CAR_Public/180425.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Wednesday, April 25, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 83



                            Headlines


8 FIGURE DREAM: Moore Sues over Unsolicited Robocalls
ADCO INSTALLERS: "Yanten" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Pay under FLSA
ALLY FINANCIAL: Securities Class Suit Remains Stayed
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Antitrust Suits and DOJ Probe Underway
AMPAK CHEMICALS: Fails to Pay Overtime & Minimum wage, Carr Says

ANTHEM INC: Court Suspends Certain Deadlines in Antitrust Suit
ANTHEM INC: Plaintiffs Seek Appeal from Nixed ERISA Class Action
ANTHEM INC: Awaits Final Okay for Cyber Attack Suit Settlement
ASHFORD UNIVERSITY: "Nieder" Suit Parties in Settlement Talks
AT&T CORP: Wokwicz Says Private Information Stolen

BJK CLEANING: Huff Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Bid to Nix "Zamir" Lawsuit Still Pending
BRILLIANT BLUE: "Gomez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages and OT under FLSA
CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA: Used Facebook Users' Data, Ortiz & Mallh Say
CENTERFIELD MEDIA: Gave No Advance Termination Notice, Suit Says

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Olsen, et al., Sue over Slow Internet
CHENIERE ENERGY: Subsidiary Still Defends Suit on ITE Contracts
CLECO CORPORATE: Takes Class Action to Louisiana Supreme Court
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: $59.6MM Settlement Reached in Class Suit
COOPER-STANDARD: Still Defends Ontario Lawsuit v. Auto Suppliers

DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Bid to Drop B&R Suit in N.Y. Still Pending
DISH NETWORK: Recorded $41-Million Expense on "Krakauer" Lawsuit
DUKE ENERGY: Settlement Dismisses Coal Ash Class Action
DUKE ENERGY: Appeal from Nixed Suit v Florida Unit Still Ongoing
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Appeal from Dismissed "Rayner" Suit Pending

E*TRADE FINANCIAL: To Defend Against "Schwab" Class Complaint
ENSUENO CORP: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Sandoval Says
EXPEDITORS INC: "Lewis" Suit Moved to C.D. California
FERNANDEZ BROS: May 24 Final Approval Hearing of "Gomez" Accord
FLOWERS FOODS: Defends 22 Class Lawsuits Filed by Distributors

FLOWERS FOODS: 9th Cir. Appeal in "Martinez" Suit Pending
FLOWERS FOODS: Continues to Defend "Rosinbaum" Lawsuit in N.C.
FLOWERS FOODS: Seeks to Obtain Final Court OK on "Coyle" Accord
FLOWERS FOODS: To Obtain Final Court OK on "McCurley" Settlement
FLOWERS FOODS: Still Defends "Neff" Class Action Suit in Vermont

FLOWERS FOODS: "Noll" Class Action Suit in Maine Still Pending
FLOWERS FOODS: Still Defends Against "Zapata" Lawsuit in Texas
FLOWERS FOODS: "Rodriguez" Suit Pending in S.D. Texas
FLOWERS FOODS: Still Faces "Richard" Lawsuit in Louisiana
FLOWERS FOODS: "Carr" Class Suit Still Ongoing in Pennsylvania

FLOWERS FOODS: Continues to Defend "Medrano" Suit in New Mexico
FLOWERS FOODS: Continues to Defend "Long" Lawsuit in Tennessee
FLOWERS FOODS: Still Defends Itself in "Wiatrek" Suit in Texas
FLOWERS FOODS: "Soares" Lawsuit Still Ongoing in California
FLOWERS FOODS: Awaits Court's Final OK on "Schucker" Accord

FLOWERS FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit Still Pending
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Atis, et al., Seek to Certify Settlement Class
HENRY SCHEIN: Continues to Face Class Suits over Dental Supplies
INGALLS MEMORIAL: Mosby Sues over Use of Sensitive Biometric Data
INOVALON HOLDINGS: Discovery in Securities Suit to End by Oct. 22

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Still Faces Class Suits on Pelvic Mesh Units
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Still Defends XARELTO Suits in U.S., Canada
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Suits on INVOKANA Ongoing in US, Canada
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Still Defends Various U.S. AWP Lawsuits
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: June 2018 Trial Set for Ortho-Clinical Action

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery Underway in Class Suit over McNeil
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Status Bid in Lens Suit Still Pending
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: XARELTO Suit in Louisiana Court Still Pending
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Still Faces Glucose Test Strips Suit in N.J.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Still Defends Remicade Antitrust Litigation

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Fails to Provide OT & Unpaid Wages, Suit Says
KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends Class Actions on Auryxia
LIVE NATION: Poser Alleges Securities Act Violations
LOS ANGELES DODGERS: Tesillo Sues over Minimum Wage & OT Pay
LPL FINANCIAL: Still Faces Putative Securities Class Action

MADISON GLOBAL: Espindola Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime
MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: 2 Class Lawsuits in S.D. Texas Underway
MENTOR USA: Weisberg Sues over Recorded Telephone Conversation
MIDWEST SUPPLY: Wells Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
MORGANS HOTEL: Islam et al. File Suit in S.D. New York

ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Still Defends Securities Lawsuit in New York
PIZZA BAKER: Certification of Delivery Drivers Class Sought
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Rosenkranz Sues over Debt Collection
PTT LLC: Wilson Sues over Online Casino Operation
RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Klapper Alleges Securities Act Violations

ROBERT HALF: Fails to Pay Overtime & Minimum Wages, Dorff Says
ROHRER CORPORATION: "Cameron" Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
RUBIO'S RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Sandoval Says
SABINE PASS: Class Action Suit over ITE Contract Still Pending
SALVATION ARMY: "Adams" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law

SANDERSON FARMS: Faces New Complaints in Broiler Chicken Suits
SANDERSON FARMS: Appeal from Nixed N.Y. Securities Suit Pending
SANDERSON FARMS: Plaintiffs in Oklahoma Suit to File New Lawsuit
SAS SERVICES: Fails to Repay Expenses, Harris & Melendez Claim
SEDGWICK, KS: Ridley Seeks to Certify Hindu Students Class

SERVIS ONE: "Rivera" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
SMALL PLANET: "Peacock" Suit Moved to N.D. California
SOCAL RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Sanchez Says
SOUTHERN CO: Securities Class Suit by Monroe County ERS Pending
SOUTHERN CO: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Pending

STATE FARM: "Schwartz" Suit Moved to District of New Mexico
STERN & EISENBERG: Faces "Harris" Suit in W.D. North Carolina
STURM RUGER: Bid to Dismiss Putative Class Suit Still Pending
SUEZ WATER: Fails to Pay Wages & Benefits, Rivera Says
SUMMIT RETAIL: Underpays Brand Representatives, Modeski Claims

SWN PRODUCTION: Violates Oil and Gas Lease Agreement, McCord Says
TECHNICOLOR USA: "Sharp" Suit Moved to Middle Dist. of Tennessee
TELEFONICA BRAZIL: Two Suits over Pension Plan Spin-Off Pending
TELEFONICA BRAZIL: Appeal in "SISTEL" Class Action Still Pending
THERAPEUTICSMD INC: Class Complaints Voluntarily Dismissed

TRANSPORT EXPRESS: Misclassifies Drivers, Munoz Claims
UNION BANK: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & Overtime, Cleveland Says
UNITED PARCEL: Appeal on Decertified Class Status Still Pending
UNITED PARCEL: Settlement for Wright and Zislin Lawsuit Underway
UNITED STATES: "Manriquez" Suit Seeks to Certify Class

U.S. STEEL: Still Defends Shareholder Class Suit in Pennsylvania
WALMART INC: Videotapes Credit Card Deals, Valesquez Says
WAWA INC: "Pfeifer" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
WESTERN CULINARY: "Surrett" Pact Approval Hearing Set for June 8
WINPIN 85: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, "Clegg" Suit Says

WOW AIR: Tatars Sue over In-Flight Meal Amenities



                            *********


8 FIGURE DREAM: Moore Sues over Unsolicited Robocalls
-----------------------------------------------------
GEORGE MOORE, the Plaintiff, v. 8 FIGURE DREAM LIFESTYLE LLC,
BENJAMIN RUPORT a/k/a COACH BEN, JERROLD S. MAURER a/k/a JERRY
MAURER, JL NET BARGAINS, INC., BRIAN KAPLAN, LUCKY 33 LLC, ALEX
SAMI DOWLATSHAHI, SPIRIT CONSULTING GROUP INC., and DOES 1-10,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02474 (N.D. Ill., April 6,
2018), seeks to recover $82,500 in statutory damages arising from
Defendants' Telephone Consumer Protection Act violations.

Moore said, "People who have never dreamed of joining 8 Figure
Dream Lifestyle's pyramid scheme, including Plaintiff,
nevertheless receive its unsolicited telemarketing. The first
such call to Plaintiff came on April 1, 2017, but it was no joke.
Since then, dozens more deja vu-inducing prerecorded calls and
automated text messages have bombarded him. Mr. Moore now comes
before this honorable Court pursuant to the TCPA, dreaming of a
Lifestyle free of 8 Figure Dream Lifestyle's unsolicited
robocalls."[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          David B. Levin, Esq.
          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103
          Northbrook, IL 60062
          Telephone: (224) 218 0882
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: dlevin@toddflaw.com
                  tfriedman@toddflaw.com


ADCO INSTALLERS: "Yanten" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Pay under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTIAN MANUEL SILVA YANTEN, JOSE LUIS ALGANARAZ, and all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiffs, v.
ADCO INSTALLERS LLC, ANGEL A. DIAZ, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-21532-JAL (S.D. Fla., April 18, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were residents of Dade County, Florida, at the
time that this dispute arose. The Defendants have employed
several other similarly situated employees like Plaintiffs who
have not been paid overtime and/or minimum wages for work
performed in excess of 40 hours weekly from the filing of this
complaint back three years.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants
as a window installer from June 1, 2017 through December 31,
2017. The Defendants have a portfolio of properties they
serviced, including commercial, hi-rise and mid-rise properties,
for which Defendants installed impact windows, impact doors,
curtain walls, handrails, store fronts, and other structures.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865 6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865 7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


ALLY FINANCIAL: Securities Class Suit Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------
Ally Financial Inc. remains a defendant in a consolidated
securities litigation, which have been consolidated for discovery
in Wayne County Circuit Court as In re Ally Financial, Inc.
Securities Litigation (Case No. 16-013616-CB), according to the
Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

In October 2016, a purported class action -- Bucks County
Employees Retirement Fund v. Ally Financial Inc. et al. -- was
filed in the Circuit Court for Wayne County in the State of
Michigan (Case No. 16-013616-CZ).  This matter was removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on
November 18, 2016.  The complaint alleges material misstatements
and omissions in connection with Ally's initial public offering
in April 2014, including a failure to adequately disclose the
severity of rising subprime automotive loan delinquency rates,
deficient underwriting measures employed in the origination of
subprime automotive loans, and aggressive tactics used with low-
income borrowers.  The request for relief includes an
indeterminate amount of damages, fees, and costs and other
remedies.

In January 2017, another purported class action -- National
Shopmen Pension Fund v. Ally Financial Inc. et al. -- was filed
in the Circuit Court for Oakland County in the State of Michigan
(Case No. 2017-156719-CB).  This matter was removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on January
30, 2017.

