

A consolidated application has been brought against several South
African mining companies, including Gold Fields, for
certification of a class action on behalf of current or former
mineworkers (and their dependents) who have allegedly contracted
silicosis and/or tuberculosis while working for one or more of
the mining companies listed in the application.

In May 2016, the South African South Gauteng High Court ordered,
among other things, the certification of a silicosis class and a
tuberculosis class.

The High Court ruling did not represent a ruling on the merits of
the cases brought against the mining companies. The Supreme Court
of Appeal granted the mining companies leave to appeal against
all aspects of the May 2016 judgment. The appeal hearing before
the Supreme Court of Appeal was scheduled to be heard in March
2018.

On 10 January 2018, it was announced that attorneys representing
all appellants and all respondents involved in the above appeal
hearing before the Supreme Court of Appeal have written to the
Registrar of the Supreme Court of Appeal asking that the appeal
proceedings be postponed until further notice. The Supreme Court
of Appeal has granted approval for the postponement. The joint
letter written to the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Appeal
explained that good faith settlement negotiations between the
Occupational Lung Disease Working Group and claimants' legal
representatives have reached an advanced stage. In view of that,
all parties consider it to be in the best interests of judicial
economy and the efficient administration of justice that the
matter be postponed.

Gold Fields Limited produces gold and holds gold reserves in
South Africa, Ghana, Australia, and Peru. It engages in
underground and surface gold and surface copper mining and
related activities, including exploration, extraction,
processing, and smelting.


GOOGLE INC: Fisher Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Wieselthier, Esq. -- swieselthier@fisherphillips.com -- of
Fisher Phillips, in an article for JDSupra, reports that a
California state court just breathed new life into a class action
lawsuit against Google that could have a significant impact on
pay equity claims across the country.  The March 27, 2018 ruling
gave the stamp of approval to an amended complaint filed by
former female Google employees alleging unequal pay practices.
The court ruled that the amendments, which focused on Google's
supposed uniform pay practices, were sufficient to meet the
pleading standard and state a cause of action for a class-wide
unequal pay claim.

How Did We Get Here?

By way of background, three former Google employees filed a class
action lawsuit in September 2017 alleging violations of the
California Equal Pay Act and other state laws, claiming that
they--along with other female employees in California--had been
wronged in terms of their compensation and advancement
opportunities at the company.  The lawsuit followed a highly
publicized audit by the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of
Federal Compliance Programs (OFCCP) that alleged it had uncovered
gender pay disparities at Google.  In December 2017, the court
dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.

However, in January 2018, the former employees filed an amended
pleading in an attempt to cure those deficiencies.  The
amendments detailed the uniform compensation and promotion
policies and practices which allegedly disadvantage women . In
response to the amended pleading, Google made an application to
dismiss (known as demurrer): (1) the class allegations on behalf
of Google employees who did not fall into the same categories of
"Covered Positions" as the named plaintiffs; and (2) the class-
wide intentional discrimination claims.

Court: Second Bite At The Apple Permitted

In the order, the court outright rejected Google's arguments for
dismissal, determining that the amended pleading stated facts
sufficient to proceed on those two aspects of the lawsuit.  In
doing so, the court relied heavily upon the allegations in the
amended pleading describing in detail Google's uniform policies
on hiring, promotions, and compensation.

Covered Positions: With respect to the categories of plaintiffs
for the class, the court found it immaterial that the named
plaintiffs did not belong to all six of the enumerated categories
of plaintiffs in the class.  This is because the named plaintiffs
"allege[d] a numerous and ascertainable class with a well-defined
community of interest, as well as a pattern or practice of gender
discrimination across all Covered Positions in Google." Thus, the
court ruled that the plaintiffs' claims were typical of all
members of the class, regardless of which category of Covered
Positions the named plaintiffs fell under.

Intentional Discrimination: For similar reasons, the court ruled
that plaintiffs' intentional discrimination claim was sufficient
to survive dismissal.  The court rejected Google's argument that
the claims of intentional discrimination were based on
individual, unique experiences rather than derived from a
company-wide policy or practice that could form the basis of a
class claim. Instead, the court accepted plaintiffs' allegations
in the amended complaint that Google's policy was to consider
prior salary history and stereotypes about women when setting
initial compensation for all employees, and, therefore concluded
that the claims of intentional discrimination were not unique to
plaintiffs.

Conclusion: Uniform Practice And Policy Allegations Sufficient To
Support Claim

By merely alleging that there exists a company-wide policy with
respect to setting compensation that applies to virtually all
female employees throughout the company, these plaintiffs were
able to survive their first hurdle of proceeding on a class-wide
basis.  Now, Google must file an answer to the amended complaint
and the parties will likely proceed with discovery and the
exchange of information.

While this decision does not necessarily mean that the class
action will be certified, it signals that the question of whether
a uniform policy or practice exists is significant in determining
whether equal pay claims can proceed on a class basis. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Ruling May Provide New Model for Pay Equity Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Braden Campbell, writing for Law360, reports that a recent
California state court decision letting a proposed class action
alleging Google underpays women statewide go forward may provide
plaintiffs attorneys a new model for suits challenging employers'
pay practices in the Golden State and beyond, attorneys say.

Management-side attorneys cheered California Superior Court Judge
Mary Wiss' December decision dismissing an earlier version of the
suit, which is based on federal enforcement data suggesting
Google Inc.'s methods of setting pay discriminate against women.
[GN]


HARDINGE INC: Assad Trust Balks at Privet Fund Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
NANCY P. ASSAD TRUST, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. HARDINGE INC., RICHARD R.
BURKHART, B. CHRISTOPHER DISANTIS, CHARLES P. DOUGHERTY, RYAN
LEVENSON, MITCHELL I. QUAIN, BENJAMIN ROSENZWEIG, JAMES SILVER,
and TONY TRIPENY, the Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-06280-DGL
(W.D.N.Y., April 4, 2018), seeks to preliminarily and permanently
enjoin the Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them
from proceeding with, consummating, or closing a proposed
transaction, and in the event the Defendants consummate a
proposed merger transaction, rescinding it and setting it aside
or awarding rescissory damages.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on
February 12, 2018 pursuant to which Hardinge Inc. will be
acquired by affiliates of Privet Fund Management LLC and Privet
Fund LP.

On February 12, 2018, Hardinge's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Hardinge Holdings, LLC and Hardinge Merger Sub, Inc. Pursuant to
the terms of the Merger Agreement, if the Proposed Transaction is
approved by Hardinge's shareholders, they will receive $18.50 in
cash for each share they own.

On March 5, 2018, defendants filed a proxy statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which
renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Accordingly,
the Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
the Proxy Statement.

Hardinge, Inc. is a machine tool builder with global headquarters
in Elmira, New York.  It began operation in 1890. Hardinge is
best known for its lathes, both non-computerized numerical
control and computerized numerical control.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Beth A. Keller, Esq.
          HYNES KELLER & HERNANDEZ, LLC
          118 North Bedford Road, Suite 100
          Mount Kisco, NY 10549
          Telephone: (914) 752 3040
          Facsimile: (914) 752 3041
          E-mail: bkeller@hkh-lawfirm.com


HOME POINT: Court Grants Leave to File FAC in "Norona"
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California approved a stipulation in the case captioned BRANDON
NOROMA, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. HOME POINT FINANCIAL CORPORATION and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-07205-HSG
(N. D. Cal.), granting the Plaintiffs leave to file a First
Amended Complaint to (1) add claims under the California Private
Attorneys' General Act for civil penalties; (2) correct the name
of Plaintiff Brandon Noroma to Norona, and (3) remove Doe
defendants from the caption.

The Defendant has reviewed the Plaintiffs Proposed FAC and has
agreed to its filing under the condition that it be allowed 30
days to respond and it need not file an Answer until 14 days
following final disposition of any Rule 12 motion it may file.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 8, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y92aksa8 from Leagle.com.

Brandon Noroma, Plaintiff, represented by Reuben D. Nathan --
rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com -- Nathan & Associates, APC
&Matthew Righetti -- matt@righettilaw.com -- Righetti Glugoski,
P.C.

Home Point Financial Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Alison S. Hightower -- ahightower@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson & Gal Gressel.


HONDA MOTOR: Road Tested Airbag Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Road Tested Parts, Inc., d/b/a
Weaverparts.Com, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., American
Honda Motor Co., Inc., Honda R&D Co., Ltd, Honda of America Mfg.,
Inc., Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, Bmw of North America, LLC, BMW
Manufacturing Co., LLC, Ford Motor Company, Toyota Motor
Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. and Toyota Motor
Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., Mazda Motor
Corporation, Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Mitsubishi Motors
Corp., Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., Nissan Motor Co.,
Ltd., Nissan North America, Inc., Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd.,
Subaru of America, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00021 (M.D.
Ga., December 5, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida under Case No. 18-cv-
20879.

The action seeks compensatory, exemplary, and punitive remedies
and damages and statutory penalties, including interest,
reimbursement of the reasonable expenses occasioned by the sale,
for damages and for reasonable attorney fees resulting from
fraudulent concealment, breach of implied and express warranty,
unjust enrichment and negligence and violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act and Michigan Consumer Protection Act.

Road Tested Parts is an automotive parts recycler located at 774
Highway 320, Carnesville, GA 30521. Road Tested purchased
vehicles containing Takata airbags for purposes of resale. Under
ordinary conditions, including daily temperature swings and
contact with moisture in the air, Takata's ammonium nitrate
propellant transforms and destabilizes, causing irregular and
dangerous behavior ranging from inertness to violent combustion
in their airbags.

Takata Corporation is a foreign for-profit corporation with its
principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan. Takata is a
specialized supplier of automotive safety systems that designs,
manufactures, tests, markets, distributes and sold airbags to the
named Defendants. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cale Conley, Esq.
      CONLEY GRIGGS PARTIN LLP
      4200 Northside Parkway NW
      Building One, Suite 300
      Atlanta, GA 30327
      Phone: (404) 467-1155
      Fax: (404) 467-1166
      Email: cale@conleygriggs.com

             - and -

      R. Bryant McCulley, Esq.
      Stuart H. McCluer, Esq.
      Frank B. Ulmer, Esq.
      MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
      1022 Carolina Boulevard, Suite 300
      P.O. Box 505
      Charleston, SC 29451
      Phone: (205) 238-6757
      Fax: (904) 239-5388
      Email: bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com
             smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com
             fulmer@mcculleymccluer.com

             - and -

      Christopher J. Stucky, Esq.
      Benjamin C. Fields, Esq.
      STUCKY & FIELDS LLC
      214 W. 18th St., Suite 200
      Kansas City, MO 64108
      Telephone: (816) 659-9970
      Facsimile: (816) 659-9969
      Email: chris@stuckyfields.com
             ben@stuckyfields.com

             - and -

      Richard B. Drubel, Esq.
      Jonathan R. Voegele, Esq.
      BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
      26 South Main Street
      Hanover, NH 03755
      Tel: (603) 643-9090
      Fax: (603) 643-9010
      Email: rdrubel@bsfllp.com
             jvoegele@bsfllp.com


HONEYWELL INT'L: Injunction on Healthcare Termination Reversed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, reversed the
judgment of the District Court granting injunction on termination
of Plaintiffs' healthcare in the case captioned REBECCA COOPER,
MORRIS MCKENNEY, and ROBERT KOLINSKE, for themselves and others
similarly-situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant-Appellant, No. 17-1042 (6th Cir.).

The district court granted the injunction, concluding that the
retirees had shown both a likelihood of success on the merits and
that they would suffer irreparable harm without such relief.

The Sixth Circuit finds this case yet another entry in a
complicated tangle of cases dealing with whether retiree benefits
in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) should extend beyond
the CBA's expiration.

Rebecca Cooper and some 50 other retirees at Honeywell
International's Boyne City, Michigan, plant say that Honeywell
must provide them healthcare benefits until they reach age 65.
Honeywell responds that its obligation to pay those benefits
ended when its CBA with the Boyne City employees expired in March
2016.  While waiting for the district court to pick the winner in
this fight, the retirees sought a preliminary injunction barring
Honeywell from terminating their healthcare.

Reasons the 2011 CBA Unambiguously
Did Not Vest Retiree Healthcare Benefits

The Sixth Circuit finds that the retiree medical plan itself
provides a final indication that the CBA did not intend to vest
retiree healthcare benefits.  The CBA, in Article 19.7.4, refers
to the plan as a source of determining who is covered: Retirees
under age 65 who are covered under the BC/BS Preferred Medical
Plan will continue to be covered under the Plan.  As such, the
CBA incorporates the medical plan, and the Sixth Circuit can
consider its content without running afoul of the parol evidence
rule.

The plan states that coverage will cease on the date Honeywell
terminates the Plan.  The plan also contains a reservation-of-
rights clause that gives Honeywell the right to terminate the
Plan, or any portion of the plan, at any time and for any reason.
Both of these provisions are manifestly inconsistent with
vesting; by definition, vested benefits may not be unilaterally
terminated.

Cooper contends that the medical plan should not bear on our
interpretation of Article 19.7.4 since the plan itself says the
CBA controls if there is any inconsistency or conflict between
the two. But the reservation-of-rights clause can and should be
read consistently with the CBA. That is easy enough on
Honeywell's CBA interpretation: Honeywell retains the right to
terminate retiree healthcare benefits, but only after the
expiration of the 2011 CBA. But Cooper's reading would nullify
the plan's reservation-of-rights clause entirely, since Honeywell
cannot terminate benefits that have vested.

Cooper's Counterarguments Fail to
Establish Ambiguity as to Vesting

Cooper makes two arguments relating to the CBA's contribution
caps, neither of which help her vesting argument. First, Cooper
identifies evidence of vesting in Article 19.7.6.1's requirement
that Honeywell's contribution caps be discussed in any future CBA
bargaining.  Second, Cooper argues that the contribution caps
themselves show an intent to vest retiree healthcare benefits.
Cooper emphasizes three things about the caps: (1) that they were
negotiated and agreed on during the bargaining for the 2008-2011
CBA; (2) that the caps applied only to those who retired after
June 2009; and (3) that the caps did not go into effect until
2012, during the operation of the 2011 CBA.

Cooper is mistaken. Contribution caps function only as limiting
provisions protecting Honeywell's exposure in the event
healthcare benefits continue to be provided; they do not speak to
the scope of retirees' rights. And though the caps take effect
down the road, they serve an immediate purpose. There is a good
reason for a company to adopt healthcare caps, even if caps take
effect only far in the future: because companies must recognize
as a liability on their balance sheet the present value of their
anticipated future healthcare costs, caps keep companies from
needing to recognize millions (or more) in future potential
liability.

Moreover, like Honeywell says, the future-effect nature of the
caps is an unsurprising product of collective bargaining. That
the caps only apply to post-June 2009 retirees, and only take
effect after 2012, might well mean that Honeywell could only
secure a contribution cap by offering to delay its
implementation. It is also unclear that the parties intended the
cap to apply beyond the 2008-negotiated CBA, since at the time
the cap was negotiated, the 2008 CBA could have continued in
effect indefinitely.

As Article 20.1 provides, the 2008 CBA "shall continue in effect
from year to year unless either party notifies the other. To
nevertheless infer an intent to vest from the cap's future effect
is possible only by invoking Yard-Man's illicit inferences, and
indeed Cooper relies on a Yard-Man case to suggest future caps
indicate vesting."

Finally, even if the Sixth Circuit found in the caps some oblique
evidence of an intent to vest benefits, that would not be enough
to overcome the overwhelming indications to the contrary.
Because the Court do not find in the 2011 CBA an intent to vest
retiree healthcare benefits beyond the CBA's expiration, the
Sixth Circuit holds that Cooper is unlikely to succeed on the
merits. Unable to make this foundational showing, the Sixth
Circuit must reverse the district court's decision to grant
Cooper a preliminary injunction.

A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's March 8, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7bgnhtg from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Cody D. Rockey -- crockey@dykema.com -- DYKEMA GOSSETT
PLLC, Ann Arbor, Michigan, for Appellant.

John G. Adam -- jga@legghioisrael.com -- LEGGHIO & ISRAEL, P.C.,
Royal Oak, Michigan, for Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Cody D. Rockey, Jill M. Wheaton -- jwheaton@dykema.com
-- DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Mark J. Magyar --
mmagyar@dykema.com -- DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC, Grand Rapids,
Michigan, for Appellant.


HOST RG 54: "Smith" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK SMITH and GREGORY WHITE, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. HOST RG 54, LLC, CURT
HUEGEL, SEAN RYAN, and JOHNATHAN LEEDER, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-03331 (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2018), seeks to recover
minimum wage and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Curt Huegel is an owner of Host RG 54, LLC and Bill's Townhouse.
Frank Smith was employed by Defendants as a bartender at Bill's
Townhouse from approximately April 2016 to May 2017.

Gregory White was employed by Defendants as a bartender at Bill's
Townhouse from approximately April 2016 to January 2017. At all
relevant times, the Plaintiffs and the other FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated, have had
substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and
are and have been subject to Defendants' decision, policy, plan
and common policies, programs, practices, procedures, protocols,
routines, and rules willfully failing and refusing to pay them at
the legally required minimum wage for all hours worked and the
legally required overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of
40 per week.[BN]

Attorneys for Named Plaintiffs, proposed FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, and proposed Class:

          D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          Lucas C. Buzzard, Esq.
          JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
          32 Broadway, Suite 601
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 688 5640
          Facsimile: (212) 688 2548


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Smolek Sues over Defective Theta II Engine
---------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA SMOLEK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA and KIA MOTORS
AMERICA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02716 (N.D. Ill.,
April 16, 2018), is a consumer class action arising from
defective Theta II engines found in hundreds of thousands of
Hyundai and Kia vehicles in the United States.

The Theta II engine's fuel injection system causes contaminants
to enter the engine's oil supply. Initial symptoms of the Defect
include a knocking noise from the engine, a reduction in engine
power, and engine stalling events.  When the level of
contaminants in the oil supply sufficiently thicken the Theta II
engine's oil supply, the engine fails, leading to an immediate
loss of engine power and power steering. The Defect thus creates
a safety hazard for not only the vehicle's occupants but the
occupants of nearby vehicles. Countless consumer complaints to
Hyundai, Kia and traffic safety authorities detail the safety
risks and economic burdens of vehicles prone to total and
unexpected engine failure.

The only remedy for the Defect is replacing the engine with
another defective Theta II engine. Though the Defect is covered
by Defendants' written 10-year, 100,000 mile powertrain
warranties, Defendants routinely deny warranty coverage to
engines consumed by the Defect by blaming the engine-killing oil
sludge on inadequate maintenance or the use of aftermarket oil
filters.

Between 2015 and 2017, Defendants recalled 1.5 million vehicles
with Theta II engines in North America. Each recall addressed
knocking noises, engine stalls, and sudden engine failures.
Though the recalls cover Theta II engines manufactured over a
five-year period in at least two continents, in each instance,
Defendants attributed the recall to the same underlying cause:
leftover metal debris in the engine from the manufacturing
process. Reports suggest that in 2016, a Hyundai engineer
informed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that
Defendants have long been aware that the Theta II engines possess
a design flaw affecting all Theta II engines. These reports are
consistent with the experience of Plaintiff and countless other
owners and lessees of vehicles with defective Theta II engines
that have not been recalled (the "Class Vehicles"). Non-recalled
Theta II engines are failing because of the Defect in numbers
that in some cases exceed the failure rates of recalled vehicles.

Hyundai Motor America is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hyundai
Motor Company. Along with Hyundai's USA manufacturing plant in
Montgomery, Alabama called Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama,
Hyundai has total of 19 manufacturing plants globally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          Nicholas Migliaccio, Esq.
          Esfand Nafisi, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H. St. NE, Suite 302
          Washington, D.C. 20002
          Telephone: (202) 470-3520

               - and -

          Stacy M. Bardo, Esq.
          BARDO LAW, P.C.
          22 West Washington Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 219 6980
          Facsimile: (312) 219 6981
          E-mail: stacy@bardolawpc.com


HYUNDAI MOTORS: Attorneys Seek En-Banc Rehearing of Split Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that both sides of
the class action bar have big problems with the 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals' Jan. 23 opinion in In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel
Economy Litigation, which held that judges must analyze and
compare state laws before approving nationwide class action
settlements.  Lawyers for both the class of Hyundai and Kia
owners, as well as lawyers for the car makers, have asked for an
en banc rehearing of the three-judge panel's split decision,
arguing that if the ruling stands, it will be much harder to
strike nationwide deals.  Even the American Tort Reform
Association, generally not a fan of class actions, filed an
amicus brief calling for en banc reconsideration of Hyundai on
the grounds that choice-of-law analysis will cost defendants
extra time and money.

But Hyundai is not universally despised! The 9th Circuit asked
class action objectors -- who, after all, brought the appeal that
led to the panel's controversial decision -- to submit briefs
responding to the calls for en banc reconsideration.  Two firms
representing Hyundai objectors, The Gibson Law Firm and James B.
Feinman & Associates filed briefs arguing that the three-judge
panel followed U.S. Supreme Court and 9th Circuit precedent and
reached the right conclusion when it rejected the $200 million
nationwide Hyundai settlement.

Both of the Hyundai defenders insisted that the panel correctly
interpreted the Supreme Court's 1997 ruling in Amchem v. Windsor,
which struck down a global asbestos settlement because it
purported to resolve claims of future asbestos plaintiffs.
Amchem made clear that the court has to consider predominance in
certifying settlement classes as well as litigation classes,
wrote Dennis Gibson.  It also said that differences in state law
are part of the predominance inquiry.

"The reason for that conclusion is obvious: A question cannot
even be common, let alone predominate, if its resolution is not
relevant to the legal claims of all of the members of the class,"
Gibson argued.  "Determining the relevant legal standards, and
what facts are relevant under those standards, is therefore an
essential first step in assessing predominance. By completely
ignoring the differences in state law in this case which had been
briefed and which the district court had found to be material,
the panel majority correctly found that the court below abused
its discretion."

The 9th Circuit's own rulings lead to the same result, Gibson and
Feinman said.  They argued that 2012's Mazza v. American Honda,
in which the appeals court vacated certification of a class of
Honda owners because of material differences in state consumer
laws governing class members' claims, applies in the context of
class action settlements as well as contested class certification
motions.

They also asserted that Hyundai haters were putting the wrong
spin on 1998's Hanlon v. Chrysler.  In Hanlon, the 9th Circuit
affirmed approval of a nationwide settlement over objections by
Georgia consumers who wanted to proceed in state court -- an
outcome that should have led to the same result in the Hyundai
case, according to class counsel, Hyundai and Kia.  Gibson and
Feinman said, however, that the Hanlon court focused on the
classwide "common nucleus of facts and potential legal remedies"
that superseded differences in applicable state laws. Feinman
emphasized that the named plaintiffs in the Hanlon case included
residents of every state in which class members lived. By
contrast, he said, no Virginians led the Hyundai case, even
though Virginia law offers more potential damages than California
law.

Finally, the objectors' briefs discounted arguments that the
panel's Hyundai decision conflicts with rulings by the 3rd and
7th Circuits.  Both Gibson and Feinman said the 7th Circuit's
2011 opinion in In the Matter of Mexico Money Transfer Litigation
was based on class members' federal claims, not various state
consumer laws.  Admittedly, the 3rd Circuit's en banc 2011
opinion in Sullivan v. DB Investments upheld approval of a class
settlement implicating varying state antitrust laws.  But Gibson
called the 3rd Circuit ruling an "outlier" that does not bind the
9th Circuit.

"The 3rd Circuit's opinion in Sullivan is in direct conflict with
Amchem and Hanlon's language that the test for predominance is at
least the same, if not heightened, with a settlement class,"
Gibson said.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is not involved in the
Hyundai appeal so did not submit a brief responding to calls for
en banc review.  But to understand the arguments against
certification of nationwide settlement classes implicating
different state laws, check out CEI's 9th Circuit brief in In re:
Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation.  In that case,
battery makers agreed to a $45 million settlement covering all
indirect purchasers -- even though half of the class resides in
states whose antitrust laws don't provide a cause of action for
indirect purchasers.  The CEI brief, filed on behalf of a class
member from a state that does permit recovery, said the
nationwide settlement doesn't acknowledge that his claims were
stronger than those of class members from states with no
protection for indirect purchasers. As you would expect, the
filing includes many of the same cases that figure prominently in
the Hyundai en banc briefing. [GN]


ICICI BANK: Faces Class Action Risk in US Over Corruption
---------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rebello, writing for Economic Times, reports that
private sector lender, ICICI Bank, and its top management risk
facing a class action law suit in the US, if charges of
corruption and malpractice are proved and spreads to other
accounts, US-based brokerage Jefferies said in a note.  It has
cut ICICI Bank's price target to Rs 370 per share from Rs 410 per
share.

"Emerging risks (for the bank) could be a formalized corruption
charge and more such instances coming up, and (the) bank facing a
"class action" suit and a costly settlement," Jefferies analysts,
Nilanjan Karfa and Harshit Toshniwal said in a note.

A "class action" lawsuit in US is one in which a group of people
sue an individual or a corporate defendant for financial or other
damages caused by negligence or mismanagement.  These law suits
in normal course could seek settlements in billions of dollars
for the losses suffered by a group of individuals, which in the
case of ICICI would be holders of its American Depository
Receipts (ADRs) which make up about 24 per cent of the bank's
shares.

ICICI Bank's ADR's have fallen about 12.03 per cent to $8.26 from
$9.39 on March 15.  Local shares of the bank have fallen more
sharply and have lost 11 per cent of their value to Rs 268.45 per
share since March 15 compared to just a 3.5 per cent drop in the
10-share banking index Bankex.

ICICI Bank's long serving CEO Chanda Kochhar has been in the eye
of the storm because of rumours of favouritism in sanctioning
loans to the Venugopal Dhoot-promoted Videocon Group and
questions about Dhoot's links with her husband Deepak Kochhar.
Both the bank and Dhoot have denied any quid pro quo.