In March 2017, a third purported class action -- James McIntire
v. Ally Financial Inc. et al. -- was filed in the Circuit Court
for Wayne County in the State of Michigan (Case No. 17-003811-
CZ).  This matter was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan on March 15, 2017.

The allegations and requested relief in the National Shopmen
Pension Fund and James McIntire complaints are substantially
similar to those included in the complaint filed by Bucks County
Employees Retirement Fund.  All three matters were remanded from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to
the state circuit courts on May 26, 2017, and have been
consolidated for discovery in Wayne County Circuit Court as In re
Ally Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No. 16-013616-
CB).

In November 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, and the court entered an interim stay of the
litigation.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

The Company said, "We intend to vigorously defend against each of
these actions."

Ally Financial Inc. provides various financial products and
services for consumers, businesses, automotive dealers, and
corporate clients in the United States and Canada.  The Company
operates Automotive Finance Operations, Insurance Operations,
Mortgage Finance Operations, and Corporate Finance Operations
segments.  It was formerly known as GMAC Inc. and changed its
name to Ally Financial Inc. in May 2010.  Ally Financial Inc. was
founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Antitrust Suits and DOJ Probe Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines Group Inc. still defends itself against a
consolidated class action suit related to an antitrust civil
investigative demand by the United States Department of Justice
(DOJ), according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

In June 2015, American received a Civil Investigative Demand
(CID) from the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) as part
of an investigation into whether there have been illegal
agreements or coordination of air passenger capacity.  The CID
seeks documents and other information from American, and other
airlines have announced that they have received similar requests.
American is cooperating fully with the DOJ investigation.

Subsequent to announcement of the delivery of CIDs by the DOJ,
American, along with Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines
Co., United Airlines, Inc. and, in the case of litigation filed
in Canada, Air Canada, have been named as defendants in
approximately 100 putative class action lawsuits alleging
unlawful agreements with respect to air passenger capacity,
although Southwest has entered into a settlement with the
plaintiffs that is pending approval by the court.  The U.S.
lawsuits have been consolidated in the Federal District Court for
the District of Columbia.

On October 28, 2016, the Court denied a motion by the airline
defendants to dismiss all claims in the class actions.

The Company said, "These lawsuits are in their relatively early
stages and American intends to defend these matters vigorously."

American Airlines Group Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates
as a network air carrier.  It provides scheduled air
transportation services for passengers and cargo.  The company
was formerly known as AMR Corporation and changed its name to
American Airlines Group Inc. in December 2013.  American Airlines
Group Inc. was founded in 1934 and is headquartered in Fort
Worth, Texas.


AMPAK CHEMICALS: Fails to Pay Overtime & Minimum wage, Carr Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC CARR, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. AMPAK CHEMICALS, INC. a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 250, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. (S.D. Fla., April 6, 2018), alleges that
shortly after Plaintiff started working for Defendant in October
2017, he noticed that his paychecks did not properly include all
hours worked as shown on timecards submitted to Defendant and
spoke to Defendant about this. The Defendant admitted that it had
been deducting 15 minutes for rest breaks for its employees,
despite the fact that such breaks are required to be paid time.

However, the time records and paystubs show that there were
additional hours deducted besides jut for rest breaks. The Class
members were subjected to the same system and violations
including that they were not paid for all hours worked. This
practice of deducting hours lawfully worked and not paying for
that time continued even after Plaintiff brought this to the
attention of Defendant and Plaintiff and Class members continued
to not be paid for all hours worked, including overtime hours.

As such, during the course of Plaintiff's and Class members'
employment, the Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and the
Class members for all overtime hours worked in excess of eight
hours per day and/or 40 hours per week as required by Labor Code.

AMPAK makes and supplies chemicals to businesses in the Los
Angeles area including in following industries: textile, paints
and coatings and waste water treatment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ANTHEM INC: Court Suspends Certain Deadlines in Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2017, that the Court has issued an order suspending certain
deadlines from the Court's third amended scheduling order in an
Alabama antitrust suit.

The Company said, "We are a defendant in multiple lawsuits that
were initially filed in 2012 against the BCBSA as well as Blue
Cross and/or Blue Shield licensees across the country.  The cases
were consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In
re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation that is pending in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, or the Court.  Generally, the suits allege that the
BCBSA and the Blue plans have engaged in a conspiracy to
horizontally allocate geographic markets through license
agreements, best efforts rules (which limit the percentage of
non-Blue revenue of each plan), restrictions on acquisitions,
rules governing the BlueCard and National Accounts programs and
other arrangements in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and
related state laws.

"The cases were brought by two putative nationwide classes of
plaintiffs, health plan subscribers and providers.  Subscriber
and provider plaintiffs each filed consolidated amended
complaints in July 2013.  The consolidated amended subscriber
complaint was also brought on behalf of putative state classes of
health plan subscribers in Alabama, Arkansas, California,
Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi,
Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.  Defendants filed
motions to dismiss in September 2013.  In June 2014, the Court
denied the majority of the motions, ruling that plaintiffs had
alleged sufficient facts at that stage of the litigation to avoid
dismissal of their claims.  Following the subsequent filing of
amended complaints by each of the subscriber and provider
plaintiffs, we filed our answer and asserted our affirmative
defenses in December 2014.

"Since January 2016, subscribers have filed additional actions
asserting damage claims in Indiana, Kansas, Kansas City,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South
Dakota, Vermont, and Virginia, all of which have been
consolidated into the multi-district lawsuit.  In November 2016
and April 2017, subscriber plaintiffs and provider plaintiffs
filed new consolidated amended complaints adding new named
plaintiffs and new factual allegations.

"We filed answers to the amended complaints in May 2017.  In
February 2017, the Court granted in part defendants' motion for
summary judgment based on the filed rate doctrine finding that
the damages claims of certain named Alabama subscribers are
barred under federal law.  Subscribers filed a motion to
reconsider the Court's order, which was denied without prejudice
to plaintiffs' right to raise the issue at a later date.  In
April 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed a lower court ruling in a related declaratory judgment
action, Musselman v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, et
al., that the antitrust conspiracy claims being asserted by a
subset of putative provider class members were released a decade
ago by class action settlements in the In re Managed Care
Litigation.  In June 2017, the Court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss certain of the claims in provider plaintiffs' latest
consolidated complaint.

"Briefing on the relevant standard of review for the claims
asserted under the Sherman Antitrust Act commenced in July 2017.
Cross motions for partial summary judgment on the relevant
standard of review were heard by the Court in October 2017, and
they remain pending.  In August 2017, provider plaintiffs moved
for partial summary judgment against Anthem on the basis of
collateral estoppel on several issues discussed in United States
v. Anthem, Inc., 236 F. Supp. 3d 171 (D.D.C. 2017).  That motion
was heard in October 2017, and is pending.

"In January 2018, the Court issued an order suspending certain
deadlines from the Court's third amended scheduling order.  No
dates have been set for either the pretrial conference or trials
in these actions.

"We intend to vigorously defend these suits; however, their
ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined."

Anthem, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a health
benefits company in the United States.  It operates through three
segments: Commercial and Specialty Business, Government Business,
and Other.  The Company offers a spectrum of network-based
managed care health benefit plans to large and small employer,
individual, Medicaid, and Medicare markets.  The Company was
formerly known as WellPoint, Inc. and changed its name to Anthem,
Inc. in December 2014.  Anthem, Inc. was founded in 1944 and is
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.


ANTHEM INC: Plaintiffs Seek Appeal from Nixed ERISA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal
from the Court's dismissal of an ERISA class action.

The Company said, "Anthem, Inc. and Express Scripts were named as
defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in June 2016
in the Southern District of New York by three members of ERISA
plans alleging ERISA violations captioned Karen Burnett, Brendan
Farrell, and Robert Shullich, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Express Scripts, Inc. and Anthem,
Inc.  The lawsuit was then consolidated with a similar lawsuit
that was previously filed against Express Scripts.

"A first amended consolidated complaint was filed in the
consolidated lawsuit, which is captioned In Re Express
Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation.  The first amended consolidated
complaint was filed by six individual plaintiffs against Anthem
and Express Scripts on behalf of all persons who are participants
in or beneficiaries of any ERISA or non-ERISA healthcare plan
from December 1, 2009 to the present in which Anthem provided
prescription drug benefits through a PBM Agreement with Express
Scripts and who paid a percentage based co-insurance payment in
the course of using that prescription drug benefit.

"As to the ERISA members, the plaintiffs allege that Anthem
breached its duties under ERISA (i) by failing to adequately
monitor Express Scripts' pricing under the PBM Agreement and (ii)
by placing its own pecuniary interest above the best interests of
Anthem insureds by allegedly agreeing to higher pricing in the
PBM Agreement in exchange for the US$4,675.0 purchase price for
our NextRx PBM business.

"As to the non-ERISA members, the plaintiffs assert that Anthem
breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
implied in the health plans under which the non-ERISA members are
covered by (i) negotiating and entering into the PBM Agreement
with Express Scripts that was detrimental to the interests of
such non-ERISA members, (ii) failing to adequately monitor the
activities of Express Scripts, including failing to timely
monitor and correct the prices charged by Express Scripts for
prescription medications, and (iii) acting in Anthem's self-
interests instead of the interests of the non-ERISA members when
it accepted the US$4,675.0 purchase price for NextRx.  Plaintiffs
seek to hold Anthem and Express Scripts jointly and severally
liable and to recover all losses suffered by the proposed class,
equitable relief, disgorgement of alleged ill-gotten gains,
injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs and interest.

"In November 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims
brought against Anthem.  In response, in March 2017, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint adding
two self-insured accounts as plaintiffs and asserting an
additional purported class of self-insured accounts.

"In April 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss the claims brought
against Anthem.  Our motion was granted without prejudice in
January 2018.  Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal.

"We intend to vigorously defend this suit; however, its ultimate
outcome cannot be presently determined."

Anthem, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a health
benefits company in the United States.  It operates through three
segments: Commercial and Specialty Business, Government Business,
and Other.  The Company offers a spectrum of network-based
managed care health benefit plans to large and small employer,
individual, Medicaid, and Medicare markets.  The Company was
formerly known as WellPoint, Inc. and changed its name to Anthem,
Inc. in December 2014.  Anthem, Inc. was founded in 1944 and is
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.


ANTHEM INC: Awaits Final Okay for Cyber Attack Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2018, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that the U.S. District Court has
rescheduled the final fairness hearing for April 2018 for the
settlement agreement of the lawsuit related to a February 2015
cyber attack incident.  The District Court has previously issued
an order of preliminary approval of the settlement in August
2017.

The Company said, "In February 2015, we reported that we were the
target of a sophisticated external cyber attack.  The attackers
gained unauthorized access to certain of our information
technology systems and obtained personal information related to
many individuals and employees, such as names, birth dates,
healthcare identification/social security numbers, street
addresses, email addresses, phone numbers and employment
information, including income data.  To date, there is no
evidence that credit card or medical information, such as claims,
test results or diagnostic codes, were targeted, accessed or
obtained, although no assurance can be given that we will not
identify additional information that was accessed or obtained.

"Upon discovery of the cyber attack, we took immediate action to
remediate the security vulnerability and retained a cybersecurity
firm to evaluate our systems and identify solutions based on the
evolving landscape.  We have provided credit monitoring and
identity protection services to those who have been affected by
this cyber attack.  We have continued to implement security
enhancements since this incident.  We have incurred expenses
subsequent to the cyber attack to investigate and remediate this
matter and expect to continue to incur expenses of this nature in
the foreseeable future.  We recognize these expenses in the
periods in which they are incurred.

"Actions have been filed in various federal and state courts and
other claims have been or may be asserted against us on behalf of
current or former members, current or former employees, other
individuals, shareholders or others seeking damages or other
related relief, allegedly arising out of the cyber attack.
Federal and state agencies, including state insurance regulators,
state attorneys general, the Health and Human Services Office of
Civil Rights and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, are
investigating events related to the cyber attack, including how
it occurred, its consequences and our responses.

"In December 2016, the National Association of Insurance
Commissioners, or NAIC, concluded its multistate targeted market
conduct and financial exam.  In connection with the resolution of
the matter, the NAIC requested we provide, and we agreed to
provide, a customized credit protection program, equivalent to a
credit freeze, for our members who were under the age of eighteen
on January 27, 2015.  No fines or penalties were imposed on us.
Although we are cooperating in these investigations, we may be
subject to fines or other obligations, which may have an adverse
effect on how we operate our business and an adverse effect on
our results of operations and financial condition.

"With respect to the civil actions, a motion to transfer was
filed with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, or the
Panel, in February 2015 and was subsequently heard by the Panel
in May 2015.  In June 2015, the Panel entered its order
transferring the consolidated matter to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, or the U.S. District
Court.  The U.S. District Court entered its case management order
in September 2015.  We filed a motion to dismiss ten of the
counts that were before the U.S. District Court.

"In February 2016, the U.S. District Court issued an order
granting in part and denying in part our motion, dismissing three
counts with prejudice, four counts without prejudice and allowing
three counts to proceed.  Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint in March 2016, and we subsequently filed a second
motion to dismiss.

"In May 2016, the U.S. District Court issued an order granting in
part and denying in part our motion, dismissing one count with
prejudice, dismissing certain counts asserted by specific named
plaintiffs with or without prejudice depending on their
individualized facts, and allowing the remaining counts to
proceed.

"In July 2016, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, which
we answered in August 2016.  Fact discovery was completed in
December 2016.  Plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification and trial plan in March 2017.  We filed our
opposition to class certification, motions to strike the
testimony of three of the plaintiffs' experts and trial plan in
April 2017.  Prior to those motions being heard, the parties
agreed to settle plaintiffs' claims on a class-wide basis for a
total settlement payment of US$115.0 and certain non-monetary
relief.

"In June 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement and a motion to continue all case deadlines.
In July 2017, the U.S. District Court granted the motion to
continue all case deadlines.  The U.S. District Court issued an
order of preliminary approval in August 2017.

"The U.S. District Court held a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for
final approval and class counsel's fee petition in February 2018.
The U.S. District Court has appointed a special master to review
class counsel's fee petition and has rescheduled the final
fairness hearing for April 2018.

"Three state court cases related to the cyber attack are
presently proceeding outside of this multidistrict litigation.
Two of those cases have been stayed and a dispositive motion is
pending with respect to the third.  There remain open regulatory
investigations into the incident that are not directly impacted
by the multidistrict litigation settlement.

"We have contingency plans and insurance coverage for certain
expenses and potential liabilities of this nature and will pursue
coverage for all applicable losses; however, the ultimate outcome
of our pursuit of insurance coverage cannot be presently
determined.  We intend to vigorously defend the remaining state
court cases and regulatory actions related to the cyber attack;
however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined."

Anthem, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a health
benefits company in the United States.  It operates through three
segments: Commercial and Specialty Business, Government Business,
and Other.  The Company offers a spectrum of network-based
managed care health benefit plans to large and small employer,
individual, Medicaid, and Medicare markets.  The Company was
formerly known as WellPoint, Inc. and changed its name to Anthem,
Inc. in December 2014.  Anthem, Inc. was founded in 1944 and is
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.


ASHFORD UNIVERSITY: "Nieder" Suit Parties in Settlement Talks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017, that the parties in the lawsuit,
Dustin Nieder v. Ashford University, LLC, has reached a mediated
agreement to settle the case, subject to court approval.

On October 4, 2016, Dustin Nieder filed a purported class action
against Ashford University in the Superior Court of the State of
California in San Diego.  The complaint is captioned Dustin
Nieder v. Ashford University, LLC and generally alleges various
wage and hour claims under California law for failure to pay
overtime, failure to pay minimum wages and failure to provide
rest and meal breaks.  The lawsuit seeks back pay, the cost of
benefits, penalties and interest on behalf of the putative class
members, as well as other equitable relief and attorneys' fees.

On January 5, 2018, the parties reached a mediated agreement to
settle the case, subject to court approval.  Accordingly, the
Company has accrued a liability of US$1.8 million associated with
this action.

Bridgepoint Education, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
provides postsecondary education services.  Its academic
institutions, Ashford University and University of the Rockies,
offer associate's, bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degree
programs in the disciplines of business, education, psychology,
social sciences, and health sciences. The company offers its
programs primarily through online; and at its campuses. The
company was formerly known as TeleUniversity, Inc. and changed
its name to Bridgepoint Education, Inc. in February 2004.  The
company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


AT&T CORP: Wokwicz Says Private Information Stolen
--------------------------------------------------
PETER WOKWICZ, the Plaintiff, v. AT&T CORP., the Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-02477 (N.D. Ill., April 6, 2018), seeks to recover
damages as a result of AT&T's failure to secure and safeguard the
private information of Plaintiff and others similarly situated.
The Plaintiff suffered a concrete injury as a result of
Defendant's use of Plaintiff's credit reports for an
impermissible purpose, Defendant's failure to both properly
protect Plaintiff's personal identifying information from
unauthorized disclosure and/or use and to notify Plaintiff once
Defendant became aware of such breach, all of which has hampered
Plaintiff's credit, caused him pecuniary harm, and has caused him
a great deal of mental and emotional anguish.

AT&T is in the business of collection, assessing, and maintaining
the Private Information of millions of consumers around the
world. In or around December 2, 2016, Plaintiff's Private
Information was accessed without his authorization and stolen by
at least one AT&T employee, Mr. Justin G. Stewart, operating out
of its New Lennox, Illinois store. The Private Information
originated from inactive accounts previously held by
Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Marco, Esq.
          SMITHMARCO, P.C.
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 546 6539
          Facsimile: (888) 418 1277
          E-mail: dmarco@smithmarco.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Tomei Jr., Esq.
          TOMEI LAW, P.C.
          223 N IL. Rt. 21, Ste. 14
          Gurnee, IL 60031
          Telephone: (847) 596 7494
          Facsimile: (847) 589 2263
          E-mail: Robert@TomeiLawFirm.com


BJK CLEANING: Huff Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------
LEAH HUFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BJK CLEANING SERVICE, LLC, a Florida
Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-00952-
RAL-AEP (M.D. Fla., April 18, 2018), seeks injunctive relief to
halt Defendant's illegal conduct which has resulted in the
invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of
the daily life of thousands of individuals, and statutory damages
on behalf of herself and members of the class, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, on February 21, 2018, the Defendant
sent telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number ending in 0303. The Defendant's text messages
were transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular telephone, and within
the time frame relevant to this action. The Defendant's text
messages constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the
future purchase or investment in property, goods, or services,
i.e., Defendant's cleaning services. The link (www.bjknow.com)
contained in the text messages is a link to Defendant's website,
where Defendant further promotes its business. At no point in
time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with her express written
consent to be contacted using an ATDS. The Plaintiff is the
subscriber and sole user of the 0303 Number and is financially
responsible for phone service to the 0303 Number. The impersonal
and generic nature of Defendant's text message, demonstrates that
Defendant utilized an ATDS in transmitting the messages.

The text messages originated from telephone number 407-988-0651,
a number which is owned and operated by Defendant, and is
answered by a prerecorded message -- not a live operator --
instructing the caller to contact 321-328-1438, another number
owned and operated by Defendant. In sending text messages to
Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant utilized equipment that
has the capacity store telephone numbers using a random or
sequential generator, or to dial such numbers. The equipment also
has the capacity to dial telephone numbers from a list of numbers
without human intervention.

The Defendant's unsolicited text messages caused Plaintiff actual
harm, including invasion of her privacy, aggravation, annoyance,
intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. The Defendant's
text messages also inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused disruption
to her daily life.

The Defendant provides cleaning services for individuals and
businesses. To promote its services, Defendant engages in
unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the
process.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
          Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
          FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 449 4602
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  edelsberg@kolawyers.com


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Bid to Nix "Zamir" Lawsuit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in the case,
Zamir v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., et al., remains pending,
according to Bridgepoint Education, Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017.

On February 24, 2015, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California by Nelda Zamir naming the Company, Andrew Clark and
Daniel Devine as defendants.  The complaint asserts violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, claiming that the defendants made false
and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts regarding the Company's business,
operations and prospects, specifically regarding the Company's
improper application of revenue recognition methodology to assess
collectability of funds owed by students.  The complaint asserts
a putative class period stemming from August 7, 2012 to May 30,
2014 and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest and
attorneys' fees.  On July 15, 2015, the Court granted plaintiff's
motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for appointment of
lead counsel.

On September 18, 2015, the plaintiff filed a substantially
similar amended complaint that asserts a putative class period
stemming from March 12, 2013 to May 30, 2014.  The amended
complaint also names Patrick Hackett, Adarsh Sarma, Warburg
Pincus & Co., Warburg Pincus LLC, Warburg Pincus Partners LLC,
and Warburg Pincus Private Equity VIII, L.P. as additional
defendants.  On November 24, 2015, all defendants filed motions
to dismiss.  On July 25, 2016, the Court granted the motions to
dismiss and granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint
within 30 days.  Plaintiffs subsequently filed a second amended
complaint and the Company filed a second motion to dismiss on
October 24, 2016, which was granted by the Court with leave to
amend.  Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on April 19,
2017 and the defendants filed a third motion to dismiss, which is
currently pending with the court.

The Company said, "The outcome of this legal proceeding is
uncertain at this point because of the many questions of fact and
law that may arise.  The Company has not accrued any liability
associated with this action."

Bridgepoint Education, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
provides postsecondary education services.  Its academic
institutions, Ashford University and University of the Rockies,
offer associate's, bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degree
programs in the disciplines of business, education, psychology,
social sciences, and health sciences. The company offers its
programs primarily through online; and at its campuses. The
company was formerly known as TeleUniversity, Inc. and changed
its name to Bridgepoint Education, Inc. in February 2004.  The
company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


BRILLIANT BLUE: "Gomez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages and OT under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ARTURO GOMEZ and other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, v. BRILLIANT BLUE, LLC; JAY L. FEILEN, REINALDO R.
PEREZ, the Defendants, Case No. 70363306 (Fla. Cir. Ct. in and
for Miami-Dade Cty., April 6, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was never paid his agreed upon percentage
commission and annual bonus for the renovation revenue throughout
the years of employment. Within the employee contract, the
Defendant also guaranteed Plaintiff 750 shares/units of the
company Brilliant Blue each year on the anniversary of start date
for the next three years. The Plaintiff worked 7 days a week,
approximately 10-12 hours per day, never getting paid the time
and a half for overtime. Throughout employment, Plaintiff would
complain to Defendants about not receiving compensation for his
overtime hours, commissions and bonuses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com


CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA: Used Facebook Users' Data, Ortiz & Mallh Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH ORTIZ and VICTOR MALLH, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CAMBRIDGE
ANALYTICA, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 153162/2018 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., April 6, 2018), sues the Defendant for its improper
collection, use and sale of private data and information acquired
from 50 million users of social media giant, Facebook, Inc.