The consumer to oil and gas Videocon Group owes banks more than
Rs 40,000 crore and is headed to the bankruptcy courts as banks
have declared it as an NPA.  Jefferies analysts Karfa and
Toshniwal said that likely haircut that bank's have to take with
regards to their exposure to the Videocon group has been priced
in but the impact of a law suit in the US could be severe.

"While further investigations do not preclude risks of business
slowdown, the second line of management (in ICICI) is capable of
steering the ship (growth is mainly in retail segment, which is
process driven not requiring large management intervention),"
Karfa and Toshniwal said.

Analysts are also pointing out the risks to private sector
lenders in the event of resignation by CEOs after ET reported
that RBI has asked the Axis Bank board to reconsider the three-
year term to CEO Shikha Sharma.

"In the event of any resignation by CEOs, the knee jerk reaction
of the market is likely to be negative.  The market will
interpret this to be a serious issue as there could be more
skeletons in the closet.  Management related changes and
transition could be a painful period as these are large
organisations.  Also the ongoing investigations in some of these
banks have to settle barring which the overhang on the stock
could remain causing underperformance," Suresh Ganapathy, analyst
at Macquarie said in a note to investors on April 4. [GN]


INTEL CORPORATION: Nathan Sues over CPU Security Flaws
------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA NATHAN, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. INTEL CORPORATION, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-02754 (N.D. Ill., April 17, 2018), seeks to
recover damages, restitution, punitive damages, injunctive
relief, and/or attorneys' fees and costs as a direct and
proximate result of Intel's deceptive trade practices.

Intel Corporation is the top-selling semiconductor company in the
world and manufactures the processors that are used in the most
popular personal computers sold in the market. Intel's success is
based, in large part, on its ability to produce some of the
fastest central processing units ("CPUs") in the world -- a fact
that Intel touts in its advertising and on the packaging for the
products it sells.

In order to make faster CPUs, Intel took shortcuts.
Unfortunately, these shortcuts created a vulnerability or flaw
that gives hackers and other cyber criminals the ability to
access sensitive, private, and purportedly secure information on
every computer that uses an Intel processor that has been
manufactured since at least 2004. This major security flaw is
referred to as 'Meltdown" in the computer industry. To correct
this vulnerability, companies that design operating systems
scrambled to develop patches that, while supposedly fixing the
vulnerability, will slow down any computer that uses Intel's
processors by as much as 30%. Computers that do not have Intel's
processors are not affected by the "Meltdown" vulnerability.
Accordingly, Intel's representations that its processors are some
of the fastest available on the market are demonstrably false
because, in order to be secure from Meltdown, the very feature
that made the processors fast in the first place, must be fixed.
Plaintiff and the Class are likely to be damaged by Intel's
deceptive trade practices.

Intel's acts caused substantial injury -- a loss of benefit of
the bargain -- that these consumers could not reasonably avoid;
this substantial injury outweighed any benefits to consumers or
to competition. Intel knew or should have known that their
microprocessors were inadequate to safeguard Plaintiff's and the
Class's Personal Information and that risk of a data breach or
theft was highly likely, thus necessitating a patch to cure
Intel's shortcuts. Intel's actions in engaging in the above-named
unfair practices and deceptive acts were negligent, knowing and
willful, and/or wanton and reckless with respect to the rights of
Plaintiff and the Class. The Plaintiff and the Class suffered
injuries as a result of a lack of benefit of the bargain, in
paying for Intel CPUs that were slower than advertised as a
result of needing a patch to repair the Meltdown security
flaw.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq.
          QUANTUM LEGAL LLC
          513 Central Avenue, Suite 300
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 433 4500
          Facsimile: (847) 433 2500
          E-mail: jeff@qulegal.com


IZEA INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on April 4
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of IZEA, Inc. (NASDAQ:IZEA) between
May 15, 2015 and April 3, 2018, both dates inclusive ("Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for IZEA investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the IZEA class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1313.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 throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) IZEA was misreporting revenue from the Company's
Content Workflow services as gross amounts billed to marketers
instead of on a net transaction basis; (2) the amount IZEA
previously reported as gross profit on Content Workflow should be
the amount reported as revenue; (3) IZEA lacked adequate internal
controls; and (4) as a result, Defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.  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
June 4, 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://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1313.htmlto join the class
action. You may also contact Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of
Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
Rosen Law Firm is ranked #1 in the nation by Institutional
Shareholder Services for the number of securities class action
settlements in 2017. [GN]


JESYN ACQUISITION: Shareholder Class Suit Pending in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jensyn Acquisition Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that the company faces a shareholder
class action suit in in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Monmouth County.

On February 2, 2018, a shareholder class action was filed in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County, on behalf of the
holders of public shares against the Company and its Board of
Directors. The complaint alleges that the Company's directors
have breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's public
shareholders by acting to cause or facilitate the Purchase
Agreement because the Purchase Agreement is not in the best
interest of the public shareholders, but is in the best interests
of the directors who will receive significant personal profits as
a result of the Purchase Agreement.

The complaint also alleges, among other things, that BAE has been
over-valued, its projections are overly optimistic and the
Company's directors have breached their fiduciary duty of
disclosure in that the preliminary proxy statement filed by the
Company in connection with seeking approval of the Business
Combination did not disclose material information regarding the
conflicts of interest of the directors.

The complaint alleges that the Company mailed the preliminary
proxy statement on December 27, 2017, notwithstanding the fact
that the preliminary proxy statement was never mailed to any
shareholder. The plaintiff is seeking to enjoin the Company from
consummating the Business Combination and unspecified
compensatory or recessionary damages.

Jensyn Acquisition said "The Company believes that the
allegations are wholly without merit and intend to vigorously
defend the lawsuit; however, if the plaintiff is successful in
enjoining the Business Combination the Business Combination would
not be completed. In addition, we could be held liable for
damages."

Jensyn Acquisition Corp. was incorporated in Delaware on October
8, 2014 as a blank check company whose objective is to acquire,
through a merger, share exchange, asset acquisition, stock
purchase, recapitalization, reorganization or other similar
business combination, with one or more target businesses. The
company is based in Freehold, New Jersey.


JG WENTWORTH: Illinois Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
The J.G. Wentworth Company said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 3,
2018, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the
company continues to defend itself in a class action suit filed
in the Northern District of Illinois.

In February 2014, a purported class action filing was made
against the company and its subsidiaries in the Circuit Court,
20th Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. The class
action complaint, as amended, alleges that the company violated
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
by, among other things, marketing, soliciting, and engaging in
transfers of structured settlement payment rights despite
knowledge of anti-assignment clauses in the underlying structured
settlement agreements, and also alleges common law fraud, breach
of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing and violations
of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO") based on the same structured settlement purchase
transactions. The plaintiffs seek to have the prior transfers
declared void.

The case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, transferred to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division; Case No.: 1:14-cv-09188, and subsequently remanded back
to the Circuit Court of the 20th Judicial Circuit, St. Clair
County, Illinois due to a finding that the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois lacked subject matter
jurisdiction. Following the remand, upon the company's appeal,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found
that the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois had subject matter jurisdiction over the matter and
remanded the case back to that court.

Based on amendments to the Illinois Structured Settlement
Protection Act providing that where the terms of the structured
settlement agreements prohibit sale, assignment, or encumbrance
of such payment rights, a court is not precluded from hearing an
application for transfer of the payment rights and ruling on the
merits of such application, and a declaration that the amendment
was "declarative of existing law", the company believes that the
original ruling in Illinois which commenced the continuing
Illinois proceedings was not consistent with precedent and
existing law, and the company filed updates with the court
accordingly.

On July 27, 2016, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the company's motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. The court dismissed with
prejudice any claims based on allegations that the transfer
approval orders were void. The court held that the Illinois
courts that approved the original transfers had jurisdiction to
approve the transfers and/or claims based on those orders being
void ab initio were dismissed, as well as claims based on
allegations that the venue was improper for the approval
petitions or that the disclosures were inadequate. The court held
that anti-assignment provisions in the original settlement
agreements can be waived, but because the plaintiffs did not
plead that they waived the anti-assignment clauses, the motion to
dismiss those claims were denied. The court dismissed without
prejudice plaintiffs' claims under RICO because plaintiffs failed
to allege two predicate acts as to each of the defendants. The
court also dismissed claims against entities that were not in
existence at the time of the transfers. The court dismissed with
prejudice claims for unjust enrichment and joint enterprise. The
court denied the motion to dismiss the claims based on a breach
of fiduciary duty, parts of the conversion claims and the defense
of statute of limitations because plaintiffs' complaint stated a
claim.

The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on September 2,
2016, which dropped certain of the claims and now asserts claims
only for breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with
contract, civil conspiracy, and conversion. Defendants filed
their motions to dismiss on December 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed
responses on January 22, 2017, and Defendants filed their replies
on February 13, 2017. On June 21, 2017, the court entered an
order dismissing with prejudice the claims for tortious
interference with contract and conversion as to all defendants
except Settlement Funding, LLC (as the only party entitled to
receive future periodic payments), leaving open claims for breach
of fiduciary duty and civil conspiracy. Thereafter, the
defendants filed an answer denying all claims.

At the same time, Settlement Funding, LLC filed a motion to
compel arbitration on December 22, 2016. On January 10, 2017,
plaintiffs served written discovery on Settlement Funding
concerning the issue of arbitrability and on January 23, 2017
filed a motion to stay briefing on the motion to compel
arbitration pending discovery. On January 26, 2017, Settlement
Funding filed a motion for protective order to bar discovery and
the parties appeared in court on February 7, 2017 for a status
conference on that issue. The court scheduled a status hearing
for March 29, 2017 to issue a ruling on the motion for protective
order and to schedule the remaining briefing on the motion to
compel arbitration. The court ruled that only discovery related
to whether the arbitration provisions were unconscionable was
allowable. The parties responded to the discovery.

In February 2018, the court ruled that the plaintiffs must
commence the arbitration against Settlement Funding, LLC or face
dismissal of the claim. The court also established a discovery
schedule within the arbitration proceeding. The plaintiffs did
not file the arbitration as required by the court, and the
defendants, Settlement Funding, LLC, will work to have the matter
dismissed.

The defendants continue to believe that some of the plaintiffs'
claims are time-barred and all claims are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend these claims on a number of factual
and legal grounds.

The J.G. Wentworth Company is a Delaware holding company that was
incorporated on June 21, 2013. The Company is focused on
providing direct-to-consumer access to financing solutions
through a variety of avenues, including: mortgage lending,
structured settlement, annuity and lottery payment purchasing,
prepaid cards, and access to providers of personal loans. The
company is based in Chesterbrook, Pennsylvania.


JG WENTWORTH: Affiliate Faces "Dockery" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
The J.G. Wentworth Company said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 3,
2018, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that a
subsidiary of the company is facing a class action suit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

On September 14, 2017, a styled "Class Action Complaint" (the
"Complaint") was filed by plaintiff Larry G. Dockery in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania; Case No.: 2:17-cv-04114-MMB. The Complaint names a
certain company subsidiary that purchases structured settlement
payments, a competitor and an attorney, Stephen J. Heretick, as
defendants and alleges that the structured settlement payment
purchasing parties conspired with Stephen J. Heretick, Esq. and
certain judges sitting in Portsmouth County, Virginia to violate
state and federal laws with respect to certain transfers of
structured settlement receivables, including claims of fraudulent
concealment and conspiracy in violation of RICO.

The Complaint alleges that Heretick, the judges and the other
defendants, including the company subsidiary, engaged in a scheme
to short cut the transfer order process under the applicable
Structured Settlement Transfer Statute. The Complaint seeks,
among other things, the declaration that the company affiliate
hold the payments subject to the related transfer orders in a
constructive trust for the benefit of the related plaintiffs. The
company affiliate has retained counsel in the case and has filed
a motion to dismiss the Complaint.

J.G. Wentworth said "The company affiliate defendant believes all
claims set forth in the Complaint are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend these claims on a number of factual and
legal grounds."

The J.G. Wentworth Company is a Delaware holding company that was
incorporated on June 21, 2013. The Company is focused on
providing direct-to-consumer access to financing solutions
through a variety of avenues, including: mortgage lending,
structured settlement, annuity and lottery payment purchasing,
prepaid cards, and access to providers of personal loans. The
company is based in Chesterbrook, Pennsylvania.


JOHN DANNA: "Oliveras" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIS OLIVERAS, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs, v. JOHN DANNA & SONS, INC. and
RICHARD DANNA, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03335 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 17, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated, have
had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions,
and are and have been subjected to Defendants' decisions,
policies, plans, programs, practices, procedures, protocols,
routines, and rules, all culminating in a willful failure and
refusal to pay them overtime premium at the rate of one and one
half times the regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per
workweek.

John Danna & Sons in Bronx, NY, offers material transport,
dumpster and container rentals for construction and demolition
use.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs:

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Talcum Powder Class Action in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Villanueva, writing for RX Injury Help, reports that a new
class action lawsuit is accusing Johnson & Johnson of neglecting
to warn consumers of the alleged link between its popular talcum
powder products and ovarian cancer.

The complaint, which was filed on February 27th in Madison County
Circuit Court in Illinois, seeks compensation on behalf of
consumers who purchased Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder.

Lead plaintiff, Barbara Mihalich, claims that she purchased Baby
Powder for decades and relied on Johnson & Johnson's assurances
that it was safe for external use.

"Plaintiff did not receive what she paid for -- a safe product,"
the suit says.  "Defendant knew the Baby Powder was unsafe for
Plaintiff to use in the genital area but did not inform Plaintiff
of the safety risks and omitted this safety information from its
label.  Had Plaintiff known the truth about the safety of
Johnson's Baby Powder, she would not have purchased the product.
As a result of her purchase of an unsafe product that she
reasonably believed to be safe, Plaintiff suffered injury in fact
and lost money."

Ms. Mihalich does not claim that Baby Powder caused her or fellow
class members physical injury, nor is she seeking damages for
personal injuries.  Her talcum powder class action lawsuit seeks
compensation for Baby Powder purchases, as well as awards for
punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs and any further relief
as the court deems just and proper. (Case No. 18-L-264)

Talcum Powder Products Liability Litigation
Johnson & Johnson is currently named a defendant in more than
6,000 individual talcum powder lawsuits, all of which were filed
on behalf of women who allegedly developed ovarian cancer due to
their use of Baby Powder and Shower-to-Shower for feminine
hygiene purposes.

These lawsuits cite more than a dozen studies published since the
1970s that suggest a link between genital talc-use and ovarian
cancer.  They also point to decades-old documents that plaintiffs
claim prove officials at Johnson & Johnson intentionally failed
to warn consumers out of a desire to protect the profits derived
from its Baby Powder and Shower-to-Shower franchises.

Talcum Powder Ovarian Cancer Verdicts
Talcum powder ovarian cancer litigations are now underway in
several jurisdictions, including Missouri Circuit Court in St.
Louis, California Superior Court, and New Jersey federal court,
among others.

In recent years, several juries have ordered Johnson & Johnson to
pay multi-million dollar judgments to talcum powder lawsuit
plaintiffs, with awards ranging from $55 million to $417 million.
However, a judge in California overturned the $417 million
verdict because of accusations involving juror misconduct and
other issues.

A $72 million verdict awarded to an out-of-state plaintiff in
Missouri's talcum powder litigation was also tossed to comply
with new standards set by the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling
in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California, which
requires plaintiffs to file suit in jurisdictions where their
injuries occurred or where defendants are located.

However, a $110 million verdict awarded to another out-of-state
plaintiff in Missouri was upheld, after the trial court concluded
that jurisdiction was appropriate because Johnson & Johnson had
used a state-based company to label, package and distribute their
talc products. [GN]


KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT: "Brayman" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Brayman, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Keypoint Government
Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00550 (D. Colo., March
8, 2018), seeks redress for violations of the California Labor
Code, California Business and Professions Code (Unfair Practices
Act) and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

Keypoint is a provider of investigative services and background
screening for the federal government. Brayman worked as a field
investigator, claiming to have worked 55-60 hours per work week
without being paid overtime for hours over 40. Their work hours
recorded in the electronic time-keeping system do not accurately
reflect all of the hours they worked, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
      George E. Swegman (26972)
      THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
      36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Phone: (410) 244-7005
      Fax: (410) 244-8454
      Email: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
             gswegman@nicholllaw.com


KIRKLAND'S INC: Awaits 3rd Cir. Decision in Kamal v. J. Crew
------------------------------------------------------------
Kirkland's, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 3, 2018, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the Third Circuit heard
oral argument in the J. Crew case on February 9, 2018, and a
decision is expected later this spring or summer.

The company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
filed in April 2017 in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, Gennock v. Kirkland's, Inc.
The complaint alleges that the company, in violation of federal
law, published more than the last five digits of a credit or
debit card number on customers' receipts.

The company denies the material allegations of the complaint. On
January 9, 2018, the District Court denied the company's motion
to dismiss the matter.

On January 31, 2018, the Court granted the company's motion to
stay the proceedings in its case pending the Third Circuit's
decision in Kamal v. J. Crew Group, Inc., No. 17-2345 (3d. Cir.).
The J. Crew case presents the exact same standing issues as the
company's case, but in J. Crew the defendant won its motion to
dismiss.

The Third Circuit heard oral argument in the J. Crew case on
February 9, 2018, and a decision is expected later this spring or
summer.

Kirkland's said "We continue to believe that the case is without
merit and intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the
allegations. The matter is covered by insurance, and we do not
believe that the case will have a material adverse effect on our
consolidated financial condition, operating results or cash
flows.

Kirkland's, Inc. is a specialty retailer of home decor in the
United States, operating 418 stores in 36 states as of February
3, 2018, as well as an e-commerce enabled website,
www.kirklands.com. The company's stores present a broad selection
of distinctive merchandise, including holiday decor, framed art,
furniture, ornamental wall decor, fragrance and accessories,
mirrors, lamps, decorative accessories, textiles, housewares,
gifts, artificial floral products, frames, clocks and outdoor
living items. The company is based in Brentwood Tennessee.


LA SALLE, IL: Appel et al. Case in Initial Discovery Pilot
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit titled Michael Appel, Christa
Bradley, Colin Brand, as next of friend of Kathleen Brand a
minor, Philip Dorsey, Brandon Gaines, David Greenhalgh, Matthew
Heinecke Robyn Hess, Michael Hess, Peter Malpezzi, Richard
Neumann Douglas Schaan, Scott Sheldon, William Whitlow, Wyatt
Whitlow, and Adam Woodley, and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. LaSalle County State's Attorney Felony Enforcement
Unit; LaSalle County State's Attorney; Brian Towne; Edward Jauch,
Spring Valley Police Department; Kevin Sangston, Spring Valley
Police Chief; Daniel Gillette; Jeff Gaither; Brian Zebron;
LaSalle Police Department; Robert Uranich, LaSalle Police Chief;
Mark Manicki; Ottawa Police Department; Brent Roalson, Ottawa
Police Chief; Derek Benning; Peru Police Department; Douglas
Bernabei, Peru Police Chief; Timothy Green; Robert Nilles;
Matthew Heiden; LaSalle County Board; City of Spring Valley;
Rebecca Hanson; Jeff Burke; Mark Hoster; and Illinois State's
Attorney Appellate Prosecutor, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
02439 (N.D. Ill.), the Court is participating in the Mandatory
Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP).

The Court said, "The key features and deadlines includes a link
to the (MIDP) Standing Order and a Checklist for use by the
parties. In cases subject to the pilot, all parties must respond
to the mandatory initial discovery requests set forth in the
Standing Order before initiating any further discovery in this
case. Please note: The discovery obligations in the Standing
Order supersede the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). Any
party seeking affirmative relief must serve a copy of the
following documents (Notice of Mandatory Initial Discovery and
the Standing Order) on each new party when the Complaint,
Counterclaim, Crossclaim, or Third-Party Complaint is served."

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patrick D. Flanagan, Esq.
          COMPTON LAW GROUP
          85 Market Street
          Elgin, IL 60123
          Telephone: (847) 742 6100
          E-mail: patflanagan@aol.com


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Mass. App. Affirms Denial of Compensable Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Hampden, affirmed the
Superior Court's Dismissal of the Complaint in the case captioned
ANN SKIFFINGTON, vs. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY. No. 17-P-
425. (Mass. App.)

Following a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff, a third-party
claimant, received reimbursement from Liberty Mutual Insurance
Company for the loss of her vehicle.  She then sought additional
payment for (1) costs arising from loss of use of her vehicle,
even though she was unable to produce any documentation to
Liberty Mutual that she had paid for substitute transportation,
and (2) her title and registration fees and the residual value of
her inspection sticker.  When Liberty Mutual denied liability for
these claims, the plaintiff brought this putative class action,
seeking declaratory relief under G. L. c. 231A and damages for
unfair claim settlement practices under G. L. c. 93A, Section 9,
and G. L. c. 176D, Section 3(9).

On Liberty Mutual's motion, a Superior Court judge dismissed the
complaint in its entirety under Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), 365 Mass.
754 (1974), and the plaintiff appeals.

Despite failing to plead actual costs related to loss of use of
her vehicle, the plaintiff contends that she is still entitled to
some unspecified amount of damages because the standard policy
provides coverage whether or not she actually incurred costs for
substitute transportation.

The Court disagrees.

To determine what damages are compensable under the standard
policy, the Court must interpret the policy's words in light of
their plain meaning, giving full effect to the document as a
whole.

Even assuming, moreover, that tort law informs our analysis, the
plaintiff fares no better in light of the recent decision in
Ramirez v. Commerce Ins. Co., 91 Mass.App.Ct. 144 (2017).  At
issue there was the provision in part 4 of the standard policy
requiring reimbursement of applicable sales tax.  The Court held
that the plaintiff was not automatically entitled to such
reimbursement but, rather, had to provide to the insurer proof of
the payment of sales tax on a replacement automobile.  Citing
tort cases, the Court reasoned that the insurer is only
responsible for placing the plaintiff in the same position as he
was before suffering the loss.

Thus, the plaintiff had to establish that sales tax is an element
of the damages "he incurred or will incur" before he could
recover applicable sales tax from the insurer.

The Court similarly concludes that the plaintiff had to
substantiate to the insurer that she incurred actual damages,
actual costs for substitute transportation to recover for loss of
use under part 4 of the standard policy.  As the plaintiff does
not dispute that she did not incur actual costs, she is not
entitled to loss of use damages.

The judgment is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Mass. App.'s March 8, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y89xxgac from Leagle.com.

Matthew T. LaMothe -- mlamothe@forrestlamothe.com -- for the
plaintiff.

Daniel P. Tighe -- dtighe@princelobel.com -- for the defendant.


LUX COSMETIC: Sopo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
GIANNINA SOPO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. LUX COSMETIC SURGERY CENTER
CORP., a Florida Profit Corporation; SEDUCTION COSMETIC CENTER
CORP., a Florida Profit Corporation; NEW YOU PLASTIC SURGERY &
SPA CORP., a Florida Profit Corporation; CG BEAUTY PLASTIC
SURGERY CORP., a Florida Profit Corporation; JARDON'S MEDICAL FOR
PLASTIC & BARIATRIC SURGERY CORP., a Florida Profit Corporation;
BUTTERFLY COSMETIC CENTER CORP., a Florida Profit Corporation;
LUIS R. JARDON, individually and GRETEL JARDON, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-21511-UU (S.D. Fla., April 17,
2018), seeks to recover declaratory judgment, monetary damages in
the form of unpaid overtime compensation, as well as an
additional amount as liquidated damages, to redress the
deprivation of rights secured to Plaintiff and other employees
similarly situated by the Fair Labor Standards Act and for an
award of attorneys' and paralegal fees and costs.

Sopo worked for the Defendants for over six months from about
mid-August, 2017 through late-February 26, 2018. Sopo performed
various nonexempt work for Defendants, working with the title,
but without the actual duties and authority, of "practice/office
administrator." Sopo was paid a flat amount each week. The
Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a
policy of not paying overtime compensation to Sopo, which was in
violation of the FLSA. The Defendants knowingly misclassified
workers throughout the various companies as "independent
contractors," in part, so that the Defendants could improperly
attempt to avoid paying overtime to non-exempt workers who were
actually employees entitled to be paid overtime.

Lux Cosmetic Surgery is a leading plastic surgery center.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven L. Schwarzberg, Esq.
          SCHWARZBERG & ASSOCIATES
          2751 South Dixie Highway, Suite 400
          West Palm Beach, FL 33405
          Telephone: (561) 659 3300
          Facsimile: (561) 693 4540
          E-mail: steve@schwarzberglaw.com
                  mail@schwarzberglaw.com


MCKESSON CORPORATION: Hunt Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled VERONICA L. HUNT, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MCKESSON
CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01834-MRH (W.D.
Pa.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to enter an order
conditionally certifying a collective under the Fair Labor
Standards Act consisting of:

   "all persons holding positions with Defendant McKesson
   Corporation who were classified as exempt in positions in
   professional grade 103, with the exception of manager and
   supervisor roles in grade 103, in the United States at any
   time from March 23, 2015 until October 23, 2016."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7JvtNgOb

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Laura L. Ho, Esq.
          Megan E. Ryan, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
          300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763 9800
          Facsimile: (510) 835 1417
          E-mail: lho@gbdhlegal.com
                  mryan@gbdhlegal.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
          THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP
          100 First Avenue, Suite 650
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone (412) 227 0763
          E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com

               - and -

          John R. Linkosky, Esq.
          JOHN LINKOSKY & ASSOCIATES
          715 Washington Avenue
          Carnegie, PA 15106
          Telephone: (412) 278 1280
          E-mail: linklaw@comcast.net


MDL 2619: Confidential Settlements Inked in 2 Cases vs Twinlab
--------------------------------------------------------------
Twinlab Consolidated Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April
3, 2018, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the
company enters into a confidential settlement with the plaintiffs
in the cases In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales
Practice Litigation, MDL No. 2619, Case No. 1:15-cv-5070, U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, filed on
June 9, 2015, and Amy Mathews v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-
Mart Stores Arkansas LLC, Case No. CV-2015-0294, in the Circuit
Court of Independence County, Arkansas, Civil Division.