On March 17, 2018, the New York Times and the Guardian reported
that a Cambridge University psychologist and researcher who
worked for Cambridge Analytica exfiltrated the personal data of
at least 50 million Facebook users under false pretenses. This
unauthorized data mining data breach allowed millions of Facebook
users' personal information to be disclosed for commercial
purposes without their consent, and wound up in the hands of the
political and election consulting firm, Cambridge Analytica.

The data included Facebook users' full names, phone numbers,
email addresses, physical addresses, and their ages, interests,
pages they've liked, groups they belong to, physical locations,
political affiliation, relationships, and photos.  The data
breach allowed Cambridge Analytica to target Plaintiffs and other
Facebook users by exploiting the private social media activity of
the American electorate, a practice that underpinned its work on
President Trump's campaign in 2016.

Cambridge Analytica surreptitiously collected data from Facebook
users through the use of a personality quiz app called
thisisyourdigitallife, designed by a Cambridge researcher
Aleksandr Kogan that required users to login to that app using
their Facebook credentials. Kogan's app claimed to be collecting
personal information from Facebook users for academic purposes.
In reality, the information was being harvested to identify the
personalities and psychology of American voters, with the
ultimate goal of influencing their behavior and affecting their
vote in the 2016 Presidential campaign and election. While only
270,000 American Facebook users installed the app and took the
personality quiz, Cambridge Analytica was ultimately able to
secretly harvest personal information of more than 50 million
Facebook users by accessing the data of every one of the app
users' Facebook friends.

This class action complaint is filed on behalf of all New York
citizens who were members of Facebook and whose personal
information was obtained on Facebook by Cambridge Analytica from
January 1, 2014 through the present. Cambridge Analytica's
deceptive business practices, including its use of class members'
personal information without their permission, made the company
millions of dollars, but harmed millions of Americans. The
Plaintiffs' and class members' damages are ongoing, as their
private, personal information remains in Defendant's possession,
without adequate protection, and is also in the hands of those
who obtained it for its political and commercial value, without
class members' consent.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
          James S. Notis, Esq.
          Meagan Farmer, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          Tower 56
          126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 905 0509
          Facsimile: (212) 905 0508
          E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com
                  jnotis@gardylaw.com
                  mfarmer@gardylaw.com

               - and -

          Lee Squitieri, Esq.
          Stephen J. Fearon, Jr. , Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421 6492
          Facsimile: (212) 421 6553
          E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com
                  stephen@sfclasslaw.com


CENTERFIELD MEDIA: Gave No Advance Termination Notice, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CENTERFIELD MEDIA HOLDING
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-60875-WPD (S.D. Fla.,
April 18, 2018), seeks damages in the amount of 60 days'
compensation and benefits by reason of Defendant's violation of
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other Class members
were employees of Defendant who were terminated without cause on
their part in or about March 31, 2018, as part of or as the
reasonably expected consequence of a mass layoff or plant
closing. The Defendant failed to give the Plaintiff and the Class
Members at least 60 days' advance notice of their termination.

Centerfield Media develops digital advertising technology for
real time biddable (RTB) media. It offers Dugout, a search engine
marketing technology and Clicks.net, a RTB platform that allows
advertisers to purchase targeted clicks and inbound calls from
publishers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Matthew K. Fenton, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASS, P.A.
          110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224 0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  mkfenton@wfclaw.com
                  twells@wfclaw.com


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Olsen, et al., Sue over Slow Internet
-------------------------------------------------------------
KEN OLSEN, JEFF BREGMAN, CHUCK TRAMONTOZZI and JUSTEN LESLIE, the
Plaintiffs, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., CHARTER
COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS LLC, and SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT HOLDING
COMPANY LLC (f/k/a TIME WARNER CABLE, INC.), the Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-03388 (S.D.N.Y., April 18, 2018), seeks full measures
of damages, restitution, necessary to remedy the harm Plaintiffs
suffered as a result of Defendants' wrongful business practices,
and to punish Defendants for their misconduct.

According to the complaint, for years and continuing through the
present day, Defendants have misled their business customers by
promising to deliver Internet service at speeds that they knew
they could not deliver due to the limitations of their equipment
and infrastructure. Nonetheless, Defendants continued to change
Plaintiffs and the other class members for services and equipment
leases that could not deliver the promised speeds. Those failures
constituted a breach of the business customers agreement between
Defendants and customer and violated the laws of over 35 states
where Defendants offered internet service to business customers.

The Defendants promised that customers could obtain high Internet
speeds as advertised in Defendants' various subscription plans.
But Defendant knew that such speeds could not be delivered to
consumers for three reasons which Defendants could, but chose not
to, remediate. First, Defendants failed and refused to provide
customers with modems that could support the promised internet
speeds. Second, Defendants knew they could not provide an
appropriate wireless router to deliver the promised speeds.
Third, Defendants knew that their network and infrastructure
could not deliver the promised speeds.

Prior to Charter's acquisition of Time Warner Cable's assets and
subscribers, Time Warner was in the process of upgrading its
internet service, after the merger Charter ceased all activity in
the Time Warner Cable MAXX upgrade program. The "hold" on upgrade
efforts was attributed by Charter executives to a desire to cut
costs at the combined companies. Even where implemented however,
the MAXX Upgrade did not enable Defendants to deliver the
internet speeds customers were paying for. The Defendants'
infrastructure limitations caused customers to be unable to
achieve the "fast, reliable Internet speeds" Defendants
emphasized in their advertising campaigns even if Defendants had
provided them with adequate equipment. These limitations also
prevented Defendants from fulfilling their promises of providing
Internet service at high speeds that are "fast" with "no
buffering," "no slowdowns," "no lag," "without interruptions,"
"without downtime," and "without the wait."

The Defendants continued their Internet advertising promotions
despite knowing their equipment and infrastructure could not
provide the advertised service. Defendants paid bonuses
to sales personnel who sold the higher-speed, higher-priced plans
to customers. The Defendants charged high fees for high internet
speed services and monthly lease charges but would not invest in
equipment and infrastructure to deliver consistently high
Internet speeds. Customers who paid for an internet service plan
that promised to provide Internet speeds of at least 20 megabits
per second (mbps) but were leased modems incapable of
consistently achieving such speeds were knowingly overcharged by
Defendants. Customers who paid for an internet service plan that
promised to provide internet speeds of 100 mbps (and up to
300 mbps) but were leased wireless routers incapable of
consistently achieving such speeds were likewise knowingly
overcharged by Defendants. Moreover, due to Defendants' poor
infrastructure and parsimonious management of their networks,
even newer generation modems and wireless routers provided by
Defendants still could not consistently achieve the promised
Internet speeds. Instead, Defendants overloaded the same "service
group" (industry nomenclature for a group of subscribers who
share the bandwidth of a cable line connecting that group,
usually in close proximity to each other and to Spectrum-TWC's
central facilities) and provided too few channels for such
subscribers, thus causing an Internet "traffic jam" (particularly
during peak hours) that slowed every subscriber's connection to
speeds substantially below what was promised and paid-for. The
same experience occurred even while customers used wireless
routers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lee Squitieri, Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON LLP
          32 East 57th Street
          12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421 6492
          Facsimile: (212) 421 6553
          E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Santoli, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH SANTOLI
          340 Devon Court
          Ridgewood, NJ 7450
          Telephone: (201) 926 9200
          Facsimile: (201) 444 0981
          E-mail: josephsantoli@aol.com


CHENIERE ENERGY: Subsidiary Still Defends Suit on ITE Contracts
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Cheniere Energy, Inc. subsidiary continues to defend itself
against a class action lawsuit filed by JMCB, LLC, related to the
subsidiary's Industrial Tax Exemption (ITE) contracts, according
to Cheniere Energy's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2017.

Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC (SPL) has utilized the ITE program,
which is available for a "new" manufacturing establishment or an
"addition" to an existing manufacturing establishment.  SPL has
entered into a total of nine ITE contracts, which exempt from ad
valorem property taxes all of SPL's assets when placed in
service.

On October 12, 2016, a lawsuit was filed by JMCB, LLC (JMCB)
against SPL, the Louisiana Department of Economic Development
(LED) and the Louisiana Board of Commerce and Industry (BCI) (the
Pending Matter).  JMCB contends that one of SPL's ITE contracts
should be declared an improper and unauthorized act of BCI.  JMCB
asks the court to declare the contract null and void and without
legal effect.  JMCB's petition is filed as a class action that
seeks declaratory relief for all similarly situated taxpayers in
Cameron Parish and for the governmental agencies that would have
received the ad valorem property taxes, but for the ITE contract.

The Company said, "SPL believes that the likelihood that the
resolution of the Pending Matter will have a material adverse
effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating
results, cash flow, liquidity or prospects is remote.  If we do
not prevail in the Pending Matter, the loss of such tax exemption
could have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts,
financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and
prospects."

Cheniere Energy, Inc., an energy company, engages in the
liquefied natural gas (LNG) related businesses in the United
States.  The company operates in two segments, LNG Terminal
Business, and LNG and Natural Gas Marketing.  The Company was
founded in 1983 and is based in Houston, Texas.


CLECO CORPORATE: Takes Class Action to Louisiana Supreme Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC is awaiting the Louisiana Supreme
Court's action on a writ the Company filed seeking review of the
Third Circuit Court of Appeal's decision in a merger-related
class action lawsuit, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017.

On April 13, 2016, Cleco Holdings completed its merger with
Merger Sub whereby Merger Sub merged with and into Cleco
Corporation, with Cleco Corporation surviving the Merger, and
Cleco Corporation converting to a limited liability company and
changing its name to Cleco Holdings, as a direct, wholly owned
subsidiary of Cleco Group and an indirect, wholly owned
subsidiary of Cleco Partners.

In connection with the Merger, four actions were filed in the
Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana and
three actions were filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans
Parish, Louisiana.  The petitions in each action generally
alleged, among other things, that the members of the Cleco
Corporation's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties
by, among other things, conducting an allegedly inadequate sale
process, agreeing to the Merger at a price that allegedly
undervalued Cleco, and failing to disclose material information
about the Merger.  The petitions also alleged that Cleco
Partners, Cleco Corporation, Merger Sub, and in some cases,
certain of the investors in Cleco Partners, either aided and
abetted or entered into a civil conspiracy to advance those
supposed breaches of duty.  The petitions seek various remedies,
including monetary damages, which includes attorneys' fees and
expenses.

The four actions filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish are captioned as follows: Braunstein v. Cleco
Corporation, No.  251,383B (filed October 27, 2014); Moore v.
Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,417C (filed
October 30, 2014); Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed
November 5, 2014); and L'Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and
Real Assets, No. 251,515F (filed November 14, 2014).

In November 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved
for a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion
was granted in November 2014.  In December 2014, the Court
consolidated the remaining three actions and appointed interim
co-lead counsel.  In December 2014, the plaintiffs in the
consolidated action filed a Consolidated Amended Verified
Derivative and Class Action Petition for Damages and Preliminary
and Permanent Injunction (the Consolidated Amended Petition).
The consolidated action names Cleco Corporation, its directors,
Cleco Partners, and Merger Sub as defendants.  The Consolidated
Amended Petition alleges, among other things, that Cleco
Corporation's directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Cleco's shareholders and grossly mismanaged Cleco by approving
the Merger Agreement because it allegedly did not value Cleco
adequately, failing to structure a process through which
shareholder value would be maximized, engaging in self-dealing by
ignoring conflicts of interest, and failing to disclose material
information about the Merger.  The Consolidated Amended Petition
further alleges that all defendants conspired to commit the
breaches of fiduciary duty.  Cleco believes that the allegations
of the Consolidated Amended Petition are without merit and that
it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth
in the Consolidated Amended Petition.