Twinlab Consolidated said "We were not a named party in these
matters, which concerned multidistrict litigation class actions
arising from allegations raised that certain herbal supplement
products did not contain the herbal ingredients stated on the
label. Pursuant to our contractual obligations to some of our
customers, who were named, we provided indemnity and defense with
respect to certain of the claims in this litigation, taking all
necessary steps to vigorously defend this matter."

On August 18, 2017, on behalf of the defendants (under the
company's indemnity obligation) the company entered into a
confidential settlement with the plaintiffs, which did not have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition/results of
operations or cash flows or liquidity.

Twinlab Consolidated Holdings, Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, manufactures, markets, distributes, and retails
nutritional supplements and other natural products worldwide. The
company is based in Boca Raton, Florida.


MDL 2826: "Ross" Suit vs Uber Consolidated in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ellen Ross, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Uber
Technologies Inc., a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case
No. 7:18-cv-00117, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los
Angeles) on April 16, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:18-cv-03168-PSG-GJS to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Philip S. Gutierrez.

The Ross case is being consolidated with MDL 2826 in re: Uber
Technologies, Inc., Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on April 4, 2018. These putative class
actions share complex factual questions arising from Uber's
announcement on November 21, 2017, that a data security breach of
its network occurred in late 2016 in which the personal
information of 57 million Uber users was downloaded by
unauthorized individuals outside the company. Common 4 factual
questions are presented with respect to Uber's practices in
safeguarding its users' personal information, the investigation
into the breach, the alleged delay in disclosing the breach, and
the nature of the alleged damages. Centralization will eliminate
duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings,
including with respect to class certification; and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.

In its April 4, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that the Central
District of California is an appropriate transferee district for
this litigation. Three actions are pending in this district. The
Uber defendants support this district if centralization is
granted over their objection, and plaintiffs in two Northern
District of Illinois actions support it as their second choice.
The MDL Panel also noted that California has a significant
connection to this litigation, as Uber Technologies, Inc., has
its headquarters in this state, where much of the common
evidence, including witnesses, will be located.  The panel also
said Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, to whom the litigation is
assigned, is an experienced transferee judge, and the panel is
confident he will steer this litigation on a prudent course. The
lead case is 2:18-ml-02826-PSG-GJS.

Uber Technologies is a peer-to-peer ridesharing, food delivery,
and transportation network company headquartered in San
Francisco, California, with operations in 633 cities
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leon R Storie, Esq.
          LEON STORIE, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          P O Box 20029
          Tuscaloosa, AL 35402
          Telephone: (205) 333 0065
          Facsimile: (205) 210 4651
          E-mail: leon@leonstorie.com

               - and -

          Steven P. Gregory, Esq.
          GREGORY LAW FIRM PC
          2700 Corporate Drive, Suite 200
          Birmingham, AL 35242
          Telephone: (205) 314 4874
          E-mail: steve@gregorylawfirm.us


MEDLEY LLC: Faces Two Class Action Complaints in Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------
Medley LLC said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the company faces two class action
complaints in Virginia.

Medley LLC, MCC, and MOF II were named as defendants, along with
other various parties, in a putative class action lawsuit
captioned as Royce Solomon, Jodi Belleci, Michael Littlejohn, and
Giulianna Lomaglio v. American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Mark
Curry, MacFarlane Group, Inc., The MacFarlane Group, LLC, Sol
Partners, Medley Opportunity Fund, II, LP, Medley LLC, Medley
Capital Corporation, Oakmont Funding, Inc., Dinero Investments,
Inc., Chieftain Funding, Inc., Dant Holdings, Inc., DHI Computing
Service, Inc., Smith Haynes & Watson, LLC, Middlemarch Partners,
and John Does 1-100, filed on December 15, 2017, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
Newport News Division, as Case No. 4:17-cv-145 (hereinafter,
"Class Action 1").

MOF II and MCC were also named as defendants, along with various
other parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned
George Hengle and Lula Williams v. Mark Curry, American Web Loan,
Inc., AWL, Inc., Red Stone, Inc., Medley Opportunity Fund II LP,
and Medley Capital Corporation, filed February 13, 2018, in the
United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia,
Richmond Division, as Case No. 3:18-cv-100 ("Class Action 2")
(together with Class Action 1, the "Class Action Complaints").

The plaintiffs in the Class Action Complaints filed their
putative class actions alleging claims under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and various other
claims arising out of the alleged payday lending activities of
American Web Loan.

The claims against MOF II, Medley LLC, and MCC (in Class Action
1), and the claims against MOF II and MCC (in Class Action 2),
allege that those defendants in each respective action exercised
control over American Web Loan's payday lending activities as a
result of a loan to American Web Loan. The loan was made by MOF
II in 2011. American Web Loan repaid the loan from MOF II in full
in February of 2015, more than 1 year and 10 months prior to any
of the loans allegedly made by American Web Loan to the alleged
class plaintiff representatives in Class Action 1; in Class
Action 2, the alleged class plaintiff representatives have not
alleged when they received any loans from American Web Loan.
Medley LLC and MCC never made any loans or provided financing to,
or had any other relationship with, American Web Loan.

MOF II, Medley LLC, and MCC are seeking indemnification from
American Web Loan, various affiliates, and other parties with
respect to the claims in the Class Action Complaints.

Medley LLC said "MOF II, Medley LLC, and MCC believe the alleged
claims in the Class Action Complaints are without merit and they
intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously."

Medley LLC is an alternative asset management firm offering yield
solutions to retail and institutional investors. The company
focuses on credit-related investment strategies, primarily
originating senior secured loans to private middle market
companies in the United States that have revenues between $50
million and $1 billion.


MEGGITT-USA: Court Approves Settlement of "Trout" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BROOK TROUT, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MEGGITT-USA
SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-07520-ODW-AJW
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II entered an order
granting Plaintiff's amended motion for preliminary approval of a
collective action settlement.

The Court also entered an Attorneys' Fees and Class
Representative Award:

-- Attorneys' Fees:

   The Court concludes that the Attorneys' Fees awarded to
   counsel for the collective action are reasonable. In the
   Amended Motion, the proposed Attorneys' Fees are limited to
   25% of the total settlement payout. Because the Attorneys'
   Fees equal the 'benchmark' for a reasonable fee award, the
   Court grants Plaintiff's requested Attorneys' Fees.

-- Incentive Award:

   "At its discretion, a district court may award an incentive
   payment to the named plaintiffs in a FLSA action to compensate
   them for work done on behalf of the class." In reviewing
   whether an incentive award is appropriate, the district court
   should consider the actions the plaintiff has taken to protect
   the interests of the class, the degree to which the class
   benefitted from such actions, and the amount of time and
   effort the plaintiff expended in pursuing the litigation.
   Courts will scrutinize large incentive payments "to ensure
   that the prospect of a large incentive did not encourage a
   named plaintiff 'to accept a suboptimal settlement at the
   expense of the class members whose interests they are
   appointed to guard.'"

   The Plaintiff seeks $7,500.00 class representative enhancement
   for the FLSA Settlement. The Plaintiff contends that this
   amount is fair because "the average class member receives far
   more than this amount" and it is not disproportionate to the
   other class members claims. The net total available for the
   FLSA Settlement is $850,000.00, to be split amongst 29
   individuals representing an average of $29,310.34 per person
   (prior to subtracting any fees). Therefore, the Court finds
   the class representative enhancement is not disproportionate
   to the other class member's claims and holds that the
   incentive award is reasonable and appropriate.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2XVLNk36


MELVA CONSTRUCTION: Violates Wage and Hour Laws, Puli Says
----------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL QUINTUNA PULI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MELVA CONSTRUCTION CORP.,
and CHRISTOS BATALIAS, as an individual, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-02265-CBA-ST (E.D.N.Y., April 17, 2018), seeks to recover
compensatory damages and liquidated damages in an amount
exceeding $100,000.00, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all
other legal and equitable remedies under the Federal and New York
State labor laws.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants at Melva Construction
Corp. from in or around 2006 until in or around June 2016.The
Plaintiffs primary duties were as a construction worker, roofer,
and performing other miscellaneous duties from in or around 2006
until in or around June 2016. The Plaintiff was paid by
Defendants approximately $150.00 per day from in or about 2010
until in or around 2014 and approximately $160.00 per day from in
or around 2015 until in or around June 2016. Although the
Plaintiff worked approximately 63 hours or more per week during
the months of May through October during his employment by
Defendants from in or around 2006 to in or around June 2016, the
Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half (1.5) for hours
worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions
contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act and NYLL.

According to the complaint, the Defendants willfully failed to
post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements
in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as
required by both the NYLL and the FLSA. The Defendants willfully
failed to keep payroll records as required by both NYLL and the
FLSA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          69-12 Austin Street
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (718) 263 9591


MEMORIAL HERMANN: "Romano" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Luis Romano, Monica Romano and Jose Guerrero, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated v. Memorial Hermann
Hospital and Diligent Texas Dedicated, LLC dba Diligent Delivery
Systems fka NDLI Logistics, Case No. 4:18-cv-00825 (S.D. Tex.,
March 15, 2018), seek to recover unpaid overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs Luis Romano, Monica Romano and Jose Guerrero reside in
Harris County, Texas. Plaintiffs worked as couriers for
Defendants.

Defendant Memorial Hermann operates a chain of hospitals that
provide healthcare services.

Defendant Diligent operates a courier service that serves
exclusively Defendant Memorial Herman. Defendant Diligent
employed couriers to pick up specimens from doctors' offices and
distinct locations operated by Defendant Memorial Herman and
deliver them to testing labs. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
      TRAN LAW FIRM
      2537 S. Gessner Rd., Suite 104
      Houston, TX 77063
      Tel: (713) 223-8855
      Fax: (713) 623-6399
      E-mail: ttran@tranlawllp.com
              service@tranlawllp.com


MONARCH RECOVERY: Settlement of "Hartman" Suit Has Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge District Judge Cathy Bissoon entered a Final
Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice in the lawsuit
styled MELISSA HARTMAN, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MONARCH RECOVERY
MANAGEMENT, INC., and DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-
cv-01364-CB (W.D. Pa.).

On April 17, 2018, the Court held a Fairness Hearing to consider
the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and
Class Certification.

Pursuant to the Final Order, the Court:

   1. certifies a class of:

      "all Pennsylvania consumers who were sent collection
      letters from Defendant in an attempt to collect an
      obligation owed to ynchrony Bank, similar to the Collection
      Letter annexed to the complaint, where Monarch's File
      Number was visible through the  lower glassine window of
      the enclosing envelope, during the time period spanning
      October 20, 2014 to the present";

   2. appoints Melissa Hartman as the Class Representative for
      the Class Members and the law firm for the Class Members;
      and

   3. directs mailing of class action notice to the Class
      Members.

The Court also approved these terms:

   Settlement:

   The Agreement shall be deemed incorporated, and the proposed
   settlement is finally approved and shall1 be consummated in
   accordance with the terms and provisions, except as amended by
   any order issued by the Court.

   Attorney Fees:

   The Court has considered Class Counsel's application for
   counsel fees and costs. The costs for which reimbursement is
   sought appear to be fair, reasonable and adequately
   documented, and are approved. Class Counsel's detailed
   application for fees has been reviewed and the time spent
   appears to be fair, reasonable and necessary for the effective
   prosecution of the case. The rates billed and the time spent
   are supported and appear to be fair and reasonable. Class
   Counsel fees and expenses are approved in the sum of
   $20,000.00 which shall be paid by MRM pursuant to the
   Agreement.

   Objections and Exclusions:

   The Class Members were given an opportunity to object to the
   settlement. Zero Class Member(s) objected to the settlement.
   The Class Members were also given an opportunity to exclude
   themselves from the settlement. Zero Class Member(s) excluded
   themselves from the settlement.

   Release of Claims and Dismissal of Lawsuit:

   The Class Representative, Class Members, and their successors
   and assigns are permanently barred and enjoined from
   instituting or prosecuting, either individually or as a class,
   or in any other capacity, any of the Released Claims against
   any of the Released Parties, as set forth in the Agreement.
   Pursuant to the release contained in the Agreement, the
   Released Claims are compromised, settled, released,
   discharged, and dismissed with prejudice by virtue of these
   proceedings and this order, except as to executory obligations
   required by the Agreement.

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


MUFG UNION BANK: Seegert Sues over Continued Overdraft Fee
----------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA SEEGERT an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MUFG Union Bank, N.A., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00742-AJB-BGS (S.D. Cal., April 17,
2018), seeks to recover damages and other relief from Union Bank
for its illegal, usurious assessment and deceptive collection of
so-called continued overdraft fees from its customers in
violation of the National Bank Act.

Continued overdraft fees are charges that banks impose on
customers when a checking/savings account remains overdrawn for a
period of time after the initial overdraft transaction.
Specifically, Union Bank charges its customers a $6.00 Continued
Overdraft Fee each day, for up to five business days, after a
Union Bank checking/savings account remains overdrawn for more
than six (6) calendar days. This charge is levied in addition to
the $33.00 fee that is levied on the customer for each charge
made against an overdrawn account. Unlike the initial overdraft
fee, this additional fee is charged although Union Bank has
provided nothing new in the way of services to the consumer other
than advancing the original money to the consumer's account to
cover the initial overdraft.

In reality, the Continued Overdraft Fee is little more than an
interest charge levied by Union Bank for the extension of credit
made in covering a customer's overdraft. The amount of interest
charged by Union Bank vastly exceeds the permissible interest
rate limits imposed by California law and the National Bank Act.
In reality, Union Bank's assessment and collection of the
Continued Overdraft Fee from its customers constitutes a charge
for the use, forbearance, or detention of money -- otherwise
known as interest. And the rates of interest assessed are
shocking and unconscionable, often exceeding 500%. Yet Union Bank
hides these massive interest charges from its accountholders,
instead deceptively referring to its interest charges as a type
of "overdraft fee."

According to the lawsuit, Union Bank mis-names the interest
charges because it knows reasonable consumers would not agree to
enter into checking accounts with Union Bank that included such
huge interest rates for short-term, small-dollar overdraft loans.
Instead, consumers would choose to bank with Union Bank
competitors, many of whom do not charge equivalent interest fees
on overdraft loans. Consumers are thus deceived by Union Bank's
false representations in its account disclosures. Union Bank has
continued to misrepresent the nature of its Continued Overdraft
Fee even though it is on notice that the payment of overdrafts is
an extension of credit and that reasonable minds believe such
fees are interest.

Union Bank is an American full-service bank with 398 branches in
California, Washington and Oregon which is wholly owned by The
Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Proposed Class Counsel:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          Brittany C. Casola, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET
          KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762 1900
          Facsimile: (619) 756 6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com


NEULION INC: Accord in Suit over Mayweather-McGregor Fight Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Neulion, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada granted preliminary approval to settlement of
all class action suits filed in connection with the Mayweather
vs. McGregor pay per view boxing event.

On the night of August 26, 2017, the company experienced a
problem during its streaming of the Mayweather vs. McGregor pay
per view boxing event (the "Event") that affected a significant
number of UFC.TV users. The company does not believe the issue
was systemic or fundamental to the NeuLion Digital Platform or
its underlying technology. Following the event, the company's
customer the Ultimate Fighting Championship ("UFC") put in place
a refund program and refunded UFC's dissatisfied Mayweather vs.
McGregor pay per view customers. The refunds were entirely funded
by UFC (the company collected such funds solely in its capacity
as the UFC's payment processor) in accordance with instructions
received from the UFC.

The company's revenue for the year ended December 31, 2017 was
impacted by these refunds to the extent that the company would
have shared, on a minority basis, in the revenue that was
refunded and which would have been recorded on a net basis and by
the immaterial amount of its deductible in connection with its
insurance claim in connection with the Event.
On November 27, 2017, the UFC and the Company settled any claims
the UFC might have against the company in connection with the
Event and the UFC agreed to indemnify and hold the company
harmless against any and all claims by the UFC or any third
party. On February 22, 2018, the United States District Court for
the District of Nevada granted preliminary approval to settlement
of all class action suits filed in connection with the Event.

NeuLion, Inc. is a technology product and service provider that
specializes in the digital video broadcasting, distribution and
monetization of live and on-demand content, with the mission to
deliver and enable the highest quality video content experiences
anywhere and on any device. The company is based in Plainview,
New York.


OCALA, FL: Taps Consultants to Evaluate Fire User Fees
------------------------------------------------------
Katie Pohlman, writing for Ocala, reports the Ocala City Council
has enlisted a private engineering consultant firm to evaluate
the city's current fire user fees.

Council members unanimously approved on April 3 a $56,573 year-
long contract with Tampa-based Tindale-Oliver & Associates to
assess current fire fees and suggest changes or alternatives.
The fees were implemented in 2007 and provide 55 percent of
funding for the city's fire services.  Fee rates have not changed
over the past 10 years.

Tindale-Oliver & Associates will conduct a seven-month study to
evaluate outstanding funding issues, the full cost of fire
services, and survey all commercial and residential buildings in
the city.  The firm will then present a report to the council and
assist in any ordinance development and implementation needed,
according to the contract.

City Manager John Zobler said there is a clear need for the
study.  He told council members on April 3 the city "missed the
boat" on some of the large distribution centers that have been
built in recent years.

Under the current ordinance, residential customers pay $386 per
dwelling unit per year.  For commercial customers, fees are
calculated based on square footage of structures. The highest fee
of $52,895.31 is for structures 300,001-square-feet or more.

Newly opened distribution centers -- Chewy, FedEx and AutoZone --
in the Ocala 489 Commerce Park area range from 400,000- to
600,000-square-feet in size.

Councilman Justin Grabelle, who ultimately voted for the study's
approval, requested that council discuss the necessity of the
contract.

"I mean do we really need to pay somebody $56,000 to tell us what
our options are? Is that something we need to do as a council?"
he asked.

Mr. Zobler told him city staff does not have the expertise to
prepare an analysis like the one Tindale-Oliver & Associates
would produce.

Council members also expressed concerns of whether the study
would impact current litigation in which the city is involved.

The city is facing a class action lawsuit about the
constitutionality of the fire user fees, originally filed in 2014
by Discount Sleep of Ocala, LLC, and Dale W. Birch.  The suit has
bounced back and forth among different ranking courts, but is
back in Marion County civil court after an appellate court ruled
plaintiffs did qualify for a class action lawsuit.

Plaintiffs argue the city is not authorized by the Florida
Constitution to levy the fees and did not follow the statutory
procedure for enacting them.

Attorney Rob Batsel, of the Gilligan, Franjola & Batsel law firm,
said the subject of the lawsuit and the subject of the analysis
are completely different.

"The issues that we're facing (in the lawsuit) are wholly
independent and different from determining whether the way that
we're apportioning these fees is appropriate and equitable," he
told the council.

Mr. Batsel said the consulting company would be able to look at
the fire fees issue without regard to ongoing litigation and
provide a fresh point of view.

Mr. Zobler estimated the report will be ready for council in
February 2019. [GN]


OCERA THERAPEUTICS: May 3 Hearing on Atty Fee Bid in "Franchi"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California set Briefing Schedule and continued the date of
hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for An Award of Attorney's Fees and
Expenses in the case captioned ANTHONY FRANCHI, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. OCERA
THERAPEUTICS, INC., ECKARD WEBER, LINDA S. GRAIS, WILLARD DERE,
STEVEN P. JAMES, NINA KJELLSON, ANNE M. VANLENT, WENDELL
WIERENGA, MAK LLC, MEH ACQUISITION CO., and MALLINCKRODT PLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-06636-EMC (N.D. Calif.).

The Plaintiff filed the Motion, and initially noticed the hearing
on the Motion for March 29, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. before this Court.

The Parties agree and submit that continuing the date of the
hearing on the Motion, and resetting the briefing schedule
concerning the Motion, would provide the Parties and the Court
additional time necessary to adequately address and assess the
Motion.

The Defendants will file a consolidated brief in opposition to
the Motion not to exceed 25 pages on or before March 29, 2018.

If the Defendants file a brief in opposition to the Motion, the
Plaintiff will file his reply brief on or before April 20, 2018.

The hearing on the Motion will take place on May 3, 2018 at 1:30
p.m., or soon thereafter as the Court finds appropriate.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 8, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaln8z8v from
Leagle.com.

Anthony Franchi, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joel E. Elkins --
jelkins@weisslawllp.com -- WeissLaw LLP.

Ocera Therapeutics, Inc., Linda S. Grais, Eckard Weber, Willard
Dere, Steven P. James, Nina Kjellson, Anne M. VanLent & Wendell
Wierenga, Defendants, represented by Michael T. Jones --
mjones@goodwinprocter.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP.


OKLAHOMA: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification in "Cowan"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DONALD RAY COWAN, Plaintiff, v. MIKE
HUNTER, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-324-TCK-FHM (N. D.
Okla.), the United States District Court for Northern District of
Oklahoma denied as moot the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Action
Certification and Motion for Appointment of Class Council.

This case arises out of Plaintiff Donald Ray Cowan's past
conviction for first degree manslaughter.  At the time of the
events leading to his conviction, the Plaintiff was employed as
an armed security guard for a Section 8 housing apartment
complex.  On January 10, 2004, while performing his duties, the
Plaintiff, a Caucasian man, shot and killed Ronald Henderson, an
African-American man.

The Plaintiff did, after filing his Amended Complaint, filed a
Motion for Preliminary Injunction.  The Motion similarly does not
seek to enjoin any conduct against the Plaintiff.  Similarly,
though the Plaintiff has also attempted to cast his case as a
class action, he has not pled any other class representatives
against whom any conduct can be enjoined, the Court said.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 8, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8kv39qm from
Leagle.com.

Donald Ray Cowan, Plaintiff, pro se.

Mike Hunter, Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma in his
individual and official capacity, Steven Kunzweiler, District
Attorney for Tulsa County Oklahoma in his individual and official
capacity & Director of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections,
Defendants, represented by Kari Yvonne Hawkins, LITIGATION
SECTION Office of the Attorney General.

Mike Huff, Tulsa Police Detective, in his individual and official
capacity, Michael Nance, Tulsa Police Detective, in his
individual and official capacity, Richard Gerald Meulenberg, IV,
Tulsa Police Officer, in his individual and official capacity &
City of Tulsa, Defendants, represented by R. Lawson Vaughn, III,
City of Tulsa & Stephan Alan Wangsgard, City of Tulsa.

Sheriff of Tulsa County, Defendant, represented by Meredith Leigh
Baker, Tulsa County Sheriff's Office.


OLD DOMINION: "Sanders" Case Removed to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as EUGENE SANDERS, an individual, on
behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC., a
Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. 37-2016-00030725-CU-OE-CTL, ODFL removed the action
pending in the Superior Court of the State of California in and
for the County of San Diego to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California April 4, 2018, on the
ground that this Court has original jurisdiction over this civil
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1332, 1441 and 1446. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-00688-JGB-SHK.

Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. is a less-than-truckload,
company. It offers regional, inter-regional and national LTL
service.[BN]

Attorneys for Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc.:

          Matthew C. Kane, Esq.
          Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq.
          Sylvia J. Kim, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501
          Telephone: (310) 315 8200
          Facsimile: (310) 315 8210
          E-mail: mkane@mcguirewoods.com
                  sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com
                  skim@mcguirewoods.com


OLD DOMINION: Bid to Remand "Sanders" to State Court Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California denied the Motion to Remand the case captioned EUGENE
SANDERS, DOUG BUTLER, DARREL FOLEY, GEORGE RENNER, AND ROGER
SHRADER, individuals, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. OLD DOMINION
FREIGHT LINE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17cv2340-CAB-NLS (S.D.
Cal.).

The Plaintiff, a former truck driver for Defendant Old Dominion
Freight Line, Inc., filed a complaint in San Diego County
Superior Court asserting claims on behalf of himself and putative
classes of Defendant's truck drivers who worked in California.
The original complaint asserted five claims under California's
unfair competition and labor laws, and expressly alleged that the
amount in controversy for the class claims was under $5 million.

The Defendant removed the original complaint to the District
Court, which was assigned Case No. 16cv2837-CAB-NLS.  In the
notice of removal in Case No. 16cv2837 (NOR1), the Defendant
asserted that all of the requirements for subject matter
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) were met
insofar as minimum diversity exists and the amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million.

The Court finds that because the Plaintiffs allege that less than
$5 million is in controversy in the SAC and challenge the
Defendant's allegations in the NOR2, the Defendant has the burden
to put forward evidence showing that the amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million, to satisfy other requirements of CAFA, and to
persuade the court that the estimate of damages in controversy is
a reasonable one.

The SAC is silent as to the potential total damages for these
violations other than to state that the total is less than $5
million.

In the sur-reply to the motion to remand, after removing class
member workdays outside of California, the Defendant's estimate
was reduced to $3,066,631.40.

The Court found that the Defendant's assumption of a 50%
violation rate was unreasonable as the Defendant did not offer
any evidence supporting its use of this violation rate.  Further,
because this calculation constituted over half of the Defendant's
total AIC estimate, the Defendant's failure to meet its burden of
proof as to the AIC on this claim was fatal to the Defendant's
assertion of jurisdiction under CAFA.

In the NOR2, the Defendant asserted the AIC on the meal and rest
break claim is $5,120,965.01.

Based on this evidence and the assumption that the Newly-Joined
Plaintiffs' infraction rate is similar to the PCMs, the Defendant
calculates the AIC for the penalties/premium pay for non-
compliant meal breaks as totaling $2,935,072.91.  Similarly, the
Defendant calculates the AIC for penalties/premium pay for non-
compliant rest breaks as totaling $1,639,421.14.

Therefore, in the NOR2, the Defendant calculates the total AIC
for the First Cause of Action as follows:

  $2,935,072.91 + $1,639,421.14 + $546,470.96 = $5,120,965.01.

The Defendant calculates the amount in controversy on the
Plaintiff's claim for wages based on unpaid rest breaks, as
follows:

62,573 (rest break infraction workdays) x 20/60 (20 unpaid rest
break minutes per workday) x $26.20 (average hourly wage) =
$546,470.96

Therefore, in the NOR2, the Defendant calculates the total AIC
for the First Cause of Action as follows:

  $2,935,072.91 + $1,639,421.14 + $546,470.96 = $5,120,965.01.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 8, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yd5nwd8p from Leagle.com.

Eugene Sanders, individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Aparajit Bhowmik, Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Molly Ann
DeSario -- molly@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik, Norman B. Blumenthal -- norm@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Ruchira Piya Mukherjee -- piya@bamlawlj.com
-- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik & Victoria Bree Rivapalacio -
- victoria@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., a Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Matthew Charles Kane -- mkane@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP & Sylvia Jihae Kim -- skim@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuire Woods LLP.


ORLEBAR BROWN: Fails to Design Website Accessible to Blind Person
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO MARTINEZ, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. ORLEBAR BROWN,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02242 (E.D.N.Y., April 16,
2018), seeks to recover damages caused by Orlebar Brown's failure
to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using
his computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-
impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet
the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual
acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some
blind people who meet this definition have limited vision; others
have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report,
approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are
visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and
according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report,
approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State
of New York.

The Defendant is denying blind and visually-impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Orlebar Brown provides to their non-disabled customers
through http//:www.Orlebarbrown.com. The Defendants' denial of
full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its
products and services offered, and in conjunction with its
physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

5. Orlebarbrown.com provides to the public a wide array of the
goods, services, price specials, employment opportunities and
other programs offered by Orlebar Brown. Yet, Orlebarbrown.com
contains thousands of access barriers that make it difficult if
not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use
the website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for
blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction
on the website. Thus, Orlebar Brown excludes the blind and
visually-impaired from the full and equal participation
in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a
fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living. In
the wave of technological advances in recent years, assistive
computer technology is becoming an increasingly prominent part of
everyday life, allowing blind and visually-impaired persons to
fully and independently access a variety of services.

The blind have an even greater need than the sighted to shop and
conduct transactions online due to the challenges faced in
mobility. The lack of an accessible website means that blind
people are excluded from experiencing transacting with
defendant's website and from purchasing goods or services from
defendant's website. Despite readily available accessible
technology, such as the technology in use at other heavily
trafficked retail websites, which makes use of alternative text,
accessible forms, descriptive links, resizable text and limits
the usage of tables and JavaScript, Defendant has chosen to rely
on an exclusively visual interface. Orlebar Brown's sighted
customers can independently browse, select, and buy online
without the assistance of others. However, blind persons must
rely on sighted companions to assist them in accessing and
purchasing on Orlebarbrown.com. By failing to make the website
accessible to blind persons, Defendant is violating basic equal
access requirements under both state and federal law.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          44 Court Street, Suite 1217
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 373 9128
          Facsimile: (718) 504 7555


PABST BREWING: "Peacock" Suit Alleges UCL Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Brendan Peacock, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Pabst Brewing Company, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00568
(E.D. Calif., March 15, 2018), is brought against the Defendant
for violation of the California Unfair Competition Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, Pabst Brewing Company,
LLC is falsely creating the impression in the minds of its
consumers that its Olympia beer products are exclusively brewed
using artesian water in Washington, when in fact, the beers are
now brewed in a mass-production brewery located in Los Angeles
County, California.

Plaintiff Brendan Peacock is a resident of California and is a
beer, and craft beer, consumer.

Defendant Pabst Brewing Company, LLC is a Delaware limited
liability company with its principal place of business in Los
Angeles, California. Defendant brews and sells the Olympia beer.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jared H. Beck, Esq.
      Elizabeth Lee Beck, Esq.
      Beverly Virues, Esq.
      BECK & LEE TRIAL LAWYERS
      Corporate Park at Kendall
      12485 SW 137th Ave., Suite 205
      Miami, FL 33186
      Tel: (305) 234-2060
      Fax: (786) 664-3334
      E-mail: jared@beckandlee.com
              elizabeth@beckandlee.com
              beverly@beckandlee.com

          - and -

      Cullin O'Brien, Esq.
      CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
      6541 NE 21st Way
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33108
      Tel: (561) 676-6370
      Fax: (561) 320-0285
      E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com


PALADIN TOWING: "McCutcheon" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry McCutcheon, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Paladin Towing & Recovery Inc. and Billy Kevil, Case
No. 5:18-cv-00249 (W.D. Tex., March 15, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid wages, overtime wages, and other applicable damages and
penalties pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Texas
common law.

Plaintiff Jerry McCutcheon worked for Paladin from approximately
July 2014 until August 2015 as a tow truck driver/operator.

Defendant Paladin Towing & Recovery Inc. provides general towing,
unlocking, off-road recovery and fuel delivery services
throughout the State of Texas.

Defendant Billy Kevil owns Paladin. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
      Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
      ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 452-1279
      Fax: (361) 452-1284
      E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
              lauren@a2xlaw.com
              cgordon@a2xlaw.com


PATENAUDE & FELIX: "Schultz" Suit Moved to W.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled KAREN SCHULTZ, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
PATENAUDE & FELIX, A.P.C., the Defendant, Case No. GD-18-003404,
was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) on April 16, 2018. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-00489-JFC to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Chief Judge Joy Flowers Conti.

Patenaude & Felix APC is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clayton S. Morrow, Esq.
          MORROW & ARTIM, PC
          304 Ross Street, 7th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 209 0656
          Facsimile: (412) 386 3184
          E-mail: cmorrow@allconsumerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey L. Suher, Esq.
          4328 Old William Penn Highway, Suite 2J
          Monroeville, PA 15146
          Telephone: (412) 349 8909
          Facsimile: (412) 345 1274
          E-mail: jls@dellmoser.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Shannon Miller, Esq.
          Maurice Wutscher LLP
          175 Strafford Avenue, Suite One, Executive Commons
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (215) 789 7157
          E-mail: smiller@mauricewutscher.com


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Parties Urged to Prepare for Lead Plaintiff Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California urged counsel for all parties in the case captioned
RONALD SGARLATA, Plaintiff, v. PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-06956-EMC (N.D. Cal.) to discuss how
the case should proceed in light of the fact that the sole movant
seeking appointment as lead plaintiff, Edwin K. Bell, does not
appear to be a member of the proposed class because he only
claims to have purchased options for shares.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 8, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y82ezaap from Leagle.com.

Ronald Sgarlata, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, J. Alexander Hood, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy A.
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac
vice, Louis C. Ludwig- lcludwig@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro
hac vice & Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz LLP.

Michael Eckert, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

Edwin K. Bell, Movant, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz
LLP.


PEACE OF MIND: "Bertolli" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Eric Bertolli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Peace of Mind Solutions, Inc. and Does 1 through 10,
Case No. 2:18-cv-02225 (C.D. Calif., March 16, 2018), seeks
damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff Eric Bertolli is a resident of Tarzana, California.

Defendant Peace of Mind Solutions, Inc. is a company involved
with providing insurance policies for consumers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PENSYLVANIA: Class Certification Granted in Case Against DHS
------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge
has granted class certification to dependent children suffering
from mental disabilities who claim that the Pennsylvania
Department of Human Services is systematically failing them.

On April 3, U.S. District Judge John Jones of the Middle District
of Pennsylvania ruled that the plaintiffs in S.R. v. Pennsylvania
Department of Human Services met the criteria to bring a class
action lawsuit seeking system-wide changes at the department,
which is responsible for providing mental-health care to
dependent children.

The ruling rejected DHS's arguments that, since the plaintiffs
alleged a variety of deficiencies in the treatment they received,
the claims were not cohesive enough to warrant class
certification.  Judge Jones, however, said DHS mischaracterized
the plaintiffs' case.

"The complaint does not, as defendants suggest, seek review and
determination of each individual class member's placement. Rather
it seeks system-wide change," Judge Jones said in the 22-page
opinion.  "Though the named plaintiffs would hopefully benefit
from the systemic change implemented through injunctive relief,
the complaint does not seek individualized review of each
member's current placement and needs."

According to Judge Jones, the named plaintiffs were all diagnosed
with mental health disabilities, adjudicated dependent and
eligible for medical assistance through DHS.  The plaintiffs
include, among others, a 10-year-old who has allegedly been
waiting for placement from DHS for more than three years, and an
18-year-old who "unnecessarily" spent several months in a
juvenile detention center awaiting treatment from DHS.

"The complaint paints a picture of the sad reality for various
dependent youths in Pennsylvania," Judge Jones said.  "Many
dependent children with mental disabilities end up in large,
congregate facilities for years while they wait for appropriate
placement from DHS.  Others end up waiting for months or years in
inappropriate settings, such as psychiatric hospitals, juvenile
detention facilities, and residential treatment facilities while
they wait for placement."

The plaintiffs allege that DHS violated the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act and portions of the
Social Security Act that require states to make plans for "making
medical assistance available" and provide treatment services for
eligible people under the age of 21.

The defendants contended that the plaintiffs couldn't establish
commonality, or typicality, and failed to show that the
plaintiffs adequately represented the class.

Most of the arguments, according to Judge Jones, were premised on
the contention that the relief the plaintiffs were seeking was
too specialized, which Jones repeatedly said was not the case,
since the plaintiffs were seeking an injunction.

"Though we agree with defendants that, if plaintiffs are
successful, they will need to propose, and the court would need
to fashion, a specific injunction that gives fair notice to
defendants as to what conduct will violate the order, and such
constructions will be difficult, we disagree that such an
injunction is impossible," Judge Jones said.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Shanon Levin, managing attorney at
Disability Rights Pennsylvania, said in an emailed statement, "We
are pleased that this case is proceeding on a classwide basis
across the state so that we can pursue systemic relief to ensure
that dependent youth in Pennsylvania no longer languish in
institutions and have access to medically necessary mental health
services in the community."

Matthew McLees of the Pennsylvania Office of General Counsel
handled the case for DHS.  A spokesman for the department
declined to comment on pending litigation. [GN]


PERNIX THERAPEUTICS: "Presswood" Suit Moved to E.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Alan Presswood, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Pernix Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. and Somaxon Pharamceuticals,
Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 15SL-CC00687-01, was removed from
the St. Louis County Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis) on April 16, 2018. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-00605 to the
proceeding.

Pernix Therapeutics is a specialty pharmaceutical business with a
focus on acquiring, developing and commercializing prescription
drugs primarily for the U.S. market.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Sean Patrick Dolan, Esq.
          EVANS AND DIXON
          211 N. Broadway, Suite 2500
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 552 4003
          Facsimile: (314) 884 4403
          E-mail: sdolan@evans-dixon.com


PHILLIPS 66: Court OKs $5.5MM Deal in "Buzas" Wage & Hour Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in
the case captioned KYNDL BUZAS, RAUDEL COVARRUBIAS, and DANIEL
RUNIONS, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
current and former employees, Plaintiffs, v. PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-
00163-YGR (N. D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant violated California's
wage and hour laws by not providing them with rest breaks, by
failing to pay them premium wages for missed rest breaks, and by
failing to provide accurate wage statements.  In addition to
alleging violations of the California Labor Code, the Plaintiffs
also have asserted claims under California Business & Professions
Code section 17200 and the Labor Code Private Attorneys General
Act of 2004 (PAGA), California Labor Code section 2698 et seq.,
based on the same alleged Labor Code violations.  The Plaintiffs
seek to represent a class of all persons employed by the
Defendant as an operator at the Phillips 66 Company refineries in
Los Angeles, Santa Maria, and Rodeo, California.

The Court finds that certification of the following Class is
appropriate:

     All employees who have worked as Operators at Phillips 66's
three refineries in Rodeo, Santa Maria, and Los Angeles
(including the Wilmington and Carson facilities), California,
from January 12, 2013, to December 6, 2017.

The Court further finds that a full and fair opportunity has been
afforded to Class Members to participate in the proceedings
convened to determine whether the proposed Settlement should be
given final approval. Accordingly, the Court determines that all
Class Members who did not file a timely and proper request to be
excluded from the Settlement are bound by this Order of Final
Approval and the Judgment.

The Court finds that the Settlement, including the Settlement
Amount, is fair, reasonable, and adequate as to the Class, the
Plaintiffs and the Defendant, and is the product of good faith,
aims-length negotiations between the Parties, and further, that
the Settlement is consistent with public policy, and fully
complies with all applicable provisions of law.  The Court makes
this finding based on a weighing of the strength of the
Plaintiffs' claims and the Defendant's defenses with the risk,
expense, complexity, and duration of further litigation.

The Plaintiffs' Counsel is awarded attorney's fees in the amount
of $1,375,000. The award is 25% of the settlement fund of
$5,500,000.  The Plaintiff's Counsel is further awarded
reimbursement of reasonable costs and expenses necessarily
incurred in order to advance the litigation for the benefit the
class in this matter in the amount of $32,760.29. These awards
will be paid from the Settlement Fund.

The Class Representatives, Kyndl Buzas, Raudel Covanubias, and
Daniel Runions, are each awarded an incentive award in the amount
of $7,500. This payment will be made from the Settlement Fund and
is in addition to their share as a Class Member.

The Plaintiffs may also set aside $43,424.68 from the Settlement
Fund to be paid to the court-appointed Claims Administrator, A.B.
Data.

The Court allocates $50,000 of the Settlement Fund to penalties
under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), with 75% of the
PAGA penalties ($37,500) to be paid to the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) and 25% of the PAGA penalties
($12,500) being paid to Settlement Class Members who do not opt
out.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 8, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8hw8z4w from Leagle.com.

Kyndl Buzas, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
current and former employees, Raudel Covarrubias, individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated current and former
employees & Daniel Runions, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiffs,
represented by Cornelia Dai -- cdai@hadsellstormer.com -- Hadsell
Stormer & Renick, LLP, Jay Edward Smith -- js@jslaw.com --
Gilbert & Sackman, A Law Corporation, Randy R. Renick --
rrr@hadsellstormer.com -- Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP & Joshua
Finley Young -- jy@gslaw.com -- Gilbert & Sackman, A Law
Corporation.

Phillips 66 Company, Defendant, represented by Catherine A.
Conway -- cconway@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Court Certifies Real Property Subclass
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Keith Andrews et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 2:15-cv-04113-PSG-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. District Judge
Philip S. Gutierrez entered an order granting Plaintiffs' renewed
motion for class certification and denying Defendants' motion to
strike.

The Court certifies the Real Property Subclass pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3):

   "Residential beachfront properties on a beach and residential
   properties with a private easement to a beach (collectively
   "Included Properties") where oil from the 2015 Santa Barbara
   oil spill washed up, and where the oiling was categorized as
   Heavy, Moderate or Light to Plaintiffs' renewed motion.

   Excluded from the proposed Subclass are: (1) Defendants, any
   entity or division in which Defendants have a controlling
   interest, and their legal representatives, officers,
   directors, employees, assigns and successors; and (2) the
   judge to whom this case is assigned, the judge's staff, and
   any member of the judge's immediate family.

The Plaintiffs Baciu Family LLC, Alexandra Geremia, Jacques
Habra, and Mark and Mary Kirkhart are appointed to serve as
Subclass Representatives. Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Cappello & Noel, and Audet &
Partners are appointed to serve as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XO3RhX2O


PLY GEM: Merger Class Suits Pending in Delaware Chancery Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on April 3, 2018, that
the company is facing two class action suits in Delaware Chancery
Court.

On January 31, 2018, Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the 'Company"), entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Pisces Midco, Inc., a
Delaware corporation ("Parent"), and Pisces Merger Sub, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent
(Merger Sub"), whereby Merger Sub will merge with and into the
Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as
a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.

On March 23, 2018, the Company filed a definitive information
statement on Schedule 14C (the "Definitive Information
Statement") with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"SEC").

Stockholders of the Company filed two separate putative class
action lawsuits in connection with the transaction in Delaware
Chancery Court -- Miller v. Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., No. 2018 --
0151 (Del. Ch.) and Lowinger v. Ply Gem Industries, et. al., No.
2018 -- 0163 (Del. Ch.). On March 19, 2018, the matters were
consolidated and plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction.

The plaintiffs are seeking to enjoin consummation of the Merger
or, in the event the Merger is completed, to rescind the Merger
or recover money damages on behalf of the stockholders of the
Company caused by alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by
directors of the Company on the basis of allegedly insufficient
and improper disclosures in connection with the transaction.

While the Company and the other defendants believe that the
lawsuit challenging the Merger is without merit, that the
disclosures set forth in the Definitive Information Statement
fully comply with applicable law, and that the Company and the
other defendants have valid defenses to all claims, in an effort
to minimize the cost and expense of litigation, to provide
additional information to the Company's stockholders, and to
avoid the risk of any possible delay in the consummation of the
Merger, on March 30, 2018, the Company and the other defendants
have agreed to supplement the Definitive Information Statement.

Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. manufactures and sells residential and
commercial building products in the United States and Canada. It
operates in two segments: Siding, Fencing, and Stone; and Windows
and Doors. The company is based in Cary, North Carolina.

A copy of the Definitive Information Statement is available at
https://goo.gl/LmQJSZ


PONZIOS RD: Court Conditionally Certifies "Casco" Class
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
Camden Vicinage, granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned OSCAR CASCO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff(s), v. PONZIOS RD, INC. d/b/a METRO DINER; and Doe
Defendants 1-10, Defendant(s), Civil No. 16-2084 (RBK) (D.N.J.).

This case stems from alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1936 (FLSA) and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law
(NJWHL) arising from defendant Ponzios RD, LLC's, doing business
as Metro Diner (Metro), tip crediting and overtime pay policies.
The Plaintiff alleges that he and other Employees were
systemically underpaid in violation of FLSA and NJWHL. The
Plaintiff earned $3.50 hourly working for the Defendant. The
Plaintiff alleges he worked forty to forty-seven hours per week
but was only compensated for thirty-six to thirty-eight hours per
week.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a nationwide
collective class as a collective action pursuant to FLSA. He also
brings a class action pursuant to Rule 23 on behalf of himself
and the New Jersey class of Employees for claims under New Jersey
state law.

In this case, the Court may exercise jurisdiction over both the
Plaintiff's FLSA and NJWHL claims. Both the Plaintiff's FLSA and
NJWHL claims allege that the Defendant failed to pay him and
other Employees proper minimum wage given the employer-claimed
tip credit and overtime. Thus, the Plaintiff's claims under the
FLSA and the NJWHL are connected by a common nucleus of operative
facts. Because those facts give rise to claims under both the
FLSA and the NJWHL, the Court may exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's NJWHL claim under Section
1367(a).

Even though 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a) grants the court authority
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's NJWHL
claim, however, a court may decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over a state law claim if in exceptional
circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining
jurisdiction.

The Court found that allowing a party to bring a Rule 23 class
action for relief based upon the same conduct that gave rise to
an FLSA collective action would undermine the Congressional
policy of limiting FLSA collective actions to plaintiffs who
expressly opt-in to the lawsuit. The Court found that the
conflict between the opt-in and opt-out regimes constituted a
compelling reason for declining to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction under Section 1367(c)(4).

The Plaintiff's FLSA claim alleges that the Defendant failed to
pay him and other Employees proper minimum wage (given the tip
credit issue) and overtime. The Plaintiff's NJWHL claim contains
the same allegations. Therefore, the Court will decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's state
class action under the NJWHL. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Counts
Three, Four, and Five are dismissed.

The Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of his FLSA claims.
For an action to proceed as a collective action under Section
216(b), (1) class members must be similarly situated' and (2)
members must affirmatively consent to join the action.

Here, the allegations are certainly substantial enough to move
past the lenient standard for conditional certification of a
representative class. The factual background provided that the
Employees in this case were together the victims of a single, or
at least diner-wide, wage policy which resulted in widespread
FLSA violations is sufficient to overcome the modest factual
showing necessary to proceed.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff conditionally satisfies the
similarly situated requirement as well.

The Plaintiff and his co-workers worked in similar or the same
positions, endured the same policies, and were paid in a similar
manner. This constitutes similarity, and conditional
certification is appropriate at this point. As the statute of
limitations on these claims continues to run, judicial notice
will provide all Employees the opportunity to pursue their claims
in one forum and will minimize the waste of judicial and party
resources in doing so.6 As such, the Defendant will produce
appropriate contact information, described in the accompanying
order, to facilitate notice to these potential opt-in plaintiffs.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and to conditionally certify a collective
class pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) is granted in part and
denied in part.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 8, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycmjw8j7 from Leagle.com.

OSCAR CASCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by GERALD D. WELLS --
gwells@cwg-law.com -- Connolly Wells & Gray, LLP & LAWRENCE
KALIKHMAN -- lkalikhman@kalraylaw.com -- KALIKHMAN & RAYZ, LLC.

PONZIOS RD, INC., doing business as METRO DINER, Defendant,
represented by RALPH R. SMITH, III, CAPEHART & SCATCHARD & KELLY
ESTEVAM ADLER, CAPEHART & SCATCHARD P,. 8000 Midlantic Drive
Suite 300S. P.O. Box 5016. Mount Laurel, NJ 08054.


PRUDENCE HALL: Misclassifies Employees, Arguinzoni-Gil Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE ARGUINZONI-GIL, an individual, individually on behalf of
herself and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. PRUDENCE HALL, M.D., INC.; HALL HEALTH AND
LONGEVITY CENTER, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION; and PRUDENCE HALL,
an Individual, the Defendants, Case No. BC702384 (S.D. Fla.,
April 17, 2018), seeks to recover penalties, attorneys' fees, and
injunctive relief pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act
of 2004.

This is a misclassification, wrongful termination, and
whistleblower case. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and
acting for the interests of other current and former employees
brought this case pursuant to PAGA and California Labor Code. The
Plaintiff alleges that each Defendant was acting as an agent,
joint-venturer, and/or alter ego for each of the other Defendants
and each were co-conspirators with respect to the alleged acts
and the wrongful conduct The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from
July 2015 to February 17, 2017. Plaintiff is an aggrieved
employee as defined in Labor Code section 2699.

The Defendants improperly misclassified Plaintiff as an
independent contractor, rather than an employee, presumably to
avoid paying employment taxes and benefits. In September 2015,
Dr. Hall presented Plaintiff with a contract entitled
"Independent Physician Contractor Agreement" with an effective
date of September 21, 2015. The contract provided for Plaintiff
to provide naturopathic care for the medical practice at the Hall
Center on an "ongoing basis." The Plaintiffs duties per the
contract, included "meeting with Practice's clients, discussing
clients' needs, diagnosis of condition, prescribing appropriate
treatments and procedures, prescribing appropriate medications,
and performing prescribed procedures as directed by the
Corporation."

On September 21, 2015, Dr. Hall had Plaintiff change Plaintiffs
personal and professional website to provide only the phone
number and office address of the Hall Center, and insisted that
she do so in order to prove that she was not working anywhere
else but for the Hall Center.

In April 2016, Plaintiff was presented with a new independent
contractor agreement for an additional term of six months after
the first contract expired on March 31, 2016. In the new
agreement, the radius for the non-compete provision was changed
to a 10-mile radius from a 25-mile radius. Despite Plaintiffs
status as an employee, Defendants willfully and knowingly
misclassified Plaintiff as an independent contractor, presumably
to save costs to their business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mamta Ahluwalia, Esq.
          HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
          453 S. Spring Street, Suite 1008
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 259 9950
          E-mail: mahluwalia@hkm.com


RAS LAVRAR: "Barrios" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------
Cindy Barrios, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RAS LaVrar, LLC and Cavalry SPV I, LLC, Case No.
7:18-cv-02387 (S.D. N.Y., March 16, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Plaintiff Cindy Barrios is a resident of Nassau County, New York.

Defendant RAS LaVrar, LLC, is a Florida Limited Liability Company
with a principal place of business in Broward County, Florida.

Defendant Cavalry SPV I, LLC, is a foreign Limited Liability
Company with a principal place of business in Westchester County,
New York.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RAYMOND JAMES: Faces FCRA Class Action in Florida
-------------------------------------------------
AdvisorHub reports that a former employee of an independent
brokerage firm has accused Raymond James Financial Services of
violating a federal consumer law by using an allegedly inaccurate
background screening report to deny his request to be sponsored
for a Series 7 brokerage license.

In a class-action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Tampa,
Florida on April 3, Dustin Kampert alleged that the RayJay
independent channel violated the Federal Fair Credit Reporting
Act by failing to give him a copy of the background report and a
summary of his rights before denying sponsorship.

The report contained an allegedly erroneous reference to seven-
year-old criminal records that had been expunged under Virginia
law. (The state does not allow expungement in cases where
defendants are convicted, according to the lawsuit.)

Mr. Kampert's failure to be sponsored for the Series 7 led to his
termination by St. Louis-based Hake Investment Group, the RJFS
affiliate where he worked in 2015, according to the filing.

Raymond James knew, or should have known, of its legal obligation
to provide job applicants a copy of their consumer report
information and a rights summary if the report contributed to its
decision to disqualify them, the lawsuit says.  The filing does
not name LexisNexis, which provided the allegedly inaccurate
"Smartlinx" report to Raymond James, as a defendant.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of more than 100 people in the
purported class "who were denied approval by Raymond James
Financial to sell its products or services through an employer in
part or whole because of a Smartlinx Person Report" used by
Raymond James since January 6, 2012, the lawsuit says.