The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans
Parish are captioned as follows: Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No.
2014-10776 (filed November 7, 2014); Creative Life Services, Inc.
v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11098 (filed November 19, 2014);
and Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No.  2014-11236 (filed November
21, 2014).

Both the Butler and Cashen actions name Cleco Corporation, its
directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA, bcIMC, and John
Hancock Financial as defendants.  The Creative Life Services
action names Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners,
Merger Sub, MIRA, and Macquarie Infrastructure Partners III,
L.P., as defendants.  In December 2014, the plaintiff in the
Butler action filed an Amended Class Action Petition for Damages.
Each petition alleges, among other things, that members of Cleco
Corporation's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties
to Cleco's shareholders by approving the Merger Agreement because
it allegedly does not value Cleco adequately, failing to
structure a process through which shareholder value would be
maximized and engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of
interest.  The Butler and Creative Life Services petitions also
allege that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to disclose material information about the Merger.  Each
petition further alleged that Cleco, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub,
and certain of the investors in Cleco Partners aided and abetted
the directors' breaches of fiduciary duty.

In December 2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory
exceptions in each action on the basis that each action was
improperly brought in Orleans Parish and should either be
transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides
Parish or dismissed.  In December 2014, the plaintiffs in each
action jointly filed a motion to consolidate the three actions
pending in Orleans Parish and to appoint interim co-lead
plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.  In January 2015, the Court in
the Creative Life Services case sustained the defendants'
declinatory exceptions and dismissed the case so that it could be
transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides
Parish.  In February 2015, the plaintiffs in Butler and Cashen
also consented to the dismissal of their cases from Orleans
Parish so they could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial
District Court for Rapides Parish.

In February 2015, the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides
Parish held a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction
filed by plaintiffs Moore, L'Herisson, and Trahan seeking to
enjoin the shareholder vote at the Special Meeting of
Shareholders held in February 2015, for approval of the Merger
Agreement.  Following the hearing, the Court denied the
plaintiffs' motion.  In June 2015, three of the plaintiffs filed
their Second Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class
Action Petition.  This will be considered according to a schedule
established by the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides
Parish.  Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended
petition in July 2015.

In March 2016, the plaintiffs filed their Third Consolidated
Amended Verified Derivative Petition for Damages and Preliminary
and Permanent Injunction.  In May 2016, the plaintiffs filed
their Fourth Verified Consolidated Amended Class Action Petition.
This petition eliminated the request for preliminary and
permanent injunction and also named an additional executive
officer as a defendant.  Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal
of the amended Petition.  A hearing was held in September 2016.
In September 2016, the District Court granted the exceptions
filed by Cleco and dismissed all claims asserted by the former
shareholders.

Cleco said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that the plaintiffs appealed the District
Court's ruling to the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeal heard oral arguments in the
case on September 21, 2017.

In its Form 10-K Report, the Company said that the Third Circuit
Court of Appeal on December 13, 2017, issued an order reversing
and remanding the case to the District Court for further
proceedings.  On January 12, 2018, Cleco filed a writ with the
Louisiana Supreme Court seeking review of the Third Circuit Court
of Appeal's decision.

The Company said, "Cleco believes that the allegations of the
petitions in each action are without merit and that it has
substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in each
of the petitions."

Cleco is a regional energy company that conducts substantially
all of its business operations through its primary subsidiary,
Cleco Power. Cleco Power is a regulated electric utility company
that owns nine generating units with a total nameplate capacity
of 3,310 MW and serves approximately 288,000 customers in
Louisiana through its retail business and supplies wholesale
power in Louisiana and Mississippi. The company is based in
Pineville, Louisiana.


CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: $59.6MM Settlement Reached in Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Resources, Inc. has reached a settlement agreement,
subject to court approval, with the parties in a class action
lawsuit, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

In November 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
District Court of Blaine County, Oklahoma by Billy J. Strack and
Daniela A. Renner as trustees of certain named trusts and on
behalf of other similarly situated parties against the Company.
The Petition, as amended, alleged the Company improperly deducted
post-production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other
royalty interest owners from crude oil and natural gas wells
located in Oklahoma.  The plaintiffs alleged a number of claims,
including breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment, and other claims and sought recovery of
compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney
fees on behalf of the proposed class.

The Company denied all allegations and denied that the case was
properly brought as a class action.

Continental Resources said in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on November 3,
2014, plaintiffs filed an Amended Petition that did not add any
substantive claims, but sought a "hybrid class action" in which
they sought certification of certain claims for injunctive
relief, reserving the right to seek a further class certification
on money damages in the future. Plaintiffs filed an Amended
Motion for Class Certification on January 9, 2015, that modified
the proposed class to royalty owners in Oklahoma production from
July 1, 1993, to the present (instead of 1980 to the present) and
sought certification of over 45 separate "issues" for injunctive
or declaratory relief, again, reserving the right to seek a
further class certification of money damages in the future.

The Company responded to the petition, its amendment, and the
motions for class certification denying the allegations and
raising a number of affirmative defenses and legal arguments to
each of the claims and filings. Certain discovery was undertaken
and the "hybrid" motion was briefed by plaintiffs and the
Company. A hearing on the "hybrid" class certification was held
on June 1 and 2, 2015.

On June 11, 2015, the trial court certified a "hybrid" class
requested by plaintiffs over the objections of the Company.  The
Company appealed the trial court's class certification order.

On February 8, 2017, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed
the trial court's ruling on certification and remanded the case
for further proceedings.  The plaintiffs filed a Petition for
Rehearing which was denied by the Oklahoma Court of Civil
Appeals.  Plaintiffs then filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari
on May 23, 2017 to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which was denied
on October 2, 2017.  On October 10, 2017, Plaintiffs filed with
the trial court a "Second Amended and Renewed Motion for Class
Action Certification and Request that the Court to Set a Briefing
Schedule Related to Class Certification."

During the litigation the Company was not able to estimate a
reasonably possible loss or range of loss or what impact, if any,
the ultimate resolution of the action would have on its financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows due to the
preliminary status of the matter, the complexity and number of
legal and factual issues presented by the matter and
uncertainties with respect to, among other things, the nature of
the claims and defenses, the existence and the potential size of
the class, the scope and types of the properties and agreements
involved, the production years involved, and the ultimate
potential outcome of the matter.  The Company further disclosed
that it was reasonably possible one or more events could occur in
the near term that could impact the Company's ability to estimate
the potential effect of this matter if any, on its financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.  During the
litigation the Company also disclosed plaintiffs alleged
underpayments in excess of US$200 million as damages, which may
increase with the passage of time, a majority of which would be
comprised of interest.  After certification of the case as a
class action was reversed the parties continued settlement
negotiations.

In its Form 10-K Report, the Company said that due to the
uncertainty of and burdens of litigation, on February 16, 2018,
the Company reached a settlement in connection with this matter.
Under the settlement, if approved by the court, the Company will
make payments and incur costs associated with the settlement of
approximately US$59.6 million.  The Company has accrued a loss
for such amount, which is included in "Accrued liabilities and
other" on the consolidated balance sheets and "Litigation
settlement" in the consolidated statements of comprehensive
income (loss) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company said, "The District Court of Garfield County,
Oklahoma must approve the settlement."

Continental Resources, Inc. was originally formed in 1967 and is
incorporated under the laws of the State of Oklahoma. The
Company's principal business is crude oil and natural gas
exploration, development and production with properties primarily
located in the North, South, and East regions of the United
States.


COOPER-STANDARD: Still Defends Ontario Lawsuit v. Auto Suppliers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper-Standard Holdings Inc. still defends itself against a
class action lawsuit in Ontario against numerous automotive
suppliers, according to the Company's Form 10-K/A filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

On March 30, 2016, a putative class action complaint alleging
conspiracy to fix the price of body sealing products used in
automobiles and other light-duty vehicles was filed in Ontario
against numerous automotive suppliers, including Cooper-Standard
Holdings Inc., CSA U.S. and Cooper-Standard Automotive Canada
Limited ("CS Defendants") and Nishikawa Cooper LLC, a joint
venture in which the Company holds a 40% interest.  Plaintiffs
purport to be indirect purchasers of body sealing products
supplied by the CS Defendants and/or the other defendants during
the relevant period.  The plaintiffs seek recovery of damages on
behalf of direct and indirect purchasers against all defendants
in an amount to be determined, punitive damages, as well as pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest and related costs and
expenses of the litigation.

Cooper-Standard Holdings said, "The Company believes the claims
asserted against the CS Defendants are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against these claims.  Further, the Company
does not believe that there is a material loss that is probable
and reasonably estimable related to these claims."

Cooper-Standard Holdings Inc., through its subsidiary, Cooper-
Standard Automotive Inc., designs, manufactures, and sells
sealing, fuel and brake delivery, fluid transfer, and anti-
vibration systems worldwide.  It operates in four segments: North
America, Europe, Asia Pacific, and South America.  The Company
was founded in 1960 and is headquartered in Novi, Michigan.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Bid to Drop B&R Suit in N.Y. Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing regarding the motion of Discover Financial
Services to dismiss the claims against it in the B&R Supermarket,
Inc., class action lawsuit in New York, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2017.

On March 8, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company, other credit card networks, other issuing banks, and
EMVCo in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, et al.
v. Visa, Inc. et al.) alleging violations of the Sherman
Antitrust Act, California's Cartwright Act, and unjust
enrichment.  Plaintiffs allege a conspiracy by defendants to
shift fraud liability to merchants with the migration to the EMV
security standard and chip technology.  Plaintiffs assert joint
and several liability among the defendants and seek unspecified
damages, including treble damages, attorneys' fees, costs and
injunctive relief.

On July 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
includes additional named plaintiffs, reasserts the original
claims, and includes additional state law causes of action.  The
defendants filed motions to dismiss on August 5, 2016.  On
September 30, 2016, the court granted the motions to dismiss for
certain issuing banks and EMVCo but denied the motions to dismiss
filed by the networks, including the Company.  Discovery is
proceeding and class certification is fully briefed but the court
did not rule on certification before it entered an order in May
2017 transferring the entire action to a federal court in New
York that is presiding over certain related claims that are
pending in the actions consolidated as MDL 1720.

In June 2017, the federal court in New York declined to
consolidate the B&R case with MDL 1720, but ordered the parties
to coordinate discovery across the actions to the extent they
involved related issues.

On July 6, 2017, the Company requested permission to file a
motion to dismiss the claims against it in the federal court in
New York.  On August 24, 2017, the court held a status conference
at which it set a briefing schedule on Discover's motion to
dismiss, and asked the parties to submit a proposed schedule for
the remainder of the case.  In September 2017, the parties
submitted the proposed schedule and Discover filed its motion to
dismiss.  On November 29, 2017, Court heard argument on class
certification and took the motion under advisement.

On January 23, 2018, the Court heard argument on Discover's
motion to dismiss.  Discovery is ongoing, and for fact issues and
defenses is scheduled to conclude on April 30, 2018.

Discover Financial said, "The Company is not in a position at
this time to assess the likely outcome or its exposure, if any,
with respect to this matter, but will seek to vigorously defend
against all claims asserted by the plaintiffs."