It seeks statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per class member and
unspecified punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

Mr. Kampert, now a mortgage broker at Wells Fargo Home Mortgage
in Bend, Oregon, filed a nearly identical lawsuit in Oregon last
June.  A magistrate judge recommended approving Raymond James'
motion to dismiss the case based on it being filed in the wrong
venue, which led to the attempt to transfer it to the Florida
court before the statute of limitations expired, said Leonard
Bennett of Consumer Litigation Associates in Newport News,
Virginia, the lead attorney for Mr. Kampert.

Spokespeople at Raymond James and Thomas Hake, president of the
eponymous firm where Mr. Kampert had worked, did not return
requests for comment on the lawsuit. [GN]


RELIABLE MOBILE: "Brown" Claims Unpaid Overtime, Hits Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Brown, on behalf of herself individually, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Reliable Mobile Labs
Georgetown, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00745 (S.D. Tex.,
March 8, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime as well as other
damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this
action for unlawful retaliation pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

Brown worked for Reliable Mobile Labs as a certified mobile
phlebotomist technician. She went to see patients, taking blood
samples, processing the blood samples she collected, and taking
the blood to other facilities. She averaged 12 hours a day
without overtime. Brown was required to use her own vehicle and
was not reimbursed for gas or maintenance on her vehicle, says
the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
      THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
      3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
      Houston, TX 77054
      Phone: (832) 778-8182
      Facsimile: (832) 778-8353
      Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


RENOVATE AMERICA: Nemore et al. Sue over PACE Program & Loan Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REGINALD NEMORE, an individual; VIOLETA SENAC, an individual;
AURELIA MILLENDER, an individual; and ALLEN BOWEN, an individual,
the Plaintiff, v. RENOVATE AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation;
the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; and DOES 1 through 10, the Defendant,
Case No. BC701810 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 12, 2018), alleges that
the County and Renovate America have continued to plunge ahead
with the Property Assessed Clean Energy program and have
continued to sell thousands of vulnerable County residents
overpriced and unaffordable loans that put their home ownership
at risk.

The County enacted the program in 2012 and delegated
administrative responsibility to Renovate America in 2015.

According to the Complaint, homeowners have taken on debt beyond
their means to repay. The PACE program has depressed the value of
their homes, made the homes more difficult to sell, and put them
on the edge of foreclosure. Many PACE participants are living
hand-to-mouth to hold onto their homes, fearful of what is yet to
come.

The County's PACE program has many serious flaws. First, Renovate
America approves PACE loans based on the equity in the
homeowner's property, not on his or her ability to repay the
loan. But no matter how much equity an owner may have in the
home, he or she can still lack the income to repay a loan of even
a small fraction of that equity. Second, by classifying PACE
financing as a tax assessment rather than a loan, the County and
Renovate America have attempted to sidestep traditional
regulations and consumer protections that govern loans secured.

As a result of Renovate America's business acts and practices,
Plaintiffs and the Class Members have incurred actual financial
losses and injuries including first-priority PACE Liens on their
homes that require payment and may trigger foreclosure by the
County or by preexisting conventional and reverse mortgage
lenders.

Renovate America, Inc. provides financing solutions for homes and
communities in the areas of energy and water in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert M. Schwartz, Esq.
          Jason D. Linder, Esq.
          Grace E. Chuchla, Esq.
          Todd J. Densen, Esq.
          IRELL & MANELLA LLP
          1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276
          Telephone: (310) 277 1010
          Facsimile: (310) 203 7199
          E-mail: rschwartz@irell.com
                  jlinder@irell.com
                  gchuchla@irell.com
                  tdensen@irell.com

               - and -

          Anne Richardson, Esq.
          Charles Evans, Esq.
          Adelaide Anderson, Esq.
          610 South Ardmore Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90005
          Telephone: (213) 385 2977
          Facsimile: (213) 201 4722
          E-mail: arichardson@publiccounsel.org
                  cevans@publiccounsel.org
                  aanderson@publiccounsel.org

               - and -

          Jenna L. Miara, Esq.
          Jennifer H. Sperling, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Levenhagen, Esq.
          BET TZEDEK LEGAL SERVICES
          3250 Wilshire Blvd., 13th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010-1509
          Telephone: (323) 549 5867
          Facsimile: (213) 471 4569
          E-mail: jmiara@bettzedek.org
                  jsperling@bettzedek.org
                  nlevenhagen@bettzedek.org


RESEARCH CENTERS: "Schoenthal" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Peter Schoenthal, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Research Centers of America, LLC, Case No.
1:18-cv-20976 (S.D. Fla., March 15, 2018), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Plaintiff Peter Schoenthal is a resident of Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

Defendant Research Centers of America, LLC is a Florida limited
liability company that specializes in conducting Phase IIV CNS
trials for pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
      SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
      14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 400
      Miami, FL 33132
      Tel: (305) 479-2299
      Fax: (786) 623-0915
      E-mail: efilings@shamisgentile.com

          - and -

      Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
      HIRALDO P.A.
      401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Tel: (954) 400-4713
      E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


RH: Securities Suit Moves Into Discovery Stage
----------------------------------------------
RH said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2017, that the case entitled, In re RH, Inc. Securities
Litigation is moving into discovery stage.

On February 2, 2017, City of Miami General Employees' &
Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court, Northern District
of California, against the Company, Gary Friedman, and Karen
Boone. On March 16, 2017, Peter J. Errichiello, Jr. filed a
similar class action complaint in the same forum and against the
same parties.

On April 26, 2017, the court consolidated the two actions. The
consolidated action is captioned In re RH, Inc. Securities
Litigation. The complaints allege, among other things, fraud in
connection with alleged misstatements under sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

Both complaints purport to make claims on behalf of a class of
purchasers of Company common stock from March 26, 2015 to June 8,
2016. The alleged misstatements relate to forward looking
statements regarding the roll out of the RH Modern product line.

An amended consolidated complaint was filed in June 2017 and the
Company and its officers have moved to dismiss the complaint. On
February 26, 2018, the Court filed an order denying the Company's
motion to dismiss the complaint and the case will now move into a
discovery phase. The claims are still at an early stage.

RH said "While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain,
the Company and its officers intend to vigorously defend the
claims and believe the complaint lacks merit."

RH is a luxury retailer in the home furnishings marketplace. The
company's curated and fully-integrated assortments are presented
consistently across its sales channels in sophisticated and
unique lifestyle settings that the company believes are on par
with world-class interior designers. The compnay offers dominant
merchandise assortments across a growing number of categories,
including furniture, lighting, textiles, bathware, decor, outdoor
and garden, tableware, and child and teen furnishings. The
company is based in Corte Madera, California.


RMG NEWORKS: Faces "Weinstein" Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------
Eric Weinstein has filed a class action lawsuit against RMG
Networks Holding Corporation, the Company said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
4, 2018, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

On March 23, 2018, a class action and a verified stockholder
derivative complaint on behalf of the Company entitled Eric
Weinstein et al. v. Gregory H. Sachs et al., Case No. 2018-0210-
AGB was filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware
against the Company, as nominal defendant, and certain individual
shareholders, directors and former employee of the Company, as
defendants (the "Weinstein Proceeding").

The lawsuit alleges that certain members of the Company's Board
breached their fiduciary duties of good faith and loyalty by
agreeing to enter into a purchase agreement (the "Purchase
Agreement") with certain investors on March 25, 2015 to sell such
investors shares of preferred stock of the Company, (i) on terms
that allowed a small group of investors to acquire common stock
of the Company at a significant discount, in a quantity that
entrenched their power within the Company, favoring their
interests to the detriment of the Company's minority
stockholders, and (ii) by knowingly making false and misleading
disclosures, and failing to disclose all material information, to
the Company's stockholders.

The complaint further alleges that Mr. Sachs and Mr. Donald
Wilson, as the Company's controlling stockholders, breached their
fiduciary duties of good faith and loyalty by agreeing to issue
preferred stock of the Company on terms that allowed a small
group of investors to acquire common stock of the Company at a
significant discount, in a quantity that entrenched their power
within the Company, favoring their interests to the detriment of
the Company. The complaint also alleges that certain of the
Company's insiders, including four directors and a former
employee, were unjustly enriched by the opportunity to acquire
common stock of the Company at a discount to its trading price at
the time. The lawsuit seeks to cause the defendants to disgorge
to the Company the stock that they received at a discount to the
market price, and also seeks an award of appropriate damages,
plus pre- and post-judgment interest for the plaintiff, the class
and the Company.

The Company believes that the allegations set forth in the
complaint are without merit and intends to defend itself
vigorously in the proceedings. Due to the inherent uncertainties
of litigation and the early stage of the proceedings, the Company
cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter.

RMG Networks Holding Corporation goes beyond traditional
communications to help businesses increase productivity,
efficiency, and engagement through intelligent digital signage
messaging. By combining leading software, hardware, business
applications, and services, the company offers a single point of
accountability for integrated data visualization and real-time
performance management. RMG is headquartered in Addison, Texas,
with additional offices in the United States, United Kingdom and
the United Arab Emirates.


ROLLING IN: Court Conditionally Certifies Delivery Drivers' Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Certification in the case captioned AMANTHA YOUNG, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
ROLLING IN THE DOUGH, INC., ROLLING IN THE DOUGH II, INC., JWG
ENTERPRISES, LLC; DOMINO'S PIZZA, INC.; DOMINO'S PIZZA
FRANCHISING, LLC; DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC; KENNETH LINDEMAN; JOHN W.
GROLL, III, Defendants, Case No. 17 C 7825 (N.D. Ill.).

The Plaintiff and on behalf of all others similarly situated, has
brought a putative collective action complaint against Domino's
Pizza Franchising LLC, Domino's Pizza LLC, and Domino's Pizza,
Inc. (Domino's), Rolling in the Dough, Inc., Rolling in the Dough
II, Inc., and Kenneth Lindeman (Rolling in the Dough), JWG
Enterprises and John W. Groll III (JWG) alleging that defendants
maintained payroll policies for similarly situated pizza delivery
drivers that failed to pay a minimum wage, in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq.
The Plaintiff also alleges violations of the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law, 820 ILCS 105/1 et seq. and Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act, 820 ILCS 1115/1 et seq.

Plaintiff has moved for conditional certification under the FLSA
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec 216(b), and issuance of a notice of the
collective action to potential class members for two parallel
FLSA collective action classes consisting of delivery drivers who
worked for Domino's franchises owned and operated by JWG and
Rolling in the Dough for the three years preceding this Order.

In the instant case, the plaintiff has made a modest factual
showing that she and other delivery drivers at JWG and Rolling in
the Dough were potentially victims of common policies or plans by
both defendants that violated the FLSA. With respect to the JWG
defendants, the plaintiff cited her own experiences as an
employee, conversations with co-workers and management, and
paystubs as evidence of a common policy and practice. The
Plaintiff declared that owner John W. Groll told her that
delivery drivers received minimum wage minus a tip credit when
she began her employment.

The Plaintiff also observed JWG co-workers receiving the same
$1.05 delivery payment as drivers settled up at the end of their
shifts. On one occasion, the plaintiff also overheard two co-
workers discussing their pay. With respect to Rolling in the
Dough, the plaintiff declared that her manager told her the
company paid delivery drivers $6.00 per hour. The Plaintiff also
submitted email records showing the same area supervisor, Ron
Enstrom, coordinated hiring and handled other human resource
issues for multiple Rolling in the Dough locations to demonstrate
shared practices between Rolling in the Dough franchise
locations.

No defendant has pointed to any reason to suggest that the
plaintiff was subject to different pay practices or conditions of
employment as any other pizza delivery driver, with the exception
of slight variation in some drivers' base wage. JWG admitted in
their answer to the plaintiff's complaint that delivery drivers
who worked at the JWG Store were subject to similar employment
policies and practices and provided no reason for the Court to
conclude that employment policies and practices differed for
other JWG franchise locations. Rolling in the Dough also admitted
in its answer that it retains some general policies regarding
delivery driver's  that apply uniformly to all delivery drivers.

Accordingly, the court grants plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 8, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y893ezfk
from Leagle.com.

Samantha Young, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Louis Fradin --
mike@fradinlaw.com -- Michael L. Fradin, Attorney at Law, Aaron
Benjamin Maduff, 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2050, Chicago,
IL 60601, Maduff & Maduff, LLC, Biller Andrew --
abiller@msdlegal.com -- Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC, pro hac
vice & Kimble Andrew -- akimble@msdlegal.com -- Markovits, Stock
& DeMarco, LLC, pro hac vice.

Rolling in the Dough, Inc., Rolling in the Dough II, Inc. &
Kenneth Lindeman, Defendants, represented by Steven Blair Borkan,
Borkan & Scahill, Ltd., Timothy P. Scahill, Borkan & Scahill,
Ltd. & Nicholas Kenton Fedde, Borkan & Scahill, Ltd., Two First
National Plaza. 20 South Clark Street. Suite 1700. Chicago,
Illinois 60603.


ROYAL BANK: Bid to Dismiss Denied in FX-Related Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (RBS) said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York denied
defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint,
in an FX-related antitrust class action on behalf of consumers
and end-user businesses.

RBS is among the defendants in an FX-related antitrust class
action on behalf of 'consumers and end-user businesses' harmed by
alleged collusion in the FX spot market. On 12 March 2018, the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York denied defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended
complaint, holding that plaintiffs have adequately alleged
antitrust standing, and denied defendants' request to take an
immediate appeal from that decision. On 23 March 2018, the same
court denied a motion by RBS and certain other defendants to
dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (also known as RBS Group) is
a British banking and insurance holding company, based in
Edinburgh, Scotland. The group operates a wide variety of banking
brands offering personal and business banking, private banking,
insurance and corporate finance through its offices located in
Europe, North America and Asia. In the UK, its main subsidiary
companies are The Royal Bank of Scotland, NatWest, Ulster Bank
and Coutts.


ROYAL BANK: Bid to Dismiss Granted in Indirect Purchasers Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (RBS) said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted RBS
and the other defendants' motion to dismiss on a number of
grounds, including failure to plead proximate cause and antitrust
standing.

RBS is among the defendants in a separate consolidated FX-related
antitrust class action on behalf of 'indirect purchasers' who
were allegedly indirectly affected by FX instruments that others
entered into with the defendant banks. On 15 March 2018, the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted RBS and the other defendants' motion to dismiss on a
number of grounds, including failure to plead proximate cause and
antitrust standing.

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (also known as RBS Group) is
a British banking and insurance holding company, based in
Edinburgh, Scotland. The group operates a wide variety of banking
brands offering personal and business banking, private banking,
insurance and corporate finance through its offices located in
Europe, North America and Asia. In the UK, its main subsidiary
companies are The Royal Bank of Scotland, NatWest, Ulster Bank
and Coutts.


ROYAL BANK: Bid to Compel Arbitration Filed in Alpari Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (RBS) said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company has
filed a motion to compel arbitration of Alpari's claims or, in
the alternative, to dismiss those claims for improper venue.

On 12 July 2017, Alpari (US) LLC (Alpari) filed a class action
complaint against RBS companies in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint
alleges that RBS breached contracts with Alpari and other
counterparties by rejecting FX orders placed over electronic
trading platforms through the application of a function referred
to as 'Last Look', and that the rejected orders were later filled
at prices less favourable to putative class members. The
complaint contains claims for breach of contract and unjust
enrichment.

RBS has filed a motion to compel arbitration of Alpari's claims
or, in the alternative, to dismiss those claims for improper
venue.

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (also known as RBS Group) is
a British banking and insurance holding company, based in
Edinburgh, Scotland. The group operates a wide variety of banking
brands offering personal and business banking, private banking,
insurance and corporate finance through its offices located in
Europe, North America and Asia. In the UK, its main subsidiary
companies are The Royal Bank of Scotland, NatWest, Ulster Bank
and Coutts.


ROYAL BANK: Discovery Ongoing in Swaps Antitrust Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (RBS) said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that discovery is
ongoing in Swaps antitrust litigation.

Beginning in November 2015, RBS plc and other members of the
Group, as well as a number of other interest rate swap dealers,
were named as defendants in a number of class action antitrust
complaints filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaints,
filed on behalf of persons who entered into interest rate swaps
with the defendants, allege that the defendants violated the US
antitrust laws by restraining competition in the market for
interest rate swaps through various means and thereby caused
inflated bid-ask spreads for interest rate swaps, to the alleged
detriment of the plaintiff class.

In addition, two complaints containing similar allegations of
collusion were filed in United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of TeraExchange and
Javelin, who allege that they would have successfully established
exchange-like trading of interest rate swaps if the defendant
dealers had not unlawfully conspired to prevent that from
happening through boycotts and other means, in violation of the
U.S. antitrust laws. In June 2016, all of these matters were
transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

In July 2017, the Court overseeing the above matters dismissed
all claims against RBS companies relating to the 2008 - 2012 time
period, but declined to dismiss certain antitrust and unjust
enrichment claims covering the 2013 - 2016 time period. Discovery
is ongoing.

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (also known as RBS Group) is
a British banking and insurance holding company, based in
Edinburgh, Scotland. The group operates a wide variety of banking
brands offering personal and business banking, private banking,
insurance and corporate finance through its offices located in
Europe, North America and Asia. In the UK, its main subsidiary
companies are The Royal Bank of Scotland, NatWest, Ulster Bank
and Coutts.


ROYAL BANK: Settlement in ISDAFIX Suit Awaits Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (RBS) said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the settlement
amount has been paid into escrow pending the final court approval
of the settlement in the ISDAFIX antitrust-related litigation.

Beginning in September 2014, The Royal Bank of Scotland plc (RBS
plc) and a number of other financial institutions were named as
defendants in several purported class action complaints
(subsequently consolidated into one complaint) in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging manipulation of USD ISDAFIX rates. In 2015, RBS plc
reached an agreement to settle this matter for US$50 million, and
that settlement received preliminary approval from the Court in
May 2016. The settlement amount has been paid into escrow pending
the final court approval of the settlement.

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (also known as RBS Group) is
a British banking and insurance holding company, based in
Edinburgh, Scotland. The group operates a wide variety of banking
brands offering personal and business banking, private banking,
insurance and corporate finance through its offices located in
Europe, North America and Asia. In the UK, its main subsidiary
companies are The Royal Bank of Scotland, NatWest, Ulster Bank
and Coutts.


ROYAL BANK: NJ Health Fund Settlement Awaits Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (RBS) said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company has
settled the case New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund v. Novastar
Mortgage Inc. et al., for US$55.3 million, which has been paid
into escrow pending court approval of the settlement.

RBS companies are also defendants in a purported Residential
mortgage-backed securities (RMB) class action entitled New Jersey
Carpenters Health Fund v. Novastar Mortgage Inc. et al., which
remains pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

RBS has settled this matter for US$55.3 million, which has been
paid into escrow pending court approval of the settlement.

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (also known as RBS Group) is
a British banking and insurance holding company, based in
Edinburgh, Scotland. The group operates a wide variety of banking
brands offering personal and business banking, private banking,
insurance and corporate finance through its offices located in
Europe, North America and Asia. In the UK, its main subsidiary
companies are The Royal Bank of Scotland, NatWest, Ulster Bank
and Coutts.


SAM LEWIS: "Reyes" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------
Neftali Reyes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Sam Lewis Contractors, Inc. and Sam Lewis, Case No.
4:18-cv-00815 (S.D. Tex., March 15, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Neftali Reyes worked for Defendants from 2014 to 2017
as a construction worker.

Defendant Sam Lewis Contractors, Inc. does business across the
state of Texas performing general construction work, such
building and remodeling homes and businesses.

Defendant Sam Lewis is the owner, president, and director of
Defendant Sam Lewis Contractors, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq.
      SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
      5612 Chaucer Drive
      Houston, TX 77005
      Tel: (281) 885-8844
      Fax: (281) 885-8813
      E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com


SANDY BRIMHALL: Faces Class Action Over Weight Loss Surgery
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Hockridge, writing for ABC15, reports that save lots of
money and get really skinny.  It's a compelling offer that's
tempting thousands of people who are told: Weight loss surgery in
Mexico is safe.

That wasn't true for Jessica Ballandby.  On April 3, two years
after ABC15 first broke the story, a multi-million dollar, class-
action lawsuit was filed.  It claims Jessica was deceived by an
Arizona woman who recruited patients for doctors in Tijuana.

In the first part of our exclusive investigation (in the player
above), we have the terrifying warnings from patients nationwide,
including Jessica, who says she was butchered and left for dead.
Horror stories.

"I look like Frankenstein in my stomach," one patient claims.

Packed with jaw-dropping details.

Of unimaginable pain and excruciating loss.

All blamed on Dr. Mario Almanza, who touts himself as the leading
weight loss surgeon south of the border.

"It's like a pig farm. That's what he's treating human beings
over there like. Just like a pig, slaughtering them," says
Jessica Ballandby. She wanted to get weight loss surgery to be
healthy.

"I was thinking long term effects of being able to support my two
kids," she explains.

Jessica admits she didn't think twice about crossing the border
for surgery.

"It's over 12-15 grand here in the United States." And that
wasn't a possibility for her.

Jessica says the gastric sleeve procedure came highly
recommended, "Like 60 people I knew from Show Low had gone down
there."

They were all referred by Sandy Brimhall from Snowflake, Arizona,
who admitted in a 2015 interview aired on ABC15, she collected
$250 for people she sent to surgeons in Tijuana.  "I've brought
close to 300 people down here," Sandy said.

She raved about Dr. Almanza.  When Jessica researched him online,
she discovered the Medical Tourism company, Weight Loss Agents.
The company's website features hundreds of happy patients who
enthusiastically endorse Dr. Almanza.  Jessica says she trusted
what she thought was an official recommendation.

"I had no reason not to believe them. I had no reason not to
believe Sandy either," explains Jessica.

But, the real story is written in the fine print under the
"Terms" section.  It says Weight Loss Agents is not a medical
referral service and does not endorse, recommend or approve any.
. .  healthcare provider . . . listed in this site."

Weight Loss Agents is not named in the class-action suit. But,
Sandy is -- for $3 Million.  She didn't have a disclaimer.

Jessica scheduled the $4,700 Gastric Sleeve procedure with
Alamanza.  But, never expected what would happen next.

"I woke up from surgery and I was feeling the most pain I'd ever
felt in my life," Jessica says.

But, her complications got even worse.

"You could literally take my hoodie and ring it out & blood was
dripping from it.  I'm thinking what the heck is going on with
me? I'm going to die over here and never see my family again,"
Jessica remembers.

Somehow, she survived the trip home to Show Low, Arizona, which
is where we met her family.  They shared the horrifying details
from when they knew something was wrong.

"She was falling over, she couldn't walk, she really couldn't
even talk or eat or anything," her son Mitch Ballandby says.

Jessica's mom, Becky Leech, says she prepared for the worst.

"It was like she was dead. She wasn't coherent," she explains.

A trip to the emergency room delivered devastating news. "My
spleen's been cut," Jessica explains.  "He said you're bleeding
internally,"

"She had a massive, massive infection inside her body," Jessica's
mom remembers.

Surgery after surgery, week after week, doctors tried to fix
Jessica, but her stomach had been shredded.

Her mom was distraught. "He ruined her. We have no guarantee of
what her life is going to be like."

Jessica was 31-years-old when she went to Mexico. She weighed 251
pounds.  Now, she weighs 102 pounds and she just keeps losing.
It's a dangerous reality.

"I feel like I'm 64 years old," says Jessica. "My body hurts
every single day."

And, the weight isn't the only thing she's lost.  Jessica thumbs
through stacks of papers, reading the numbers aloud, "
$16,403.40.  $19,110.  $100,993.91..."

It's close to half a million dollars.  "Maybe a little less,
maybe a little more," Jessica says.

None of it is covered by insurance because she chose to have
surgery in Mexico.  Their stance: if you pay for your surgery,
you pay for your problems.

"People are putting their whole entire faith into this and it's
the end of their lives," Jessica says.  "I can't die.  My boys
need me.  They're my world."

ABC15 confirmed: 4 Americans have died after having weight loss
surgery with Dr. Almanza.

ABC15 called his office in Tijana and they said the unhappy
patients featured in this story were bribed by a disgruntled
employee who wants to ruin the doctor's reputation.

Almanza is not part of this class-action lawsuit. But, Sandy
Brimhall is.  In part two of ABC15's exclusive investigation, the
news agency uncovers her shocking sales pitch and why an Arizona
school district is being sued for $10 Million because of what she
did.

Jessica Ballandby covers her mouth and starts to cry.  She has
complications from weight loss surgery in Mexico.  She throws up
frequently and doctors say the acid from her stomach has caused
her teeth to fall apart.

"How could I ever even move on and even be with somebody? Like,
try to find yourself attractive when you look like that," Jessica
says as tears roll down her face.

The emotions are overwhelming.  Embarrassment . . . and anger
directed at the woman who convinced her she'd be safe going to
Mexico for weight loss surgery.  "I was 10 times healthier and
prettier when I was bigger.  I'd do anything to go back."

But, she can't and that's why she hired Attorney Robert Gregory,
who filed this lawsuit on her behalf.  It claims Sandy recruited
and preyed upon people like Jessica, who were desperate to lose
weight, but, either didn't qualify for surgery in the United
States or simply couldn't afford it.

Gregory says Sandy made big promises: "It would be a quick in and
out.  There would be no lasting effects. The surgeries would be
done by doctors who are qualified and competent. But, that's not
what happened."

We have evidence of her sales pitch because Sandy was a school
principal in Show Low and used her district email to recruit new
patients for surgeons in Mexico.

A simple open records request got us a rare look inside Sandy's
operation.

The Emails reveal: she recruited hundreds of people, escorted
them to Mexico, used district resources to transmit HIPPA-
protected medical documents, and started a business making
professional referrals, allegedly based on her own experience
having weight loss surgery in Mexico.

Gregory says Sandy's lack of medical knowledge is highlighted in
this 2013 email exchange with a potential patient, who writes,
quote, "There are two different options that have 'sleeve' in the
description.  What is the name of the procedure?"