Discover Financial Services is a direct banking and payment
services company.


DISH NETWORK: Recorded $41-Million Expense on "Krakauer" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that the Company recorded US$41 million
of "Litigation expense" related to the Krakauer class action
lawsuit during the year ended December 31, 2017.

A portion of the alleged telemarketing violations by an
independent third-party retailer at issue in the FTC Action are
also the subject of a certified class action filed against DISH
Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina (the "Krakauer Action").  Following a
five-day trial, on January 19, 2017, a jury in that case found
that the independent third-party retailer was acting as DISH
Network L.L.C.'s agent when it made the 51,119 calls at issue in
that case, and that class members are eligible to recover US$400
in damages for each call made in violation of the TCPA.

On March 7, 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. filed motions with the
Court for judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative,
for a new trial, which the Court denied on May 16, 2017.  On May
22, 2017, the Court ruled that the violations were willful and
knowing, and trebled the damages award to US$1,200 for each call
made in violation of TCPA.

On January 25, 2018, the Court indicated that it will be entering
judgment in favor of approximately 11,000 of the 18,000 potential
class members whose identities, the Court found, are not subject
to reasonable dispute.

The Company said, "During the year ended December 31, 2017, we
recorded US$41 million of "Litigation expense" related to the
Krakauer Action on our Consolidated Statements of Operations and
Comprehensive Income (Loss).  We recorded US$20 million of
"Litigation expense" related to the Krakauer Action during the
fourth quarter 2016.  Our total accrual related to the Krakauer
Action at December 31, 2017 was US$61 million and is included in
"Other accrued expenses" on our Consolidated Balance Sheets."

DISH Network said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that "during the nine months
ended September 30, 2017, we recorded $41 million of "Litigation
expense" related to the Krakauer Action on our Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income
(Loss). We recorded $20 million of "Litigation expense" related
to the Krakauer Action during the fourth quarter 2016. Our total
accrual related to the Krakauer Action at September 30, 2017 was
$61 million and is included in "Other accrued expenses" on our
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

DISH offers pay-TV services under the DISH(R) brand and the
Sling(R) brand (collectively "Pay-TV" services).


DUKE ENERGY: Settlement Dismisses Coal Ash Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal period
ended December 31, 2017, that the parties in a class action
lawsuit related to the Company's coal ash impoundments has
entered into a settlement agreement, resulting to the dismissal
of the class suit.

Duke Energy said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that on August 23, 2017, a class action
suit was filed in Wake County Superior Court, North Carolina,
against Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress on behalf
of certain property owners living near coal ash impoundments at
Allen, Asheville, Belews Creek, Buck, Cliffside, Lee, Marshall,
Mayo and Roxboro. The class is defined as those who are "well-
eligible" under the Coal Ash Act or those to whom Duke Energy has
promised a permanent replacement water supply and seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, along with compensatory
damages.

Plaintiffs allege that Duke Energy's improper maintenance of coal
ash impoundments caused harm, particularly through groundwater
contamination. Despite NCDEQ's preliminary approval, Plaintiffs
contend that Duke Energy's proposed permanent water solutions
plan fails to comply with the Coal Ash Act. On September 28,
2017, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a
Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike the class designation.

In its Form 10-K Report, the Company said the parties entered
into a Settlement Agreement on January 24, 2018, which resulted
in the dismissal of the underlying class action on January 25,
2018.

Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company headquartered in
Charlotte, North Carolina, subject to regulation by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

          Settlement in Price Reporting Suit Already Paid

Duke Energy said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that a proposed settlement of the class
action lawsuits, which Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC is
involved, was approved by the Court and all settlement amounts,
which are not material to Duke Energy, have been paid.

Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC (DETM), a non-operating
Duke Energy affiliate, was a defendant, along with numerous other
energy companies, in four class-action lawsuits and a fifth
single-plaintiff lawsuit in a consolidated federal court
proceeding in Nevada. Each of these lawsuits contained similar
claims that defendants allegedly manipulated natural gas markets
by various means, including providing false information to
natural gas trade publications and entering into unlawful
arrangements and agreements in violation of the antitrust laws of
the respective states. Plaintiffs sought damages in unspecified
amounts.

In February 2016, DETM reached agreements in principle to settle
all of the pending lawsuits. Settlement of the single-plaintiff
settlement was finalized and paid in March 2016. The proposed
settlement of the class action lawsuits was approved by the Court
and all settlement amounts, which are not material to Duke
Energy, have been paid.

Duke Energy is an energy company headquartered in Charlotte,
North Carolina. Duke Energy operates in the United States (U.S.)
primarily through its wholly owned subsidiaries, Duke Energy
Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy
Ohio, Duke Energy Indiana and Piedmont.


DUKE ENERGY: Appeal from Nixed Suit v Florida Unit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The decision on the appeal of plaintiffs from a court order
dismissing a class action case against Duke Energy Corporation's
Florida unit related to the State of Florida's nuclear power
plant cost recovery statutes (NCRS) remains pending, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal period ended December 31,
2017.

On February 22, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of a
putative class of Duke Energy Florida and FP&L's customers in
Florida.  The suit alleges the State of Florida's nuclear power
plant cost recovery statutes (NCRS) are unconstitutional and pre-
empted by federal law.  Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to
repayment of all money paid by customers of Duke Energy Florida
and FP&L as a result of the NCRS, as well as an injunction
against any future charges under those statutes.  The
constitutionality of the NCRS has been challenged unsuccessfully
in a number of prior cases on alternative grounds.

Duke Energy said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that Duke Energy Florida and FP&L filed
motions to dismiss the complaint on May 5, 2016. On September 21,
2016, the Court granted the motions to dismiss with prejudice.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.
On January 4, 2017, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

The appeal, which has been fully briefed, was heard on August 22,
2017, and a decision is pending.

The Company said, "Duke Energy Florida cannot predict the outcome
of this appeal."

Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company headquartered in
Charlotte, North Carolina, subject to regulation by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Appeal from Dismissed "Rayner" Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial Corporation continue to defends itself in a
putative class action by Ty Rayner, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

On March 26, 2015, a putative class action was filed in the US
District Court for the Northern District of California by Ty
Rayner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
naming E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE Securities as
defendants.  The complaint alleges that E*TRADE breached a
fiduciary duty and unjustly enriched itself in connection with
the routing of its customers' orders to various market-makers and
exchanges.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, declaratory
relief, restitution, disgorgement of payments received by the
Company, and attorneys' fees.  On April 2, 2017, the District
Court dismissed the complaint in Rayner.  The plaintiffs in
Rayner appealed and the oral argument was heard by the Second
Court of Appeals on December 7, 2017.  The Company will continue
to defend itself vigorously in these matters.

E*TRADE is a financial services company that provides online
brokerage and related products and services primarily to
individual retail investors.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: To Defend Against "Schwab" Class Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that it "will continue to defend itself
vigorously" in matters related to the putative class action filed
by Craig L. Schwab.

On July 23, 2016, a putative class action was filed in the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York by Craig L.
Schwab, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
naming E*TRADE Financial Corporation, E*TRADE Securities, and
former Company executives as defendants.  The complaint alleges
that E*TRADE violated federal securities laws in connection with
the routing of its customers' orders to various market-makers and
exchanges.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, declaratory
relief, restitution, disgorgement of payments received by the
Company, and attorneys' fees.  By stipulation both matters are
now venued in the Southern District of New York.  On July 10, the
Court dismissed the Schwab claims without prejudice.  The
plaintiff in Schwab filed a third amended complaint on August 9,
2017, which E*TRADE moved to dismiss.  On January 22, the Court
dismissed all claims with prejudice.  The Company will continue
to defend itself vigorously in these matters.

E*TRADE is a financial services company that provides online
brokerage and related products and services primarily to
individual retail investors.


ENSUENO CORP: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Sandoval Says
------------------------------------------------------------
FABIAN RIOS SANDOVAL, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ENSUENO CORPORATION DBA
CASABLANCA RESTAURANT, a California corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC701250 (Cal.
Super. Ct., April 6, 2018), seeks to recover damages stemming
from Defendants' failure to provide meal periods, failure to
authorize and permit rest periods, failure to pay minimum and
straight time wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to
pay split shift premiums, failure to timely pay all wages to
terminated employees, and failure to furnish accurate wage
statements.

Ensueno is a Mexican restaurant which does business under the
name of "Casablanca Restaurant", and is located at 220 Lincoln
Boulevard, Venice, California 90291. The Defendants employed
Plaintiff to work as a caterer, bartender and server from
approximately April of 2010 to June 28, 2015. Throughout the time
period involved in this case, the Defendants have wrongfully
failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class with timely and duty-
free meal periods. The Defendants regularly required Plaintiff
and the Class to work in excess of five consecutive hours a day
without providing a 30 minute, continuous and uninterrupted,
duty-free meal period every for five hours of work, or without
compensating Plaintiff and the Class for meal periods that were
not provided by the end of the fifth hour of work or tenth hour
of work. The Defendants did not adequately inform Plaintiff and
the Class of their right to take a meal period by the end of the
fifth hour of work, or, for shifts greater than 10 hours, by the
end of the tenth hour of work.

Moreover, Defendants systematically disregarded their own written
policies regarding the provision and timing of meal periods for
Plaintiff and the Class. Defendants also did not have adequate
policies or practices to verify Plaintiff and the Class were
taking their required meal periods. Instead, Defendants' actual
policy and practice was to not provide meal periods to Plaintiff
and the Class in violation of California law.

Throughout the time period involved in this case, Defendants
failed to maintain accurate records of the hours worked by
Plaintiff and the Class. Defendants also failed to maintain
accurate records of the meal periods taken or missed by Plaintiff
and the Class.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
          RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC
          22760 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 200
          Torrance, CA 90505
          Telephone: (310) 961 9600
          Facsimile: (310) 961 9094
          E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com


EXPEDITORS INC: "Lewis" Suit Moved to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kiani Lewis, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated and aggrieved, the Plaintiff,
v. Expeditors, Inc.; Expeditors International; and Expeditors
International of Washington, Inc., Erroneously Sued As
Expeditors, Inc. and Erroneously Sued As Expeditors
International, the Defendants, Case No. BC695114, was removed
from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Western Division -
Los Angeles) on April 6, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:18-cv-02871-VAP-PJW to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Virginia A. Phillips.

Expeditors is a global logistics and freight forwarding company
headquartered in Seattle, Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carney R Shegerian, Esq.
          Anthony Nguyen, Esq.
          SHEGERIAN AND ASSOCIATES INC
          225 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 700
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 860 0770
          Facsimile: (310) 860 0771
          E-mail: cshegerian@shegerianlaw.com
                  anguyen@shegerianlaw.com

Attorneys for Expeditors, Inc.; Expeditors International and
Expeditors International of Washington, Inc.:

          Miranda Alona Mossavar, Esq.
          Britney Noelle Torres, Esq.
          Helene J Wasserman, Esq.
          Tara L Presnell, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          2049 Century Park East 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 553 0308
          Facsimile: (310) 553 5583
          E-mail: mmossavar@littler.com
                  btorres@littler.com
                  hwasserman@littler.com
                  tpresnell@littler.com


FERNANDEZ BROS: May 24 Final Approval Hearing of "Gomez" Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled REGINA GONZALES GOMEZ, and FIDEL GUERRERO
COMOFORT, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FERNANDEZ BROTHERS, INC. and DOES 1
through 10, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-01863-EJD (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an order on May 24,
2018, granting final approval of class action settlement reached
with Fernandez Brothers, Inc.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs will move for an order:

   1. granting final approval of the Settlement and finding the
      terms of the Settlement to be fair, reasonable and adequate
      under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
      including the amount of the settlement fund; the amount of
      distributions to class members; the procedure for giving
      notice to class members; the procedure for objecting to or
      opting out of the Settlement; and the maximum amounts
      allocated to an incentive payment, costs and attorney's
      fees;

   2. certifying for settlement purposes a Settlement Class of:

      "all persons who, at any time between April 4, 2013 and
      September 14, 2017, worked for Defendant as a seasonal
      agricultural worker who performed field work harvesting
      strawberries";

   3. finding that class members were provided proper and
      adequate notice of their rights in a manner that satisfies
      the requirements of due process;

   4. directing that all class members who did not timely file a
      request for exclusion from the Settlement are barred from
      prosecuting against the Released Parties any and all
      released claims as set forth in the Settlement;

   5. directing that Defendant make a payment into the settlement
      fund, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the
      Settlement, of the amount needed to fund all amounts
      payable under the Settlement;

   6. directing payment from the settlement fund of settlement
      administration fees to Atticus Administration in the amount
      of $10,000 in accordance with the Settlement;

   7. awarding Plaintiffs the amount of $320,000 for reasonable
      attorney's fees, to be paid from the settlement fund in
      accordance with the procedures set forth in the
      Settlement;

   8. awarding Plaintiffs the amount of $5,l08.12 for reasonable
      litigation costs, to be paid from the settlement fund in
      accordance with the procedures set forth in the Settlement;

   9. awarding Plaintiffs the amount of $10,000 each as a class
      representative enhancement payment, to be paid from the
      settlement fund in accordance with the procedures set forth
      in the Settlement;

  10. entering a final judgment dismissing the action with
      prejudice; and

  11. providing that, notwithstanding entry of final judgment,
      the Court shall retain jurisdiction in this matter for the
      purposes of interpreting or enforcing the Settlement or
      final judgment.

The settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on January
3, 2018.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fcB6ErM5

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
          KARASIK LAW FIRM
          11835 W. Olympic Blvd. Ste. 1275
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312 6800
          Facsimile (310) 943 2582
          E-mail: greg@karasiklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Santos Gomez, Esq.
          Maria Esmeralda Vizzusi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SANTOS GOMEZ
          1003 Freedom Boulevard
          Watsonville, CA 95076
          Telephone: (831} 228 1560
          Facsimile: (831) 228 1542
          E-mail: santos@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com
          esmeraida@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com


FLOWERS FOODS: Defends 22 Class Lawsuits Filed by Distributors
--------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 30, 2017, that it is defending 22 lawsuits seeking class
and/or collective action treatment.

The Company said, "At this time, the company is defending 33
complaints filed by distributors alleging that such distributors
were misclassified as independent contractors.  Twenty-two of
these lawsuits seek class and/or collective action treatment.
The remaining 11 cases allege individual claims and do not seek
class or collective action treatment.  The respective courts have
ruled on plaintiffs' motions for class certification in 16 of the
pending cases.

"The company and/or its respective subsidiaries contests the
allegations and are vigorously defending all of these lawsuits.
Given the stage of the complaints and the claims and issues
presented, except for lawsuits disclosed herein that have reached
a settlement or agreement in principle, the company cannot
reasonably estimate at this time the possible loss or range of
loss that may arise from the unresolved lawsuits."

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States.  It operates through two segments, Direct-Store-
Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery.  The Company was formerly
known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to Flowers
Foods, Inc. in 2001.  Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in 1919 and
is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia.


FLOWERS FOODS: 9th Cir. Appeal in "Martinez" Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 30, 2017, that an appeal from the denial of class
certification in the "Martinez" lawsuit is currently pending in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with case number
16-56327.

The putative class action lawsuit is captioned Martinez et al. v.
Flowers Foods, Inc., Flowers Bakeries Brands, Inc., Flowers
Baking Co. of California, LLC, and Flowers Baking Co. of
Henderson, LLC, with case number 2:15-cv-05112, and was
originally filed on July 7, 2015.

The Company said, "The court denied a motion to certify
Plaintiffs' California state law claims against Defendants as a
class action.  This lawsuit was settled on confidential terms on
June 29, 2016, and thereafter dismissed with prejudice.  The
denial of the class certification is currently on appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit."

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States.  It operates through two segments, Direct-Store-
Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery.  The Company was formerly
known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to Flowers
Foods, Inc. in 2001.  Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in 1919 and
is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia.


FLOWERS FOODS: Continues to Defend "Rosinbaum" Lawsuit in N.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. continues to defend itself in the "Rosinbaum"
lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court Eastern District of
North Carolina, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 30, 2017.

The case is captioned Rosinbaum et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and
Franklin Baking Co., LLC, with case number 7:16-cv-00233, and was
originally filed on December 1, 2015.

A class was conditionally certified under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) in the case.

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States.  It operates through two segments, Direct-Store-
Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery.  The Company was formerly
known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to Flowers
Foods, Inc. in 2001.  Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in 1919 and
is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia.


FLOWERS FOODS: Seeks to Obtain Final Court OK on "Coyle" Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 30, 2017, that the parties in the "Coyle" lawsuit  are
working to obtain final court approval of a settlement.

The case is captioned Coyle v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and Holsum
Bakery, Inc., with case number 2:15-cv-01372, and was originally
filed with the U.S. District Court District of Arizona on July
20, 2015.

The Company said, "On October 4, 2017, the parties filed with the
court a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement informing the court that the parties reached an
agreement to settle this matter for a payment of US$4.3 million,
comprised of US$1.2 million in settlement funds, US$2.9 million
in attorneys' fees, and US$0.2 million as an incentive for class
members who are active distributors not to opt out of certain
portions of the new distributor agreement.  This settlement
charge has been recorded as a selling, distribution and
administrative expense in our Consolidated Statements of Income
during the third quarter of fiscal 2017.   The parties are
working to obtain final court approval of the settlement."

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States.  It operates through two segments, Direct-Store-
Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery.  The Company was formerly
known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to Flowers
Foods, Inc. in 2001.  Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in 1919 and
is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia.


FLOWERS FOODS: To Obtain Final Court OK on "McCurley" Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 30, 2017, that the parties in the "McCurley" lawsuit
are working to obtain final court approval of a settlement.

The case is captioned McCurley v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and Derst
Baking Co., LLC, with case number 5:16-cv-00194, and was
originally filed with the U.S. District Court District of South
Carolina on January 20, 2016.

The Company said, "On December 7, 2017, the parties reached an
agreement in principal to settle this matter for a payment of
US$1.5 million, comprised of US$0.8 million in settlement funds,
US$0.6 million in attorneys' fees, and a collective US$0.1
million for a service award and as an incentive for class members
who are active distributors not to opt out of certain portions of
the new distributor agreement.  This settlement charge has been
recorded as a selling, distribution and administrative expense in
our Consolidated Statements of Income during the fourth quarter
of fiscal 2017.  The parties are working to obtain court approval
of the settlement."

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States.  It operates through two segments, Direct-Store-
Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery.  The Company was formerly
known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to Flowers
Foods, Inc. in 2001.  Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in 1919 and
is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia.


FLOWERS FOODS: Still Defends "Neff" Class Action Suit in Vermont
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. continues to defend itself in the "Neff"
lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court District of Vermont,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 30, 2017.

The case is captioned Neff et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc., Lepage
Bakeries Park Street, LLC, and CK Sales Co., LLC, with case
number 5:15-cv-00254, and was originally filed on December 2,
2015.

A class was conditionally certified under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) in the case.

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States.  It operates through two segments, Direct-Store-
Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery.  The Company was formerly
known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to Flowers
Foods, Inc. in 2001.  Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in 1919 and
is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia.


FLOWERS FOODS: "Noll" Class Action Suit in Maine Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. still defends itself in the "Noll" lawsuit
pending in the U.S. District Court District of Maine, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2017.

The case is captioned Noll v. Flowers Foods, Inc., Lepage
Bakeries Park Street, LLC, and CK Sales Co., LLC, with case
number 1:15-cv-00493, and was originally filed on December 3,
2015.

A class was conditionally certified under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) in the case.

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States.  It operates through two segments, Direct-Store-
Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery.  The Company was formerly
known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to Flowers
Foods, Inc. in 2001.  Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in 1919 and
is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia.


FLOWERS FOODS: Still Defends Against "Zapata" Lawsuit in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. continues to defend itself in the "Zapata"
lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court Southern District of
Texas, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 30, 2017.

The case is captioned Zapata et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and
Flowers Baking Co. of Houston, LLC, with case number 4:16-cv-
00676, and was originally filed on March 14, 2016.

A class was conditionally certified under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) in the case.

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States.  It operates through two segments, Direct-Store-
Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery.  The Company was formerly
known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to Flowers
Foods, Inc. in 2001.  Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in 1919 and
is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia.


FLOWERS FOODS: "Rodriguez" Suit Pending in S.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. remains a defendant in the "Rodriguez"
lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court Southern District of
Texas, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 30, 2017.

The case is captioned Rodriguez et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and
Flowers Baking Co. of Houston, LLC, with case number 4:16-cv-
00245, and was originally filed on January 28, 2016.

A class was conditionally certified under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) in the case.

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States.  It operates through two segments, Direct-Store-
Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery.  The Company was formerly
known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to Flowers
Foods, Inc. in 2001.  Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in 1919 and
is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia.


FLOWERS FOODS: Still Faces "Richard" Lawsuit in Louisiana
---------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. continues to defend itself in the "Richard"
lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court Western District of
Louisiana, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 30, 2017.

The case is captioned Richard et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc.,
Flowers Baking Co. of Lafayette, LLC, Flowers Baking Co. of Baton
Rouge, LLC, Flowers Baking Co. of Tyler, LLC and Flowers Baking
Co. of New Orleans, LLC, with case number 6:15-cv-02557, and was
originally filed on October 21, 2015.

A class was conditionally certified under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) in the case.

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States.  It operates through two segments, Direct-Store-
Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery.  The Company was formerly
known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to Flowers
Foods, Inc. in 2001.  Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in 1919 and
is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia.


FLOWERS FOODS: "Carr" Class Suit Still Ongoing in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. still defends itself in the "Carr" lawsuit
pending in the U.S. District Court Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 30, 2017.

The case is captioned Carr et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and
Flowers Baking Co. of Oxford, Inc., with case number 2:15-cv-
06391, and was originally filed on December 1, 2015.

A class was conditionally certified under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) in the case.

The Company is also a defendant in another case captioned
Boulange v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and Flowers Baking Co. of Oxford,
Inc., case number 2:16-cv-02581, which was filed with the U.S.
District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 25,
2016.  The Company said in its Form 10-K that this case has been
consolidated with the Carr litigation.

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States.  It operates through two segments, Direct-Store-
Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery.  The Company was formerly
known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to Flowers
Foods, Inc. in 2001.  Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in 1919 and
is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia.


FLOWERS FOODS: Continues to Defend "Medrano" Suit in New Mexico
---------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. continues to defend itself in the "Medrano"
lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court District of New
Mexico, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 30, 2017.

The case is captioned Medrano v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and Flowers
Baking Co. of El Paso, LLC, with case number 1:16-cv-00350, and
was originally filed on April 27, 2016.

A class was conditionally certified under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) in the case.