But, Sandy doesn't know.  She responds, "It's the one that they
cut your stomach out.  Let me look at the site real quick . . ."

"If you aren't medically trained, then you are not in a position
to say this is medically safe," Gregory says.

Of the documents we have access to, Sandy never mentions the
risks of weight loss surgery.  "Surgeons doing these surgeries
should be bariatric surgeons.  Not a general surgeon," he says.

On March 8, 2014, Jessica went to Tijuana for gastric sleeve
surgery with Dr. Almanza.  "I was in a hallway, where you
probably shouldn't be, when they put me under," Jessica says.

She says Sandy was with her in Tijuana and witnessed the severity
of her complications.

"You could literally take my hoodie and ring it out and blood was
dripping from it," she remembers.

Yet, just weeks later, according to the suit, Sandy was already
recruiting new patients for the doctor.  This April 15 email
never mentions Jessica or her complications.

"And that forms the basis of fraudulent misrepresentation.

That you're going to get one thing, but, in fact, they got
something very different," Gregory says.

Video from a 2015 interview aired by ABC15 confirms, Sandy knew
Almanza was responsible for Jessica's injuries. "When she crossed
the border, she was having significant problems.

So, she went to another bariatric center in Scottsdale and they
told her she nicked her intestines.  I contacted them [Almanza's
staff].  They said there's no way that could have happened, he
doesn't make mistakes like that. They [Scottsdale Office Staff]
said, it's true, they absolutely do."

Two years after Jessica's surgery, Sandy continued to recruit new
patients for surgeons in Mexico, writing, quote, "No one has ever
regretted it. That easy - lol."

But, Jessica isn't laughing.  When she looks at pre-surgery
photos, she sees much more than a physical transformation.  "That
girl . . she could light up the room. She was the funniest one. I
didn't know a stranger in the world. Now, I don't even go out of
my house."

Jessica's lawsuit claims the Show Low Unified School District
knowingly allowed Sandy's vast operation to occur.  But, the
superintendent told ABC15 the district will not comment on
pending litigation.

Sandy Brimhall no longer works there.  She's being sued for $3
million in Jessica's lawsuit and another $3 million in a class-
action suit also filed on April 3.  Sandy ignored ABC15's many
attempts to get her side of the story. [GN]


SHAMMAS INVESTMENT: Velasco Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA VELASCO, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SHAMMAS INVESTMENT COMPANY LLC,
a California limited liability company; DOWNTOWN L.A. MOTORS,
NISSAN, LP, a California limited partnership; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC701969 (Cal Super. Ct.,
April 16, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, statutory
penalties, waiting time penalties, applicable civil penalties,
injunctive relief and other equitable relief, and reasonable
attorney's fees and interest under California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to include all
remuneration when calculating the applicable overtime rate of
pay; failed to provide legally compliant meal periods and/or pay
meal period premium wages; failed to provide legally compliant
rest periods and/or pay rest period premium wages; and failed to
provide accurate wage statements.

The Defendants are in the automobile and used car business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Andrea Rosenkranz, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd. Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432 0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432 0001
          E-mail: ilavi@lelawfirm.com
                  arosenkranz@lelawfirm.com


SIGMA DESIGNS: Rowley Law Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Rowley Law PLLC on April 4 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-01645)
on behalf of all current shareholders of Sigma Designs, Inc.
(NASDAQ: SIGM) in connection with the proposed sale of certain of
its assets and dissolution of the Company.

The complaint filed alleges, among other things, that Sigma and
the members of its board of directors violated Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically,
the complaint alleges that the defendants have filed proxy
solicitation materials with the SEC that misrepresent or omit
material information regarding the proposed transaction.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from April 4, 2018.  If you wish to discuss
the action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Shane Rowley, Esq.,
at Rowley Law PLLC, 50 Main Street Suite 1000, White Plains, NY
10606, by email at info@rowleylawpllc.com, or by telephone at
914-400-1920 or 844-400-4643 (toll-free).  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.

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. AT THIS TIME YOU MAY DO NOTHING AND REMAIN AN ABSENT
CLASS MEMBER. YOU MAY ALSO RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

Rowley Law PLLC -- http://www.rowleylawpllc.com-- represents
shareholders nationwide in class actions and derivative lawsuits
in complex corporate litigation. [GN]


SIGNATURE FOOTCARE: "Beckert" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Alfonso Augosto Beckert Pino, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Signature Footcare PLLC, Austin 26
Dental Group PLLC, Rafael Tabari and Elaizabeth (aka Elizabeth)
Moradi, Case No. 1:18-cv-01670 (E.D. N.Y., March 16, 2018), seeks
to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and for violations of the New York
Labor Law.

Plaintiff Beckert was employed as a flyer distributor at the
Defendants medical centers. Plaintiff Beckert was employed by
Defendants at Signature Footcare and at Austin 26 Dental Group
from approximately July 2, 2015 until on or about May 7, 2016.

Defendants own, operate, or control two medical centers, located
at 103-08 Roosevelt Avenue, 2nd Fl, Corona, New York 11368 under
the name "Signature Footcare" and at 70-17 Austin Street, 3rd Fl,
Forest Hills, NY 11375 under the name "Austin 26 Dental Group".

Defendants Rafael Tabari and Elaizabeth (aka Elizabeth) Moradi,
serve or served as owners, managers, principals, or agents of
Defendant Corporations and, through these corporate entities,
operate or operated the medical centers as a joint or unified
enterprise. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOLARCITY CORP: Dismissal of "Webb" Securities Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed the
judgment of the District Court granting Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss the case captioned JAMES WEBB, Lead Plaintiff, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. SOLARCITY CORPORATION; LYNDON R. RIVE; ROBERT D.
KELLY, Defendants-Appellees, No. 16-16440 (9th Cir.).

After allowing Webb to amend his complaint three times, the
district court held that Webb's Third Amended Complaint (TAC)
failed to adequately plead scienter, and dismissed it with
prejudice.

Plaintiff-Appellant brought this class action lawsuit against
Defendants-Appellees on behalf of the class of plaintiffs who
bought SolarCity sharese of the company's initial public offering
(IPO).  Webb claims that Defendants-Appellees violated Sections
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Act), 15 U.S.C.
Section 78j(b), and 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5 (Rule 10b-5), and
that Rive and Kelly also violated Section 20(a) of the Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 78t(a), when Defendants-Appellees changed the
company's accounting formula prior to the IPO in order to
misrepresent SolarCity's profitability.

SolarCity's Business Model and Accounting Protocols

Since 2006, SolarCity has grown significantly. The company went
public in 2012, raising over $92 million, of which the company
received $85,305,010 after expenses. SolarCity now operates in
fourteen states and serves a mix of commercial entities,
government entities, and residential users. The company claims to
have provided or contracted to provide solar systems or services
to more than 50,000 customers since its founding.

Accounting for lease and PPA revenues which are treated as
operating leases for GAAP purposes is more complex. Under GAAP,
SolarCity must account for these revenues ratably, on a straight-
line basis, over the term of each lease. This means that
notwithstanding the typically significant total revenues
collected over a lease's 20-year term, SolarCity can only
recognize a fraction of those revenues per year. Installation and
overhead costs are amortized over the lease term, while costs
from the underlying solar system itself are depreciated over
its longer, thirty-year life.

SolarCity's Accounting Error and its Aftermath

It was not until 2014 that SolarCity realized that it had made a
serious accounting error. On March 3, 2014, the company announced
that it had discovered tens of millions in overhead expenses that
it had incorrectly classified. The company explained that the
misclassification resulted from an error in the formula for
allocating overhead expenses between operating lease assets and
the cost of solar energy systems sales originating in Q1 2012.

Specifically, the company had omitted prior period direct costs
from the denominator of the burden ratio. This error was
identified by senior management, who noticed that gross sales
margins appeared inconsistent during the course of their review
of preliminary year-end financial statements and internal
controls.

SolarCity announced that it would reallocate overhead expenses
from leased systems to systems sales, which it expected would
increase the cost of solar energy systems sales by approximately
$16-$20 million on the statement of operations for the nine-month
period ending on September 30, 2013 and by approximately $20-$23
million for the full year of 2012. In response, SolarCity's
securities declined by $1.70 per share just over 2% to close on
the day of the announcement at $83.26 per share.

Webb believes that the TAC adequately alleges scienter. He
contends that in miscalculating its profits during the Class
Period, SolarCity sought to have its cake and eat it too. That
is, Defendants-Appellees intentionally changed SolarCity's burden
ratio in order to make the sales division and company as a whole
appear more profitable than it actually was, and thereby maximize
their gains from the company's IPO.

The Ninth Circuit disagrees.

Webb's Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 Claims

The Applicable Pleading Requirements

Under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, it is
unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of
any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or of the
mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange to
use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any
security registered on a national securities exchange or any
security not so registered, or any securities-based swap
agreement any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in
contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may
prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or
for the protection of investors.

Webb's Scienter Allegations

Webb alleges that the Defendants-Appellees knew or were reckless
not to know that SolarCity's accounting system was at a high risk
of manipulation. He alleges that Rive and Kelly were involved in
the company's accounting and financial decision making,
understood SolarCity's accounting practices, and knew that the
company's sales division had been performing poorly.

Confidential Witness Statements

Eleven confidential witnesses (CWs) who worked at SolarCity
mostly prior to the Class Period described flaws in the company's
accounting and financial systems, and their knowledge of the
company's negative gross sales margins.

CW1, an Accounts Payable Specialist at SolarCity from January
2010 to July 2012, stated that the company's accounting and
financials were a mess. Specifically, CW1 indicated that
SolarCity's monthly and annual close process, which "required the
Company to accrue all of its debt, its credit, revenue, was never
on time.

CW2 was a Senior Accountant at SolarCity's San Mateo, California,
headquarters from January 2012 to the end of May 2012. CW2
reported that as of his/her hiring, SolarCity hadn't closed the
books in a year. He also stated that Ajmer Dale, the corporate
controller, had talked with Defendant-Appellee Rive and his
brother regarding accounting issues, including the recognition of
revenue and allocation of overhead costs.

Motive

Webb alleges that a sales-division-profitability turnaround was
critical to the company's successful IPO. The sales division's
performance was an obvious vulnerability; though it generated the
majority of SolarCity's annual revenues, the sales division had
run losses in 2010 and 2011.

Webb also alleges motives of a more personal nature: Because Rive
and Kelly owned 4,160,711 and 96,840 SolarCity shares,
respectively, they were incentivized to maintain the company's
stock price. Additionally, Rive and Kelly were motivated to help
Elon Musk Rive's cousin, SolarCity's founder and largest
shareholder, and the Chairman of the company's Board of Directors
who needed stock prices to stay high to avoid a forced sale of
his shares

Webb's Allegations Are Insufficient

Webb takes issue with the district court's dismissal for several
reasons; namely, the district court (1) did not conduct a
properly holistic review of his allegations; (2) rejected
relevant confidential witness testimony; (3) failed to account
for the TAC's allegations regarding motive, GAAP noncompliance,
the company's leadership reshuffling, and Rive and Kelly's
Sarbanes-Oxley certifications; and (4) improperly analyzed Webb's
core operations theory.

No Individual Allegation Was Sufficient on its Own

The Ninth Circuit finds that the court did not err in considering
each allegation on its own before holding that they also failed
to support a strong inference of scienter in combination;
although we have recognized its potential pitfalls such an
analytical process is permitted under our precedents.

The Allegations Were Not Sufficient in Combination

Webb also has not alleged facts supporting the inference that the
accounting error's impact on the company's financials was so
dramatic that it would be absurd to think that Defendants-
Appellees did not know that something was wrong. SolarCity's
sales division is a relatively minor portion of the company's
overall business. In 2012 and 2013, for example, cash sales
accounted for less than 10% of installations per year.

Moreover, the accounting error was so subtle that it appears that
even the company's specialized accounting division and
professional auditors missed it: The error was not discovered for
seven consecutive quarters, and the record indicates that
SolarCity's management and Board of Directors only concluded that
there was an error on the basis of which the company's financials
should no longer be relied upon after consultation with the
company's independent registered public accounting firm, Ernst &
Young, LLP. True, CW statements indicate that Defendants-
Appellees were concerned about the performance of the sales
division and encouraging employees to transition from sales to
leases.

However, Defendants-Appellees had no reason to suspect this
strategy was not working, such that the sales division's
apparently improved performance must have been the result of an
accounting error. Notwithstanding that accounting error, the
sales division was actually improving to the point of flirting
with profitability during the Class Period. SolarCity's
restatement indicated that the sales division's gross margins
improved from-19% in 2010 to-14% in 2011 to-5% in 2012, and were
positive in Q1 and Q3 of 2012.

Thus, rather than projecting a facade of profitability, the
company's original financials only misstated the degree of the
company's unprofitability: SolarCity reported a net loss of
$91.575 million in 2012, even with the accounting error, which
was later restated to $113.726 million. These facts preclude us
from holding that the falsity of the erroneous financials was
necessarily immediately obvious" to Defendants-Appellees.

To be sure, Webb's allegations regarding Defendants-Appellees'
hands-on approach to management are relevant, and we have taken
them into account when evaluating all circumstances together.
Independently though they are not strong enough to create an
inference of involvement sufficient to satisfy the PSLRA. See id.

Therefore, the Ninth Circuit concludes that on the whole, Webb's
narrative of fraud is simply not as plausible as a nonfraudulent
alternative. But even those facts, cobbled together with all of
the others aforementioned, are not enough to satisfy the standard
required by the PSLRA. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit affirm the
dismissal of Webb's Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's March 8, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7axpnh5 from Leagle.com.

Jeremy A. Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- (argued), Emma
Gilmore, -- egilmore@pomlaw.com -and Jennifer B. Sobers,
Pomerantz LLP,  600 Third Ave, 20th Floor. New York, NY 10016
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Ignacio E. Salceda -- Isalceda@wsgr.com -- (argued), Benjamin M.
Crosson -- bcrosson@wsgr.com -- and Cheryl W. Foung --
Cfoung@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Palo Alto,
California, for Defendants-Appellees.


SOLE TRANSPORT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Azaryan Says
---------------------------------------------------------
VAGAN AZARYAN an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SOLE TRANSPORT L.C., a/k/a
SOLE TRANSPORT LLC an Iowa corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC702256 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
April 16, 2018), seeks injunctive relief, restitution, and
disgorgement of all benefits Defendants have enjoyed from their
violations of the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, from at least four years prior to the
filing of this lawsuit and continuing to the present, the
Plaintiff and the Class regularly worked shifts greater than five
hours. Pursuant to Labor Code, an employer may not employ someone
for a shift, of more than five hours without providing him or her
with a meal period of not less than 30 minutes. Moreover, the
Defendants have regularly required Plaintiff and the Class to
work shifts in excess of 10 hours without providing them with
uninterrupted meal periods of not less than 30 minutes after
working more than five hours per day. Specifically, the Plaintiff
and the Class were required to work through their meal periods
which they were consistently denied. The Defendants also failed
to pay Plaintiff and the Class "premium pay," i.e. one hour of
wages at each Plaintiffs effective hourly rate of pay, for each
meal period that the Defendants failed to provide or deficiently
provided. From at least four years prior to the filing of this
lawsuit and continuing to the present, the Defendants have
consistently failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class with paid
rest breaks of not less than 10 minutes' rest for shifts from
three and 3.5 to 6 hours in length; 20 minutes' rest for shifts
of more than six hours up to 10 hours; and/or 30 minutes' rest
for shifts of more than 10 hours up to 14 hours; nor did
Defendant pay Plaintiff and the Class premium pay for each day on
which requisite rest breaks were not provided or were deficiently
provided. The Defendants have consistently failed to provide
Plaintiff and the Class with timely, accurate, and itemized wage
statements, in writing, as required by California wage-and-hour
laws.

Solar Transport is one of the leading fuel transport companies in
the USA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wilmer J. Harris, Esq.
          Stephanie T. Yu, Esq.
          SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN LLP
          715 Fremont Avenue, Suite A
          South Pasadena, CA 91030
          Telephone: (626) 441 4129
          Facsimile: (866) 794 5741


SOLID BIOSCIENCES: Faces "Watkins" Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------
James Watkins has filed a class action lawsuit against Solid
Biosciences Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017.

On March 27, 2018, James Watkins, a purported stockholder of the
company (the "Plaintiff"), filed a putative class action
complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws, in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (Case No. 18-10587), against the company, Ilan
Ganot, the company's Chief Executive Officer, Jennifer
Ziolkowski, the company's Chief Financial Officer, and the
underwriters in the company's initial public offering, J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Leerink Partners,
LLC, Nomura Securities Co., LLC and Chardan Capital Markets LLC.

The Plaintiff claims to represent purchasers of the company's
common stock during the period from January 25, 2018 to March 14,
2018 and seeks unspecified damages arising out of the alleged
failure to disclose risks associated with toxicity and potential
for adverse events related to the company's lead product
candidate.

Solid Biosciences said "While we believe that we have meritorious
defenses to the allegations made in the complaint, it is not
currently possible to assess whether or not the outcome of this
suit may have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition, results of operations or prospects."

Solid Biosciences Inc. engages in identifying and developing
therapies for duchenne muscular dystrophy in the United States.
The company is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


SORTIS HOLDINGS: Faces "Meintzinger" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Sortis Holdings, Inc. The case
is captioned as Erica Meintzinger, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sortis Holdings,
Inc., formerly known as: ClearSpring Loan Services, Inc.; Sortis
Financial, Inc., formerly known as: ClearSpring Loan Services,
Inc.; Diverse Funding Associates LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-02042-JMA-SIL (E.D.N.Y., April 5, 2018). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Joan M. Azrack.

Sortis Holdings operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, provides financial services such as
equity capital placement, loan sale advisory, debt restructuring,
valuations, strategic capital management, and specialty
finance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Mauro, Esq.
          The Law Office Of Joseph Mauro, LLC
          306 McCall Avenue
          West Islip, NY 11795
          Telephone: (631) 669 0921
          Facsimile: (631) 669 5071
          E-mail: JoeMauroesq@hotmail.com


STEADFAST INCOME: Records $350,851 as Reimbursement
---------------------------------------------------
Steadfast Income REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017, that the company had recorded
$350,851 as reimbursement for funds spent in connection to the
settlement agreement in two Texas class action suits.

Certain of the company's subsidiaries and the property manager
were named as defendants in two Texas class action lawsuits
alleging violations of the Texas Water Code, collectively, the
"Actions." The company's subsidiaries and the property manager
disputed plaintiffs' claims in the Actions; however, to avoid the
time and expense associated with defending the Actions, the
company's subsidiaries and other affiliated Steadfast entities,
collectively, the "Steadfast Parties," entered into Settlement
Agreements with the plaintiffs that provided for a settlement
payment to the class members and a release of claims by
plaintiffs and class members against the Steadfast Parties.

In connection with the Settlement Agreements, on April 17, 2017,
the Steadfast Parties entered into a contribution, settlement and
release agreement whereby all agreed to an allocation of all
costs related to the actions and their settlements and a release
of all claims a Steadfast Party may have against any other
Steadfast Party. The company's proportionate share of the
settlements was $378,405, which consisted of funds used to pay a
portion of (1) the settlement payments to the plaintiffs and
class members in the actions and (2) legal costs, less insurance
proceeds.

During the year ended December 31, 2017, the company had recorded
$350,851 as reimbursement for funds spent by the company in
excess of its proportionate share, all of which was collected
from other Steadfast Parties as of December 31, 2017.

Steadfast Income REIT, Inc. was formed on May 4, 2009, as a
Maryland corporation that has elected to be treated as, and
currently qualifies as, a real estate investment trust, or REIT.
The company had invested in and manages a diverse portfolio of
real estate investments, primarily in the multifamily sector,
located throughout the United States.


SURNAIK HOLDINGS: "Snodgrass" Suit Moved to S.D. West Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Timothy Snodgrass, on behalf of
himself and a class of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Surnaik Holdings of WV, LLC, a West Virginia limited liability
company, the Defendant, Case No. 18-C-35, was removed from the
Wood County Circuit, to the Southern District of West Virginia
(Charleston) on April 4, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:18-cv-00527 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Judge Thomas E. Johnston.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander D. McLaughlin, Esq.
          John H. Skaggs, Esq.
          Melissa H. Luce, Esq.
          THE CALWELL PRACTICE
          P. O. Box 113
          Charleston, WV 25321-0113
          Telephone: (304) 343 4323
          Facsimile: (304) 344 3684
          E-mail: amclaughlin@calwelllaw.com
                  jskaggs@calwelllaw.com
                  mluce@calwelllaw.com

Attorneys for Defendnant:

          Isaac Ralston Forman, Esq.
          Jonathan Zak Ritchie, Esq.
          Michael B. Hissam, Esq.
          Ryan McCune Donovan, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301-1386
          Telephone: (304) 345 6555
          Facsimile: (304) 342 1110
          E-mail: iforman@baileyglasser.com
                  zritchie@baileyglasser.com
                  mhissam@baileyglasser.com
                  rdonovan@baileyglasser.com


SYNACOR INC: Faces Class Action, June 4 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on April 4 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Synacor, Inc. ("Synacor" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:SYNC) and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, and docketed under 18-cv-02979, is on behalf of a class
consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Synacor securities between May 4, 2016 and March 15, 2018, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of
its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Synacor securities between
May 4, 2016, and March 15, 2018, both dates inclusive, you have
until June 4, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact Robert
S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone
number, and the number of shares purchased.

Synacor operates as a technology development, multiplatform
services, and revenue partner for video, Internet, and
communications providers, as well as device manufacturers,
governments, and enterprises.

On May 4, 2016, Synacor announced that it had secured a three-
year contract to host web and mobile services for AT&T Inc.
("AT&T" and the "AT&T Contract," respectively).

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Synacor was
unlikely to receive significant revenues from the AT&T Contract
until 2018; (ii) as such, the Company's revenue forecasts issued
during the Class Period were materially false and misleading; and
(iii) as a result of the foregoing, Synacor shares traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, and class
members suffered significant losses and damages.

On August 9, 2017, post-market, Synacor issued a press release
entitled "Synacor Exceeds Second-Quarter 2017 Financial Guidance;
Remains on Path to '3/30/300,'" announcing its financial results
for the quarter ended June 30, 2017.  The press release stated in
relevant part:  "[T]he joint AT&T-Synacor team has made the
strategic decision to prioritize portal engagement right now over
monetization.  We are seeing the results of this focus in deeper
engagement metrics. We are already generating revenue from this
new consumer experience, but we expect that additional
monetization tactics will be turned on at a more deliberate pace,
which will result in a longer ramp to full monetization. As a
result, a significant portion of the revenue that we were
expecting in Q3 and Q4 this year is delayed to 2018, and we are
adjusting our financial guidance for 2017 accordingly. We believe
that this engagement-focused strategy ultimately leads to a
stronger, more sustainable business," concluded Bhise.

On this news, Synacor's share price fell $1.15, or 32.39%, to
close at $2.40 on August 10, 2017.

On March 15, 2018, post-market, Synacor held a conference call
with analysts and investors to discuss the Company's fourth-
quarter earnings.  During the call, Defendant Bhise discussed the
shortcomings of the AT&T contract.

On this news, Synacor's share price fell $0.30, or 14.63%, to
close at $1.75 on March 16, 2018.

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


TIGER BRANDS: Faces Enormous Challenges Over Listeriosis Outbreak
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stafford Thomas, writing for Businesslive, reports that another
day, another scandal.  Tiger Brands put the Dangote Flour Mills
disaster behind it just over two years ago but now the company is
being plunged into another crisis and this could cost it well
over R1bn.

Facing a food producer's worst nightmare, Tiger has conceded that
processed meat products produced by its Enterprise Foods division
have been the source of the deadly ST6 strain of the listeria
monocytogenes pathogen.

The American Society for Microbiology describes listeriosis as a
"rare but severe disease". Close to 1,000 hapless SA consumers
have found this out the hard way.

The official listeriosis death toll stands at 183 while,
according to the website Listeria Class Action, there have been
978 cases recorded since January 2017.  This makes it the worst
outbreak of listeriosis in world history.

It is not the first time Tiger has been forced to recall a
product.  In October 2014 it recalled 17,000 items in its Tastic
instant rice range following the discovery of potentially
carcinogenic colourants in some items.  But that was a minor
incident compared with the listeriosis crisis, which is already
costing Tiger big money.

Since the news broke on March 8, operations at Enterprise's
Polokwane, Germiston, Pretoria and Clayville processing
facilities have been suspended and all Enterprise products
recalled for destruction.

Tiger estimates the cost of destruction of products and raw
materials at R337m-R377m, while the closure of the factories will
result in a monthly loss of R50m at the earnings before interest
and tax level.

Tiger will be submitting an insurance claim that will cover up to
R94m of these costs.  If the factories remain closed for three
months, Tiger will be left with a bill of up to R433m.

But the big unknown is the amount Tiger will have to cough up to
compensate listeriosis victims who win class actions against it.

The first class action was brought against Tiger by Richard Spoor
Attorneys, in conjunction with US foodborne illness litigation
firm Marler Clark.  Tiger estimates that this class action will
set it back R425m.

No estimate has so far been given by Tiger for the potential cost
of a second class action, being brought against it by LHL
Attorneys.  Throwing more light on the issue is Zain Lundell, a
senior partner at the law firm and the driver of the class
action.  "In our application to proceed with the class action a
figure of about R425m was mentioned," says Mr. Lundell.  "It is
also possible that the number of people lodging claims against
Tiger could increase a lot."

However, to have two class actions proceeding simultaneously is
unlikely, says Mr. Lundell, who thinks the ideal would be for the
three law firms involved to join forces.

The other alternative would be for one law firm to proceed with a
class action and another to handle claimants individually.

Either way Tiger appears to be in for a legal bill that could top
R850m.

If the costs of product recall and destruction and an assumed
closure of plants for three months are added, the total comes to
around R1.4bn. This amount is equal to a third of Tiger's pretax
profit in its past year to September.

The group is putting on a brave front.

"We will leave no stone unturned to get to the bottom of this to
ensure it does not happen again," says Lawrence MacDougall, Tiger
CEO since March 2016.

That would appear to suggest that Enterprise's factories will
reopen.

But with the brand having sustained crippling reputational damage
there is no certainty.

"Tiger may try to revive the Enterprise brand but that would be
hugely costly and even if it could, it is unlikely to ever get
back to previous numbers," says Nadim Mohamed of First Avenue
Investment Management.

36One Asset Management's Daniel Isaacs puts it bluntly:
"Enterprise is finished as a brand."

Tiger may consider alternatives such as a costly establishment of
a new brand or turning Enterprise's factories over to producing
only house brands for retailers, speculates Isaacs.

Mohammed believes the listeriosis news is already discounted in
Tiger's share price.

In similar vein, Isaacs says investors will "strip out" the
listeriosis costs when assessing Tiger's results.

However, Tiger's share price started coming under pressure well
ahead of the listeriosis news.  Its price peaked in mid-January.
Since then it has gone on to fall 21%, with only a third of that
coming after the listeriosis news broke.

The market, it appears, is also concerned by Tiger's trading
update for the four months to January in which it reported a 4%
volume decline.  For now, Tiger should be treated with caution.
[GN]


TIGER NATURAL: Court Narrows Claims in "Fishman" TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss the second amended complaint in the case captioned
EMILY FISHMAN and SUSAN FARIA, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TIGER NATURAL GAS, INC.
and COMMUNITY GAS CENTER INC., Defendants, No. C 17-05351 WHA
(N.D. Cal.).

Defendant Tiger Natural Gas, Inc., through its agent defendant
Community Gas Center Inc., called the plaintiffs to solicit them
to buy natural gas from Tiger through its price protection
program. During those sales calls, the defendants represented
that Tiger customers would be charged a variable rate for natural
gas based on the market price, but with a price cap of $0.69 per
therm.

Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs bring claims on behalf
of proposed sub-classes for: (1) violations of the California
Recording Law; (2) violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act; (3) breach of oral contract; (4) breach of third-
party beneficiary contract (Gas Rule 23); (5) violations of the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (6) fraud; (7) negligent
misrepresentation; (8) false advertising; and (9) unfair
competition.

California Recording Law Claim

Section 632(c) of the California Penal Code defines confidential
communication as: "Any communication carried on in circumstances
as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication
desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a
communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative,
judicial, executive, or administrative proceeding open to the
public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the
communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be
overheard or recorded."

Here, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants initiated a
personalized call in which they were invited to discuss their
PG&E accounts, including confirmation of their home addresses,
account numbers, and rate schedule.  This case more closely
resembles Membrila and Kearney v. Saloman Smith Barney Inc., 39
Cal.4th 95, 118 n.10 (2016), where the California Supreme Court
recognized that callers to financial advisors had a reasonable
expectation of privacy in their conversations in light of the
strong privacy interest most persons have with regard to the
personal financial information frequently disclosed in such
calls.  Construing the complaint in the light most favorable to
the plaintiffs, the Court finds that the plaintiffs had an
objectively reasonable expectation that their calls with the
defendants would not be overheard or recorded.

Tiger's motion to dismiss this claim is denied.

Telephone Consumer Protection Act Claim

Tiger next moves to dismiss the plaintiffs' TCPA claim on the
ground that Faria fails to allege that she received more than one
call in a 12-month period.

Faria does not dispute that she only alleges having received a
single call from the defendants. Rather, she argues that because
the defendants allegedly made the sales call using an automatic
telephone dialing system, she has a private right of action under
Section 227(b) and its accompanying regulations.

Because Faria fails to allege that she received more than one
call during a 12-month period, her claim under the TCPA fails as
a matter of law. Tiger's motion to dismiss this claim is granted.

Third-Party Beneficiary Contract Claim

Tiger argues that the plaintiffs' claim for breach of third-party
beneficiary contract should be dismissed because Gas Rule 23 is a
tariff, not a contract between Tiger and PG&E. Tariffs refer
collectively to the sheets that a utility must file, maintain,
and publish as directed by the CPUC, and that set forth the terms
and conditions of the utility's services to its customers.
Because the plaintiffs fail to allege an enforceable contract,
their third-party beneficiary claim must be dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 8, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y87wspc7 from Leagle.com.

Emily Fishman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Susan Faria, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel L. Balsam -
- calbar@danbalsam.com -- The Law Offices of Daniel Balsam, Jacob
N. Harker -- harkerjacob@gmail.com -- Law Offices of Jacob Harker
& Kimberly Ann Kralowec -- kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com -- Kralowec
Law, P.C.

Tiger Natural Gas, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation, Defendant,
represented by Janet Chung -- janet.chung@hklaw.com -- Holland
and Knight LLP, John Andrew Canale -- John.Canale@hklaw.com --
Holland and Knight LLP, Leah E. Capritta --
Leah.Capritta@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight LLP, Thomas Drew
Leland -- Leah.Capritta@hklaw.com -- Holland and Knight LLP &
Vince Lee Farhat, Holland and Knight LLP.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Fails to Pay All Overtime Wages, Gonzalez Says
------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL GONZALEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A.,
INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the
Defendants, Case No. BC700995 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 5, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by
Defendants as a nonexempt employee. The Plaintiff was, and is, a
victim of Defendants' policies and/or practices complained of
herein, lost money and/or property, and has been deprived of the
rights guaranteed by Labor Code sections 201-203, 204, 510, 558,
1194, and 1198; California Business & Professions Code section
17200 et seq. ("Unfair Competition Law"); and Wage Order, which
sets employment standards for the manufacturing industry.

The Plaintiff alleges that during the four years preceding the
filing of the Complaint and continuing to the present, Defendants
did (and continue to do) business by marketing, selling, and
distributing vehicles and vehicle parts. The Defendants operate
in California and employed Plaintiff and other, similarly-
situated non-exempt employees within Los Angeles County and the
state of California and, therefore, were (and are) doing business
in Los Angeles County and the State of California.

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. is the North American Toyota sales,
marketing, and distribution subsidiary devoted to the U.S.
market.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
          Stacey M. Shim, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Ste. 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
                  sshim@haineslawgroup.com


TRANS WORLD: Ct. Won't Review Denial of "Roper" Bid to Intervene
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of New
York denied Carol Spack's Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court's text order denying her motion to intervene in the case
captioned NATASHA ROPER, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Trans World Entertainment
Corporation, and Record Town, Inc., Defendant, No. 1:17-CV-553
(TJM-CFH) as moot.

In this case, which the Plaintiff seeks to turn into a class
action, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated wage
and hours laws by misclassifying hourly workers as managers.
Spack filed a similar case in the District of New Jersey shortly
before the Plaintiff filed her action here. She sought to
intervene in this case as part of an effort to consolidate the
actions.

The Court will deny the motion for reconsideration. Spack does
not raise any issues which were not raised previously in deciding
the motion to intervene had become moot as a result of the
transfer of Spack's case to this district.

In her motion to intervene, Spack argued that she should would
seek either to have the case transferred to the District of New
Jersey or to dismiss Roper's action because Roper had violated
the first-filed principle, which provides that where proceedings
involving the same parties and issues are pending simultaneously
in different federal courts the first-filed of the two takes
priority absent special circumstances' or a balance of
convenience in favor of the second.

Without deciding the particular issue, the Court notes that the
parties in the two suits are not the same, and that-after the
decision from the New Jersey District Court-the two cases are not
in different federal district courts.

The Court will therefore deny Spack's motion for reconsideration.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 8, 2018 Decision
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yasspnjz from
Leagle.com.

Natasha Roper, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, as Collective representative, Plaintiff, represented by
Gregg I. Shavitz, Shavitz Law Group, P.A., pro hac vice & Michael
J. Palitz, Shavitz Law Group, P.A., 1515 South Federal Highway,
Suite 404. Boca Raton, Florida 33432

Martin F. Scheinman, Mediator (Mandatory Program), pro se.

Trans World Entertainment Corporation & Record Town, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Christopher J. Stevens --
Paindiris@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & William J.
Anthony -- William.Anthony@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C.


TRUE VALUE: Faces "Reese" Suit over Buyout Deal in Del. Chancery
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD REESE, the Plaintiff, v. JOHN HARTMANN, M. SHAN
ATKINS, ALAN BRYANT, BRENT BURGER, RICHARD E. GEORGE, JR.,
GREGORY JOSEFOWICZ, JARED S. LITTMANN, THOMAS E. MARKERT, JAMES
R. WATERS, BRIAN A. WEBB, TRUE VALUE COMPANY, TV COOPERATIVE
COMPANY, ACON INVESTMENTS, L.L.C., TV HOLDCO L.L.C. and TV HOLDCO
II, L.L.C., the Defendants, Case No. 2018-0257-JRS (Del. Chancery
Ct., April 5, 2018), seeks to enjoin the Defendants and all
persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing a buyout agreement, and in the event
Defendants consummate the Buyout, rescinding it and setting it
aside or awarding rescissory damages to Plaintiff and the Class.

The case is a stockholder class action brought by Plaintiff on
behalf of himself and similarly situated stockholders of True
Value Company, against the Company's Board of Directors, for
breaches of fiduciary duties, and against ACON Investments,
L.L.C., a private investment firm, and its affiliates, TV Holdco,
L.L.C. and TV Holdco II, L.L.C., for aiding such breaches of
fiduciary duties.

True Value is a retailer-owned hardware cooperative with over
4,000 independent retail locations worldwide. True Value store
owners -- referred to as "Members" -- each enter into a Retail
Member Agreement with the Company and purchase 60 Class A common
shares of True Value stock, per store owned, up to five stores,
or 300 shares. True Value sells products to its Members and
provides certain retail support services, including advertising,
merchandising, and training. Instead of ordinary dividends, True
Value distributes "patronage dividends" to its Members, based on
each Member's annual purchase volume. Such patronage dividends
are paid in cash or non-voting Class B shares.

On March 15, 2018, the Company announced that it had entered into
an Acquisition Agreement pursuant to which each Member would be
forced to sell of their True Value equity for, and the Company
would undergo a material transformation. Soon thereafter, the
Company distributed an "Information Statement" to the Members,
including a Proxy for a stockholder meeting to be held on April
13, 2018. The Buyout is a conflicted transaction, at an unfair
price and will greatly harm the Members. The Members will be
forced to sell of their equity at a price that is not based upon
any fair valuation method, The Members will end up as indirect
minority owners of the Company, which itself will convert from a
Delaware company that operates as a cooperative to a Delaware
limited liability company.

As a result of the Individual Defendants' breaches of fiduciary
duty, the Plaintiff and the Class will suffer irreparable injury
because True Value's Members will not receive fair value for
their equity in the Company. Unless enjoined by this Court, the
Individual Defendants will continue to breach their fiduciary
duties and will attempt to consummate the Buyout, to the
irreparable harm of the Class.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
          Jessica Zeldin, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 656 4433

               - and -

          Jeffrey H. Squire, Esq.
          Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
          David J. Stone, Esq.
          Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
          885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 308 5858


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Certifies "Congdon" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in
the case captioned CHUCK CONGDON, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-02499-YGR
(N.D. Cal.).

Uber Tech is a technology service company that, via a mobile
phone application (the App), connects riders looking for
transportation to drivers, such as plaintiffs. To utilize the
App, each plaintiff in this action entered into certain
agreements depending on their location with one of the Rasier
defendants.

After connecting with a rider through the App and completing a
transportation service, the driver was entitled to charge a fare,
which would be paid by the rider to Uber. Pursuant to the
operative Agreement, the default amount charged for
transportation services was calculated in accordance with
Paragraph 4.1 of the Agreement, entitled Fare Calculation and
Your Payment.

That provision provides: "You are entitled to charge a fare for
each instance of completed Transportation Services provided to a
User that are obtained via the Uber Services (Fare), where such
Fare is calculated based upon a base fare amount plus mileage
and/or time amounts, as detailed for the applicable Territory
(Fare Calculation).  You are also entitled to charge User for any
Tolls, taxes or fees incurred during the provision of
Transportation Services."

The Fare Calculation provision does not reference cancelled rides
or so-called minimum fare rides. In fact, the latter is not
referenced or defined in the Agreement other than the Minimum
Fare rate notation on the Service Fee Schedule.  By contrast,
with respect to cancelled rides, the Agreement provides: "You
acknowledge and agree that Users may elect to cancel requests for
Transportation Services that have been accepted by you via the
Driver App at any time prior to your arrival. In the event that a
User cancels an accepted request for Transportation Services,
Company may charge the User a cancellation fee on your behalf. If
charged, this cancellation fee shall be deemed the Fare for the
cancelled Transportation Services for the purpose of remittance
to you hereunder."

Uber instituted a Safe Rides Fee in April 2014 as part of its
continued efforts to ensure the safest possible platform for Uber
riders and drivers. As explained in an April 18, 2014 email sent
to drivers, the $1.00 Safe Rides Fee was to cover the cost of
safety initiatives such as driver background checks and driver
safety education.

Uber also deducted $1.00 on minimum fare rides. This lawsuit
challenges that conduct under the terms of the Agreement.
Importantly, the parties stipulate that the terms of the
Agreement are unambiguous and that Uber drafted the three
agreements at issue.

MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Plaintiffs move to certify the following class as a damages class
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), with
plaintiffs Matthew Clark, Ryan Cowden, Dominicus Rooijackers, and
Jason Rosenberg as the class representatives:

   (A) all persons in the United States; (B) who entered the 2013
Agreement, the June 2014 Agreement, or the November 2014
Agreement, or a combination of those agreements; (C) opted-out of
arbitration under the last Uber driver contract the person
executed; and (D) provided at least one minimum fare ride on the
UberX platform for which a Safe Rides Fee applied before November
16, 2015.

Uber concedes that the plaintiffs have satisfied the numerosity,
commonality, predominance, and superiority requirements for
certification of the proposed Rule 23(b)(3) class. Uber contends
only that the plaintiffs are not typical (and for the same
reasons are not adequate and that the class definition is
overbroad.

With regard to typicality, Uber raises two arguments: (1) the
plaintiffs have no standing; and (2) the plaintiffs' depositions
have repudiated key averments in the FAC.

The proper question to assess typicality is whether the
plaintiffs suffered the same type of injury, assuming injury can
be proven, as a result of Uber's allegedly wrongful conduct. The
test of typicality is whether other members have the same or
similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct which is
not unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether other class
members have been injured by the same course of conduct.  Uber's
argument that the plaintiffs have suffered no injury is an
inquiry to be solved by the action.

Thus, Uber's assertion that the plaintiffs have no standing is
predicated on circular reasoning. Aside from the fact that Uber
does not distinguish between the plaintiffs' claims for damages
and the class members' claims for damages, each suffered the same
injury based on Uber's collection of the Safe Rides Fee, which
was improper under the same contractual arrangements.

Uber additionally argues that the plaintiffs are neither typical
nor adequate representatives because they have each disavowed the
central allegations in the FAC.

Uber does not persuade. Again it asks the Court to make a merits
determination that the Agreement actually allowed Uber to collect
the Safe Rides Fee in the manner that it did during the Class
Period. However, the central complaint is that the Agreement did
not so provide. Whether that is correct is irrelevant for class
certification purposes. For purposes of typicality, it is enough
to find that the plaintiffs' theory of their injury is the same
theory of injury for the entire class.

The Court thus finds that the typicality and adequacy
requirements for class certification are satisfied.

Uber further argues that to the extent the plaintiffs' case for
liability relies on Uber's purported assurance in it April 2014
email that riders would pay the Safe Rides Fee, not drivers, the
class is overbroad.

Thus, Uber contends that if the plaintiffs' theory rests on this
email, the class must be limited to drivers who activated their
Uber accounts prior to May 2014 as those who did so subsequently
would not have received the email.  The Plaintiffs state that the
April 2014 email is not dispositive, but merely provides context
for the Agreement. Thus, the plaintiffs argue, receipt of the
email should not be deemed necessary for class membership, but if
it were, the proper course would be to create two subclasses
rather than denial of class certification.

Accordingly, the Court grants plaintiffs' motion for class
certification under Rule 23(b)(3) and certifies the following
class:

     All persons in the United States who (A) entered the 2013
Agreement, the June 2014 Agreement, or the November 2014
Agreement, or a combination of those agreements; (B) opted out of
arbitration under the last Uber driver contract the person
executed; and (C) provided at least one minimum fare ride on the
UberX platform for which a Safe Rides Fee applied before November
16, 2015.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 8, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8d7pxek from Leagle.com.

Chuck Congdon, Ryan Cowden, Anthony Martinez, Jason Rosenberg &
Jorge Zuniga, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Brian C. Tackenberg --
btackenberg@crabtreelaw.com -- pro hac vice, Charles M. Auslander
-- causlander@crabtreelaw.com -- pro hac vice, George R. Baise,
Jr. -- gbaise@crabtreelaw.com -- pro hac vice, John Granville
Crabtree, United Sta, Joseph Pascal Russoniello, Browne George
Ross LLP & Andrew A. August -- aaugust@bgrfirm.com -- Browne
George Ross LLP.

Anthony M. Torres, Donovan Bailey, Dan Scheinkman, Brian Webber,
Matthew Clark, Naquisha Winters & Dominicus Rooijackers,
Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew A. August, Browne George Ross
LLP & John Granville Crabtree, United Sta.

Uber Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Rasier, LLC, a
Delaware corporation & Rasier-CA, LLC, a Delaware corporation,
Defendants, represented by William Lewis Stern -- wstern@mofo.com
-- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Alexandra Eve Laks -- alaks@mofo.com
-- Morrison and Foerster LLP, Ariel Francisco Ruiz --
aruiz@mofo.com -- Morrison Foerster LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi --
cvetesi@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP & Lucia X. Roibal --
LRoibal@mofo.com -Morrison Foerster LLP.

Rasier-PA LLC & Rasier-DC LLC, Defendants, represented by William
Lewis Stern, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Alexandra Eve Laks,
Morrison and Foerster LLP, Ariel Francisco Ruiz, Morrison
Foerster LLP & Lucia X. Roibal, Morrison Foerster LLP.


UBS FINANCIAL: Broker Files Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------
Mason Braswell, writing for AdvisorHub, reports that a life-long
UBS Financial Services broker in Walnut Creek, Calif., has filed
a class-action lawsuit asserting that the company's policy of
deducting expenses for parking, travel and other business
purposes violates California law.

Larry Martin Van Steenhuyse, who has spent his 32-year brokerage
career with the firm, filed the claim on behalf of all
California-based advisors at the firm in California Superior
Court in Alameda County in February.  It was moved to federal
court in the Northern District of California at UBS's behest.

The lawsuit also charges UBS with illegally classifying financial
advisors as exempt from overtime pay and of failing to pay all
earned commissions within 10 days of a pay period's close.  The
alleged expense and pay policies -- and UBS's inclusion a class-
action waiver in annual compensation agreements -- violate the
labor provisions of California's Private Attorneys General Act of
2004, according to the lawsuit.

Mr. Van Steenhuyse, whose BrokerCheck record says he continues to
work at UBS and has a branch office manager license, did not
immediately return a call for comment.  A spokesman for UBS
declined to comment.

The broker, a senior vice president, booked more than $700,000 of
compensation -- including an average payout of $54,000 over the
last 15 months and a $60,000 annual salary, according to a court
filing.  In requesting the transfer to federal court, UBS
estimated that Mr. Van Steenhuyse's individual claim totals
$95,278, according to a calculation based on his current earnings
and possible penalties under California law.

Complaints about overtime pay and expenses in the brokerage
industry are rare among advisors and other professions where pay
is not grounded in salary, although many firms grant expense
allowances as perks tied to prior years' production numbers.

"Regardless of how much he's making, if somebody is stealing from
you you're going to be upset," said Edward J. Wynne, an
employment lawyer in Larkspur, Calif., who is a co-counsel for
Mr. Van Steenhuyse.  "From my discussion with FAs at UBS and
other broker-dealers, this is a long-standing grievance that
these guys have."

The class-action lawsuit mirrors ones also shepherded by
Mr. Wynne in 2014 against Wells Fargo Advisors and in September
2016 against UBS.  The earlier UBS case was withdrawn weeks after
it was filed by the lead plaintiff "for personal reasons" and the
Wells case is moving toward settlement, according to Wynne.
Neither of the earlier cases were certified to proceed as class-
actions, he said.

Mr. Van Steenhuyse's claim does not specify damages.  All current
and former brokers employed at UBS in California from February
26, 2016 until the present qualify for the class, it says.

Mr. Van Steenhuyse joined UBS in 1985, the year he graduated from
the University of Iowa, according to his LinkedIn profile. [GN]


ULTA BEAUTY: Wants "Ogurkiewicz" & "Smith-Brown" Suits Combined
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned PAULA M. OGURKIEWICZ, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
ULTA BEAUTY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02445 (N.D. Ill.,
April 5, 2018), the Defendant asks the Court to reassign and
consolidate the action before Judge Alonso, on the basis that
Judge Alonso is presiding over an earlier-filed related case
captioned Smith-Brown v. Ulta Beauty, Inc., et al. (N.D. Ill.,
No. 1:18-cv-00610).

The Ogurkiewicz lawsuit was originally filed in the Cook County,
Illinois, case number (2018-CH-03006), and was removed to the
Federal District Court.

Ogurkiewicz alleges that the Company forces strict return quotas,
prompting store employees to repackage returned and old items as
new, and that these practices expose unwitting consumers to
diseases, such as E. coli or herpes.

Ulta Beauty is a chain of beauty stores in the United States,
headquartered in Bolingbrook, Illinois. Ulta Beauty carries
cosmetics and skincare brands, men's and women's fragrances, and
haircare products.[BN]

Attorneys for Ulta Beauty, Inc.:

          Craig C. Martin, Esq.
          Matt D. Basil, Esq.
          Paul B. Rietema, Esq.
          Jenner & Block LLP
          353 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654-3456
          Telephone: (312) 222 9350
          Facsimile: (312) 527 0484
          E-mail: cmartin@jenner.com
                  mbasil@jenner.com
                  prietema@jenner.com


US GEOTHERMAL: Assad Files Suit Over Sale to Ormat Nevada
---------------------------------------------------------
George Assad, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. U.S. Geothermal Inc., John H. Walker, Paul Larkin,
Leland Mink, James C. Pappas, Randolph J. Hill, Ali Hedayat, and
Douglas J. Glaspey, Case No. 1:18-cv-00126 (D. Idaho, March 16,
2018), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on
January 24, 2018, pursuant to which U.S. Geothermal Inc. will be
acquired by Ormat Nevada Inc. and OGP Holding Corp.

On March 2, 2018, Defendants filed a Preliminary Proxy Statement
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which
renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading.

Plaintiff George Assad owns U.S. Geothermal common stock.

Defendant U.S. Geothermal is a renewable energy company focused
on the development, production, and sale of electricity from
geothermal energy. Defendant is a Delaware corporation and
maintains its principal executive offices at 390 E Parkcenter
Blvd., Suite 250, Boise, Idaho 83706.  U.S. Geothermal's common
stock is traded on the NYSE under the ticker symbol "HTM."

The Individual Defendants are members of the board of directors
of U.S. Geothermal.   [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John W. Kluksdal, Esq.
      HEPWORTH HOLZER, LLP
      537 W. Bannock Street, Ste. 200
      P.O. Box 2582
      Boise, ID 83701-2582
      Tel: (208) 343-7510
      Fax: (208) 342-2927
      E-mail: jkluksdal@hepworthholzer.com


WELLS FARGO: Court Dismisses "Lester" TCPA Claim
------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana, Shreveport Division, granted Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment in the case captioned JOANNA PRUITT LESTER, v.
WELLS FARGO BANK NA, et al., Civil Action No. 15-2439 (W.D. La.).

Lester alleged a myriad of causes of action, including, inter
alia: (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud; (3) negligent and
intentional misrepresentation; (4) negligent and intentional
infliction of emotional distress; (5) collusion generally; (6)
unfair and deceptive trade practices under the Louisiana Unfair
Trade Practices Act (LUTPA).

The Court granted the defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to
Dismiss, dismissing with prejudice all of the claims Lester
raised in her Amended and Restated Complaint except her TCPA
claims against WFB.

In support of her TCPA claims, Lester alleged that while she was
in arrears on her mortgage loan, WFB called her between six and
ten times per day, from January 1, 2011 through December 31,
2015, utilizing automated phone messaging.

Rule 56 of the F.R.C.P. governs summary judgment. This rule
provides that the court shall grant summary judgment if the
movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The Court finds that there is no genuine dispute as to the
material fact that Lester waived her right to assert any TCPA
claim against WFB for communications that WFB made to her between
November 17, 2011 and February 29, 2016.  Wells Fargo settled
these claims through the Markos class action. Subject to the
settlement agreement, all class members released WFB from
liability for all TCPA claims arising during the class period
(November 17, 2011 through February 29, 2016). Lester is a class
member of Subclass One given that her claims relate to automated
calls that WFB made to her in connection with her residential
mortgage loan. Lester received notice of the class settlement
action informing her of her status as a class member and her
right to opt out.  According to the court records, Lester did not
opt out of the settlement class.

Therefore, Lester has waived her claims related to this time
period.

The TCPA provides in relevant part that: "It shall be unlawful
for any person within the United States to make any call (other
than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior
express consent of the called party) using any automatic
telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice to
any telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service."

Lester admits that she consented to WFB's contact but argues she
revoked that consent verbally to several of WFB's representatives
starting back in 2011. Putting aside the issues of whether
written revocation is necessary and whether Lester ever clearly
expressed her desire for WFB to cease contacting her, this
assertion by Lester is in direct contradiction to her deposition
testimony in which she specifically stated she asked WFB to stop
calling her sometime in 2013.

There is nothing in the record evidencing Lester's revocation in
2011. Because Lester expressly consented to WFB contacting her on
her cell phone prior January 1, 2011, and cannot show that she
revoked her consent prior to November 16, 2011, Lester has no
valid claim under the TCPA for that period of time. Therefore,
Lester's remaining claims must be dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 8, 2018 Memorandum
Ruling is available at https://tinyurl.com/yadssmnr from
Leagle.com.

Joanna Pruitt Lester, Plaintiff, pro se.

Wells Fargo Bank N A, Defendant, represented by Kent A. Lambert -
- klambert@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson et al, Katie Lynn
Dysart -- kdysart@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson et al &
Sarah Katherine Casey -- skcasey@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker
Donelson et al.


WELLS FARGO: Must Face Class Action Over Recorded Phone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
federal judge has refused to dismiss a class action alleging
telemarketers illegally recorded phone conversations among its
banking clients' business customers.

On Dec. 9, 2016, California residents James Wang, Sat Narayan,
Kaeran Sudmalis-Testi, Ihab Ghannam and Blanca Saenz, filed suit
in Chicago federal court against International Payment Services
LLC, of Henderson, Nev., which does business as Elitepay Global,
and Ironwood Financial, of Salt Lake City, which does business as
Ironwood Payments.

Ironwood allegedly used a Naperville call center to solicit
retailers and other merchants to persuade them to hire certain
banks to process their debit and credit transactions.  The
plaintiffs are small business owners who allege surreptitious
recording of phone conversations in which they divulged sensitive
information.  They also sued the companies that allegedly hired
the marketing companies, including Wells Fargo, Fifth Third,
First Data Corp., Vantiv Inc., and National Processing Company.

The lawsuit accused the marketers of using "caller ID spoofing"
and other tactics to allegedly mislead the business owners into
believing they were speaking with either a local customer or an
existing service provider, when the marketers were actually
soliciting them to transfer their debit and credit card
transaction processing business to a new bank and vendors.

In moving to dismiss, the defendants didn't dispute the complaint
met class action requirements, but rather that the plaintiffs
lacked standing because they haven't suffered an injury, citing
in their argument the 2016 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Spokeo
Inc., v. Robins. U.S. District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer
addressed the motion in an opinion issued March 29 in Chicago,
noting the plaintiffs sought "statutory damages without alleging
actual economic loss."

However, she said the complaint does sufficiently claim a
violation of the right to privacy, particularly under a
California law that prohibits "recording telephone communications
without consent."

Judge Pallmeyer further explained the California Invasion of
Privacy Act does not require plaintiffs to have suffered or be
threatened with actual damages, and said "California District
Courts that have interpreted CIPA in the wake of Spokeo have all
held that CIPA violations constitute injuries in fact even
without a showing of any actual harm beyond the invasion of the
plaintiff's right to privacy."

However, Judge Pallmeyer also noted she rejected the plaintiffs'
alternate theory regarding the defendants' alleged "practice of
storing the recordings in cloud-based computer systems accessible
by the internet (which) created a risk of data breach," saying
the Supreme Court explicitly denied plaintiff standings on
similar risks.

The defendants failed to convince Judge Pallmeyer the plaintiffs
aren't entitled to CIPA protections as businesses.  She also
determined the plaintiffs plausibly alleged an expectation the
conversations would be confidential, primarily because there was
no indication the calls were being recorded, and said the
defendants' arguments about the type of phones used to make the
calls were unmoving.

Individual defendants sought dismissal on grounds they weren't
subject to litigation based in Illinois, but Judge Pallmeyer
found the jurisdictional arguments unconvincing.  She also said
Ironwood owners Dewitt Lovelace and John Lewis failed to argue
they lacked enough involvement in the alleged conduct to avoid
liability, saying if they "truly ordered employees to secretly
record calls placed to Californian businesses, then they are
clearly liable when their employees did so."

Judge Pallmeyer also said the bank defendants failed in their
motions to dismiss as they argued the claims they faced stemmed
only from alleged receipt of recordings, whereas she determined
the plaintiffs' allegations were broader.  And finally, she
declined to issue sanctions the defendants requested against the
plaintiffs' attorneys -- the firm of Myron M. Cherry &
Associates, of Chicago, led by attorneys Myron Cherry and
Jacie Zolna -- because she concluded they were not, as the
defendants' alleged, relying only on the statements of one
whistleblower to form the complaint.

The judge gave the defendants 21 days to file answers to her
opinion.

Defendants are represented in the case by attorneys James R.
Figliulo -- jfigliulo@fslegal.com -- and Peter A. Silverman --
psilverman@fslegal.com -- and others of the firm of Figliulo &
Silverman, of Chicago; Jess M. Krannich -- jkrannich@mc2b.com --
of the firm of Manning Curtis Bradshaw & Bednar PLLC, of Salt
Lake City; George James Tzanetopoulos --
gtzanetopoulos@bakerlaw.com -- of the firm of Baker Hostetler, of
Chicago; and attorneys with the firm of Polsinelli P.C., of
Chicago. [GN]


WESTERN EXPRESS: First Amended Complaint Filed in "Rivera" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marc Lawrance Rivera,
individually and on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Western Express, Inc., doing business
as: Western Express Transport of California, Inc., a Tennessee
Corporation, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 5:18-cv-00697 (C.D. Cal., April 4, 2018), plaintiff
filed a first amended complaint on April 6.

Judge Jesus G Bernal oversees the case.  The proceedings has been
referred to Magistrate Judge Shashi H Kewalramani.

On April 12, 2018, Judge Bernal entered a standing order upon
filing of the complaint.

Western Express, Inc., a service focused company, provides
transportation solutions. Its services include truckload vans,
flatbed transportation, dedicated fleet, logistics, and expedited
truck/rails. The company also provides web based viewing and
retrieval of invoices, and proof of delivery documentation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Jason Hill, Esq.
          Michael D Singer, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY AND SINGER
          605 C Street Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101-5305
          Telephone: (619) 595 3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595 3000
          E-mail: jhill@ckslaw.com
                  msinger@ckslaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan M Lebe, Esq.
          LEBE LAW APLC
          5723 Melrose Avenue Suite 100
          Los Angeles, CA 90038
          Telephone: (310) 921 7056
          Facsimile: (310) 820 1258
          E-mail: jon@lebelaw.com


WILLIS GROUP: Alaska Laborers Trust Files Suit Over Willis Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Laborers-Employers Retirement Trust, on behalf of itself
and all other similarly situated former stockholders of Towers
Watson & Co., Plaintiff, v. Victor F. Ganzi, John J. Haley,
Leslie S. Heisz, Brendan R. O'Neill, Linda D. Rabbitt, Gilbert T.
Ray, Paul Thomas, Wilhelm Zeller, Willis Group Holdings PLC, and
Valueact Capital Management, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-
00541, (Del. Ch., March 8, 2018), seeks damages, costs and
disbursements of this action, including attorneys' and experts'
fees and such other and further relief resulting from breach of
fiduciary duties.

Towers was a global professional services firm focused on helping
organizations improve performance through risk management, human
resources and actuarial and investment consulting. Willis was a
global risk advisor, insurance brokerage and reinsurance
brokerage company headquartered in London and incorporated under
the laws of Ireland.

Willis and Towers entered into a merger whereby Towers
stockholders received only 49.9% ownership of the combined
Willis-Towers despite Towers having nearly $1 billion more in
market capitalization than Willis. The $10.00 special dividend
that Towers' stockholders received failed to compensate Towers
stockholders for the difference in market capitalization and
respective performance of the two companies, says the complaint.
Ganzi, O'Neill, Rabbitt, Thomas and Zeller were Towers' director
designees on the Willis-Towers Board.

Alaska Laborers-Employers Retirement Trust was a shareholder of
Towers and owned Towers common stock. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Barry, Esq.
      Christine M. Mackintosh, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      123 Justison Street
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 622-7000
      Email: mbarry@gelaw.com
             cmackintosh@gelaw.com


ZAPPOS.COM INC: 9th Cir. Flips Dismissal of Identity Theft Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, reversed the
District Court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' Claims for Lack of
Article III Standing in the case captioned IN RE ZAPPOS.COM,
INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION, THERESA STEVENS;
KRISTIN O'BRIEN; TERRI WADSWORTH; DAHLIA HABASHY; PATTI HASNER;
SHARI SIMON; STEPHANIE PRIERA; KATHRYN VORHOFF; DENISE
RELETHFORD; ROBERT REE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ZAPPOS.COM.,
INC., Defendant-Appellee, No. 16-16860 (9th Cir.).

Hackers breached the servers of online retailer Zappos.com, Inc.,
and allegedly stole the names, account numbers, passwords, email
addresses, billing and shipping addresses, telephone numbers, and
credit and debit card information of more than 24 million Zappos
customers. Several of those customers filed putative class
actions in federal courts across the country, asserting that
Zappos had not adequately protected their personal information.

In these suits, the Plaintiffs alleged an imminent risk of
identity theft or fraud from the Zappos breach. Relying on
definitions from the United States Government Accountability
Office (GAO), they characterized identity theft and identity
fraud as encompassing various types of criminal activities, such
as when PII is used to commit fraud or other crimes, including
credit card fraud, phone or utilities fraud, bank fraud and
government fraud.

In this appeal, the Plaintiffs contend that the district court
erred in doing so, and they press several potential bases for
standing, including that the Zappos data breach put them at risk
of identity theft.

The district court ruled that the first group of plaintiffs had
Article III standing because they alleged that actual fraud
occurred as a direct result of the breach. But the court ruled
that the second group of plaintiffs lacked Article III standing
and dismissed their claims without leave to amend because
Plaintiffs had failed to allege instances of actual identity
theft or fraud.

The Ninth Circuit addressed the Article III standing of victims
of data theft in Krottner v. Starbucks Corp., 628 F.3d 1139 (9th
Cir. 2010).  In Krottner, a thief stole a laptop containing the
unencrypted names, addresses, and social security numbers of
approximately 97,000 Starbucks employees.  Starbucks sent a
letter to affected employees alerting them to the theft and
stating that Starbucks had no indication that the private
information had been misused, but advising them to monitor their
financial accounts carefully for suspicious activity and take
appropriate steps to protect themselves against potential
identity theft.  Some employees sued, and the only harm that most
alleged was an increased risk of future identity theft.

The Ninth Circuit determined this was sufficient for Article III
standing, holding that the Krottner plaintiffs had alleged a
credible threat of real and immediate harm because the laptop
with their PII had been stolen.

The Ninth Circuit also concludes that Krottner controls the
result here.

The Plaintiffs allege that the type of information accessed in
the Zappos breach can be used to commit identity theft, including
by placing them at higher risk of phishing and pharming, which
are ways for hackers to exploit information they already have to
get even more PII. The Plaintiffs also allege that their credit
card numbers were within the information taken in the breach
which was not true in Krottner. And Congress has treated credit
card numbers as sufficiently sensitive to warrant legislation
prohibiting merchants from printing such numbers on receipts
specifically to reduce the risk of identity theft.

Although there is no allegation in this case that the stolen
information included social security numbers, as there was in
Krottner, the information taken in the data breach still gave
hackers the means to commit fraud or identity theft, as Zappos
itself effectively acknowledged by urging affected customers to
change their passwords on any other account where they may have
used the same or a similar password.

Assessing the sum of their allegations in light of Krottner, the
Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged an injury in fact based on a
substantial risk that the Zappos hackers will commit identity
fraud or identity theft.

The remaining Article III standing requirements are also
satisfied. The Plaintiffs sufficiently allege that the risk of
future harm they face is 'fairly traceable' to the conduct being
challenged here, Zappos's failure to prevent the breach.

The injury from the risk of identity theft is also redressable by
relief that could be obtained through this litigation. If the
Plaintiffs succeed on the merits, any proven injury could be
compensated through damages. And at least some of their requested
injunctive relief would limit the extent of the threatened injury
by helping Plaintiffs to monitor their credit and the like.

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit reverses the district court's
judgment as to Plaintiffs' standing and remands.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's March 8, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybpyrm5s from Leagle.com.

Douglas Gregory Blankinship -- gblankinship@fbfglaw.com --
(argued), Finkelstein Blankinship Frei-Pearson and Garber LLP,
White Plains, New York; David C. O'Mara, The O'Mara Law Firm
P.C.,311 East Liberty Street, Reno, NV 89501, Ben Barnow, Barnow
and Associates P.C., Chicago, Illinois; Richard L. Coffman --
rcoffman@coffmanlawfirm.com -- The Coffman Law Firm, Beaumont,
Texas; Marc L. Godino, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Los Angeles,
California; for Plaintiffs-Appellants, 1801 Avenue of the Stars,
Suite 311. Los Angeles, California 90067

Stephen J. Newman -- snewman@stroock.com -- (argued), David W.
Moon -- dmoon@stroock.com -- Brian C. Frontino --
bfrontino@stroock.com -- and Julia B. Strickland --
jstrickland@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Los
Angeles, California; Robert McCoy -- rmccoy@kcnvlaw.com --
Kaempfer Crowell, Las Vegas, Nevada; for Defendant-Appellee.


* Class Actions Filed in Israel Increase Exponentially
------------------------------------------------------
FTSE Global Markets reports that the robust expansion of the
Israeli legal market in the last twenty-five years is derived
from various local and international trends, including
substantial growth in international litigation as well as modern
and sophisticated forms of class and group actions.  The Israeli
legal market has evolved to respond to the needs of a modernised
consumer society by, among other things, adapting and encouraging
modern and sophisticated forms of class and group actions,
similar to US-style class actions.  Ruth Loven, Esq., of Yigal
Arnon & Co -- ruthl@arnon.co.il -- reports.

Developments in the Israeli legal market are consistent with
world-wide trends such as globalisation, on the one hand, and
modernising consumer society, on the other.  Neither have passed
over Israel.  As more multinational conglomerates entered the
Israeli market and established a presence and business in Israel,
International Class Actions litigation became a separate and
distinct area of expertise, and it features unique aspects of
dispute resolution both in substance and in procedure.

The Israeli Class Actions Law 2006 permits the filing and
adjudication of class actions, and defines a class action as 'an
action managed in the name of a class of people, who have not
empowered the class plaintiff for this purpose, and which raises
material questions of fact or law that are shared by all members
of the class' (prior to the enactment of the Law, class actions
were available in very specific and limited fields and causes of
action).

The Law provides for an 'opt-out' mechanism, namely, any person
or entity which falls under the class definition becomes a member
of the class, unless they provide a withdrawal notice (while the
court may, under special circumstances, apply an 'opt-in'
mechanism).  It sets forth a closed list of issues and subjects
with respect to which a class action may be filed, including
claims against manufactures or dealers of various products and
services, insurance providers, banking corporations, competition
law related claims, environmental claims, labour law claims,
antispam regulation, unlawfully collection of tax or other
mandatory payments, and more.

The filing of a class action is subject to the court's approval
and discretion, and is subject to meeting several criteria, which
are similar (although not identical) to those of the US Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23:  the action must raise material
questions of fact or law that are shared by all members of the
class; there must be a reasonable possibility that the legal or
factual questions will be decided in favour of the class; a class
action must be the efficient and fair way of resolving the
dispute under the circumstances of the case; and there must be a
reasonable basis to assume that the interest of all members of
the class will be represented and managed properly and in good
faith.

These requirements are examined by the court in the scope of a
preliminary motion to approve the action as a class action
(motion for class certification), in which the court examines
whether the forgoing requirements are met.  At such preliminary
stage, the court examines the alleged cause of action on its
merits with respect to both legal and factual aspects.

The number of class actions filed each year has increased
exponentially since the enactment of the Law in 2006. Pursuant to
unofficial statistics, in 2007 there were approximately 131 class
action law suits filed in Israel.  This number has increased
every year and in 2016, there were approximately 1,500 class
actions filed in Israel. 2017 was the first year that presented a
minor decrease in the number of class actions filed, totalling
1,441 actions.  Based on unofficial statistics, in 2017
approximately 55% of class actions resulted in voluntary
dismissal, approximately 20% resulted in class settlements
(namely, settlement agreements binding all members of the class
who did not exercise their right to "opt-out" of the settlement),
11% resulted in denying the motion for certification as a class
action, 7% resulted in granting the motion for certification as a
class action and approximately 3.5% resulted in a "cessation
notice", which allows a public authority to cease from collection
of tax, toll or other mandatory payment resulting in the
conclusion of the class action without restitution of past
payments collected (remaining 3.5% resulted in either a dismissal
or a final judgment on the c lass action).

The Law has resulted in a significant increase in consumer
rights' protection and enforcement and has influenced the
policies and conduct of large companies in Israel.  It also led
to the recognition of novel theories of consumer damages, which
are not necessarily recoverable in other legal systems.  In one
of the most interesting class actions in Israel to date, it was
discovered in 1995 that an Israeli manufacturer of various food
products added silicone (dimethylpolysiloxane) to its low-fat
long-life milk product to prevent its foaming, in violation of
official standards and in contradiction of certain statements it
made.  There was no question that the addition of this substance
did not pose a threat to the well-being of the consumers.  A
motion for certification of a class action was filed and the
class action was certified and approved in a decision of the
Israeli Supreme Court in 2003, for compensation of the class
members for injury to their 'autonomy of will'.  This was a
precedent-making decision that ruled that even this type of
damage is recoverable in a class action in the appropriate cases.

Class Action often shed new light on common practices, such as
jurisdictional and governing law provisions in uniform contracts.
In general, commercial parties enjoy freedom of choice under
Israeli law, and they may stipulate on most jurisdictional issues
such as the dispute resolution mechanism, choice of competent
courts and applicable law.  Until recently, the same rule applied
to the business- consumer relationshipalso, however, recent case
law suggests that the freedom of choice in such relationship may
be more limited.  Israeli courts have recently ruled that a
provision in the uniform Terms of Service of certain
international service providers, which provides that disputes
shall be brought before the courts of the service providers'
place of business are unlawful and non-binding, and thus do not
exclude the consumers' right to bring a class action in Israel
(for an Israeli consumer class).  This question is currently
pending before the Israeli Supreme Court.

Consumer class actions filed in Israel for the past 20 years can
roughly be divided into four 'generations'.  The first involves
conventional consumer rights class action concerning
misrepresentation, consumer fraud, breach of contract, product
liability and product defects, and so forth.  The second involves
sophisticated consumer rights class action based primarily on
certain provisions of the Israeli Consumer Protection Law 1981
and regulations, which provide more robust consumer protection
than the standard international benchmark protections. For
example, class actions concerning unique termination rights
vested upon consumers; unique mandatory notices to consumers in
certain circumstances; unique labelling requirements and more.

In the third generation, antidiscrimination class actions go way
beyond conventional antidiscrimination laws (which prohibit
discrimination based on gender, age, race, religion, sexual
orientation for example) and seek to challenge business
practices.  For many years, these have been perceived as totally
legitimate and lawful, such as granting discounts or other
benefits to women only; or price differentiation between
different groups of consumers.  These considerations are not
characterised by their gender, age, race, religion, sexual
orientation for example.

Finally, in the fourth generation, the law involves sophisticated
privacy and data protection class actions that seek to challenge
current data protection practices and big data operations, inter
alia of multinational companies.

Although all four generations currently exist side by side, the
third and fourth have emerged in recent years only and have
become state of the art in Israeli class actions.  Second, third
and fourth generations may be of particular import to
multinational companies as they sometimes rely on novel Israeli
concepts, which a multinational company had not encountered in
other jurisdictions.

Against the foregoing background, there are some useful tips for
multinational companies engaged with the Israeli market, to
minimize risks of class actions.  It is advisable, for example,
to consider potentially applicable Israeli labelling requirements
as well as unique duties to disclose.

As well, in the event of product defects or product safety issues
emerging outside of Israel, it is advisable to seek guidance with
respect to potentially required or desired actions in Israel,
both vis a vis consumers and regulators.  Moreover, it is
advisable to consider seeking advice whether a particular
activity is subject to certain provisions of the Israeli Consumer
Protection Law 1981 and regulations, and in the appropriate cases
how such operations may be reconciled with this legislation.

Additionally, it is important to consider seeking advice with
respect to price differentiation schemes relevant to Israeli
consumers, independent from potential Antitrust issues. Seeking
advice with respect to Israeli data protection requirements is
also important.

As a start-up nation, Israeli class actions sometimes demonstrate
start-up features that might at first blush appear unorthodox to
multinational companies.  Even so, they may create substantial
exposure to their operations in this jurisdiction, which can be
successfully minimized with the appropriate advice and strategy.
[GN]


* Loot Box Controversy May Prompt Consumer Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
Paul Hustondan Pascucci, writing for Venture Beat, reports that
the landscape surrounding microtransactions in video games
continues to evolve at a pace outstripping the law's ability to
keep up.  Just months after enduring public outcry over an
extensive loot box system in Star Wars: Battlefront II, EA Games
has announced a complete overhaul that eliminates the ability to
purchase in-game items that impact gameplay.

Meanwhile, the Entertainment Software Regulatory Board, the self-
regulating agency created by the Entertainment Software Agency,
has now weighed in on the mounting controversy over
microtransactions, but its response is only a new "In-Game
Purchases" label on "games that offer the ability to purchase
digital goods or premiums with real world currency."

Rapid industry changes and the absence of a clear regulatory
environment may leave developers with a wild west sense of
lawlessness.  But lack of regulation does not equate to lack of
legal exposure and the battlegrounds most likely to shape rules
regarding microtransactions are taking shape.

Emerging legal battlegrounds
While the possibility of a regulatory or legislative reaction to
the loot box controversy cannot be discounted -- initiatives in
Belgium and Hawaii to ban or regulate loot boxes are already
underway -- class action litigation poses a far greater and more
realistic point of exposure to game manufacturers.  The potential
to recover millions in fee awards incentivizes the class action
plaintiffs' bar to seek out and file claims against challengeable
practices that impact large classes of consumers.  And, unlike
most legislative or regulatory responses -- often enacted with
phase-in periods to allow industries time to comply with new
requirements -- class action exposure is retrospective, seeking
to extract lofty financial penalties for past violations in
addition to any prospective changes to practices impacting
consumers.

Early lines are already being drawn.  Square Enix, maker of Hoshi
no Dragon Quest, is facing a class action suit in Japan over the
game's gacha system -- a monetization program similar to loot
boxes.  The claim appears to stem from a contention that odds of
winning prizes under the gacha system are not accurately
disclosed.  And US-based in-game purchases have caught the
attention of class action counsel before, with Apple and Google
both facing suits over games that allowed children to make in-app
purchases without reentering credit card information.

Microtransactions and not-so-micro exposure
The loot box controversy is a particularly attractive target for
class action claims under consumer protection statutes in
protective US states like California and Massachusetts.  Statutes
in such states allow class actions on allegations that the
developer advertised a game as having features it did not have.
These statutes are ready made for inadequate or inaccurate
disclosures.  So, for example, a game that overstates the odds of
acquiring particular in-game features through a loot box purchase
would likely violate such statutes and, if the practice is
widespread and profitable enough, would likely trigger a class
action complaint.

But potential exposure does not stem only from overtly false
claims about game features.  A class could allege that a game was
advertised with footage showing features or characters locked
away in loot boxes and was advertised at the shelf price, but in
reality the price to unlock those advertised features was much
higher and the features were not available for the advertised
price.

Battlefront II drew harsh criticism for the effort necessary to
unlock major characters like Darth Vader.  Some estimates
determined that it would take over 4,500 hours of gameplay unlock
all of the game's content.  Of course, players could purchase
enough credits to unlock everything -- for $2,100, 35 times the
cost of the game.  These types of criticisms are often interlaced
into class action complaints to support claims that marketing and
advance promotional materials led consumers to believe they were
buying more features than their purchase price covered.

The loot box controversy is an attractive class action target
because civil class actions are uniquely designed to address
practices that impose small pecuniary impacts on large groups of
consumers.  A two-dollar transaction may seem to minor to warrant
a lawsuit, but dozens of two-dollar transactions with tens of
thousands of consumers adds up to millions in potential exposure.
When civil penalty statutes, which impose penalties (up to
thousands of dollars each) on a per-transaction basis, are in
play, the potential exposure can quickly approach the value of
the game.

The game industry reaction
There are meaningful steps developers and sellers of loot box
games can take to minimize risk.  Full disclosure of limitations
of the stock game and need to pay or play to unlock all
advertised features will go a long way toward staving off false
advertising claims.  Video gaming would not be the first industry
to face this option and future video game marketing may resemble
televised car commercials featuring a fully loaded vehicle but
advertising the price of a base model -- accompanied by a
disclosure that the model shown includes options not included in
the advertised price.

While the new ESRB In-Game Purchases label is a positive step in
this direction, minimizing legal exposure will undoubtedly
require manufacturers to assess their own titles and ensure that
product-specific promotional and labeling materials accurately
describe games.

Sophisticated developers will also work with their insurers and
brokers to maximize coverage of claims based on their actual and
planned sales practices.  Some will lobby lawmakers to provide
greater clarity and safe harbors for legal loot box practices.
And lastly, with increasing regulatory scrutiny into loot box
practices that have already been compared to gambling by some
governments, developers who count on loot box revenue should
carefully analyze potential claims by regulators and ensure their
document retention policies and record-keeping are well-honed to
be an asset, not a liability should they find themselves the
target of a government investigation or subpoena.

Dan Pascucci -- DPascucci@Mintz.com -- is Managing Member of the
San Diego office of the law firm Mintz Levin, co-chair of the
Class Action practice group and co-chair of the Arbitration,
Mediation & Alternative Dispute Resolution practice group.

Paul Huston -- PMHuston@mintz.com -- is an Associate in the
firm's employment labor and benefits practice group. [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  * * *