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States.  It operates through two segments, Direct-Store-
Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery.  The Company was formerly
known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to Flowers
Foods, Inc. in 2001.  Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in 1919 and
is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia.


FLOWERS FOODS: Continues to Defend "Long" Lawsuit in Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. remains a defendant in the "Long" lawsuit
pending in the U.S. District Court Middle District of Tennessee,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 30, 2017.

The case is captioned Long v. Flowers Foods, Inc., Flowers Baking
Co. of Morristown, LLC, and Flowers Baking Co. of Knoxville, LLC,
with case number 3:17-cv-00724, and was originally filed on April
20, 2017.

A class was conditionally certified under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) in the case.

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States.  It operates through two segments, Direct-Store-
Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery.  The Company was formerly
known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to Flowers
Foods, Inc. in 2001.  Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in 1919 and
is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia.


FLOWERS FOODS: Still Defends Itself in "Wiatrek" Suit in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. continues to defend itself in the "Wiatrek"
lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court Western District of
Texas, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 30, 2017.

The case is captioned Wiatrek v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and Flowers
Baking Co. of San Antonio, LLC, with case number 5:17-cv-00772,
and was originally filed on August 15, 2017.

A class was conditionally certified under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) in the case.

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States.  It operates through two segments, Direct-Store-
Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery.  The Company was formerly
known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to Flowers
Foods, Inc. in 2001.  Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in 1919 and
is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia.


FLOWERS FOODS: "Soares" Lawsuit Still Ongoing in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. continues to defend itself against the
"Soares" litigation pending in the U.S. District Court Northern
District of California, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 30, 2017.

The case is captioned Soares et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc.,
Flowers Bakeries Brands, Inc., Flowers Baking Co. of California,
LLC, and Flowers Baking Co. of Modesto, LLC, with case number
3:15-cv-04918, and was originally filed on October 26, 2015.

On June 28, 2017, the court denied Plaintiffs' motion to certify
California state law claims against Defendants as a class action.

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States.  It operates through two segments, Direct-Store-
Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery.  The Company was formerly
known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to Flowers
Foods, Inc. in 2001.  Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in 1919 and
is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia.


FLOWERS FOODS: Awaits Court's Final OK on "Schucker" Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 30, 2017, that the parties in the "Schucker" lawsuit are
working to obtain court approval of a settlement agreement.

The case is captioned Schucker et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc.,
Lepage Bakeries Park St., LLC, and C.K. Sales Co., LLC, with case
number 1:16-cv-03439, and was originally filed with the U.S.
District Court Southern District of New York on May 9, 2016.

The Company said, "The court denied Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification of a class under the FLSA.  On February
14, 2018, the parties reached an agreement in principal to settle
this matter for a payment of approximately US$1.3 million,
comprised of US$0.4 million in settlement funds, US$0.9 million
in attorneys' fees, and a collective US$0.1 million for service
awards and incentives for class members who are active
distributors not to opt out of certain portions of the new
distributor agreement.  The parties are working to obtain court
approval of the settlement."

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States.  It operates through two segments, Direct-Store-
Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery.  The Company was formerly
known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to Flowers
Foods, Inc. in 2001.  Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in 1919 and
is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia.


FLOWERS FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated securities
class action complaint remains pending, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2017.

On August 12, 2016, a class action complaint was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by
Chris B. Hendley (the "Hendley complaint") against the company
and certain senior members of management (collectively, the
"defendants").  On August 17, 2016, another class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York by Scott Dovell, II (the "Dovell complaint"
and together with the Hendley complaint, the "complaints")
against the defendants.  Plaintiffs in the complaints are
securities holders that acquired company securities between
February 7, 2013 and August 10, 2016.

The complaints generally allege that the defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that (1) the company's labor practices were not in
compliance with applicable federal laws and regulations; (2) such
non-compliance exposed the company to legal liability and/or
negative regulatory action; and (3) as a result, the defendants'
statements about the company's business, operations, and
prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.  The counts of the complaints are asserted against the
defendants pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act.

The complaints seek (1) class certification under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, (2) compensatory damages in favor of
the plaintiffs and all other class members against the
defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a
result of wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at trial,
including interest, and (3) awarding plaintiffs and the class
their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the actions,
including counsel and expert fees.

On October 21, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York consolidated the complaints into one action
captioned "In re Flowers Foods, Inc. Securities Litigation" (the
"consolidated action"), appointed Walter Matthews as lead
plaintiff ("lead plaintiff"), and appointed Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP and Johnson & Weaver, LLP as co-lead counsel for the
putative class.

On November 21, 2016, the court granted defendants' and lead
plaintiff's joint motion to transfer the consolidated action to
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.  Lead
plaintiff filed his Consolidated Class Action Complaint on
January 12, 2017, raising the same counts and general allegations
and seeking the same relief as the Dovell and Hendley complaints.

On March 13, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit which remains pending before the court at this time.

Flowers Foods said, "The company and/or its respective
subsidiaries are vigorously defending these lawsuits.  Given the
stage of the complaints and the claims and issues presented, the
company cannot reasonably estimate at this time the possible loss
or range of loss, if any, that may arise from the unresolved
lawsuits."

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States.  It operates through two segments, Direct-Store-
Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery.  The Company was formerly
known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to Flowers
Foods, Inc. in 2001.  Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in 1919 and
is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia.


FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Atis, et al., Seek to Certify Settlement Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DAVID ATIS, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FREEDOM
MORTGAGE CORPORATION, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-
03424-RBK-JS (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an
Order:

   1. preliminarily approving a Joint Stipulation of Settlement
      and Release;

   2. granting final approval to the Collective Class pursuant to
      the Fair Labor Standards Act previously certified for
      settlement purposes;

   3. provisionally certifying a settlement class consisting of:

      "all persons who worked in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and
      Indiana as an Assistant Vice President of Sales for Freedom
      Mortgage Corporation from May 20, 2013 through June 30,
      2016 for the purposes of effectuating the settlement";

   4. appointing David Atis, Kathryn Hertzog, and Joseph
      Koeberlein as representatives of the settlement class;

   5. preliminarily approving the service payments of $10,000 for
      David Atis, $5,000 each for Kathryn Hertzog and Joseph
      Koeberlein, and $750 each for Steve Dewitt, Russell Mates,
      Shawn Menne, and Saul Walle;

   6. appointing as Class Counsel, Swartz Swidler, LLC;

   7. appointing of the Angeion Group, LLC as the Third Party
      Administrator and that the reasonable costs and fees shall
      be paid from the fund;

   8. approving the Notices of Settlement and Fairness Hearing
      for the opt-in Plaintiffs and Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23 Class
      Members in accordance with the procedures outlined in the
      Settlement Agreement, and directing their distribution;

   9. approving the Opt-Out and Objection procedures outlined in
      the Settlement Agreement;

  10. preliminarily approving Class Counsel's requested fee award
      of 33 1/3% of the Settlement Fund;

  11. preliminarily approving Class Counsel's reasonable costs;

  12. directing when Class Counsel must file a motion for final
      approval of the settlement; and

  13. scheduling a Final Settlement Fairness Hearing.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
          Daniel A. Horowitz, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 Kings Highway North, Ste. 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685 7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685 7417
          E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com
                  jboyette@swartz-legal.com
                  dhorowitz@swartz-legal.com


HENRY SCHEIN: Continues to Face Class Suits over Dental Supplies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. still defends itself against class action
complaints related to defendants' competitors, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2017.

Beginning in January 2016, class action complaints were filed
against Patterson Companies, Inc. ("Patterson"), Benco Dental
Supply Co. ("Benco") and Henry Schein, Inc.  Each of these
complaints allege, among other things, that defendants conspired
to fix prices, allocate customers and foreclose competitors by
boycotting manufacturers, state dental associations and others
that deal with defendants' competitors.  Subject to certain
exclusions, these classes seek to represent all persons who
purchased dental supplies or equipment in the United States
directly from any of the defendants or Burkhart Dental Supply Co.
("Burkhart") since August 31, 2008.  Each class action complaint
asserts a single count under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and
seeks equitable relief, compensatory and treble damages, jointly
and severally, and reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees and expert fees.

"We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against these actions,"
the Company said.

Henry Schein, Inc. is a provider of health care products and
services primarily to office-based dental, animal health and
medical practitioners.

            Dental Supplies Suit vs Patterson Underway

Patterson Companies said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 28, 2017, that the company continues to defend an
antitrust class action suit entitled, In re Dental Supplies
Antitrust Litigation

Beginning in January 2016, purported class action complaints were
filed against defendants Henry Schein, Inc., Benco Dental Supply
Company and Patterson Companies, Inc. Although there were factual
and legal variations among these complaints, each alleged that
defendants conspired to foreclose and exclude competitors by
boycotting manufacturers, state dental associations, and others
that deal with defendants' competitors.

On February 9, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York ordered all of these actions, and all other
actions filed thereafter asserting substantially similar claims
against defendants, consolidated for pre-trial purposes. On
February 26, 2016, a consolidated class action complaint was
filed by Arnell Prato, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., d/b/a Down to Earth
Dental, Evolution Dental Sciences, LLC, Howard M. May, DDS, P.C.,
Casey Nelson, D.D.S., Jim Peck, D.D.S., Bernard W. Kurek, D.M.D.,
Larchmont Dental Associates, P.C., and Keith Schwartz, D.M.D.,
P.A. (collectively, "putative class representatives") in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled In
re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:16-
CV-00696-BMC-GRB.

Subject to certain exclusions, the putative class representatives
seek to represent all persons who purchased dental supplies or
equipment in the U.S. directly from any of the defendants, since
August 31, 2008. In the consolidated class action complaint,
putative class representatives allege a nationwide agreement
among Henry Schein, Benco, Patterson and non-party Burkhart
Dental Supply Company, Inc. not to compete on price. The
consolidated class action complaint asserts a single count under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and seeks equitable relief,
compensatory and treble damages, jointly and severally, interest,
and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and
expert fees. Putative class representatives have not specified a
damage amount in their complaint.

Patterson Companies said "While the outcome of litigation is
inherently uncertain, we believe the consolidated class action
complaint is without merit, and we are vigorously defending
ourselves in this litigation."

Patterson Companies, Inc. distributes and sells dental and animal
health products in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through Dental and Animal Health segments.
The company is based in St. Paul, Minnesota.


INGALLS MEMORIAL: Mosby Sues over Use of Sensitive Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUCILLE MOSBY, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE INGALLS MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL UCM COMMUNITY HEALTH & HOSPITAL DIVISION, INC., and
BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 2018-CH-
05031 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cty., April 18, 2018), seeks to redress
and curtail Defendants' unlawful collection, use, storage, and
disclosure of Plaintiffs sensitive biometric data.

The Defendant is a private hospital located in Harvey, Illinois
and operates within the south suburbs of Illinois and in this
Circuit. The Defendant is a not-for-profit corporation based in
the south suburbs of Illinois and in this Circuit. Ingalls Health
System owns, manages and operates multiple medical locations and
care centers within Cook County.

When employees are given access to the Pyxis Medstation, they are
enrolled in a database. Ingalls Health System uses the database
to monitor access to certain restricted materials, e.g.,
pharmaceuticals. The Plaintiff and other authorized employees are
required to have their fingerprints scanned by a biometric device
within the Pyxis Medstation to access restricted materials.
Unlike ID badges or access cards -- which can be changed or
replaced if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are unique,
permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee.
Defendants' behavior exposes their employees to serious and
irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a database containing
fingerprints or other sensitive, proprietary biometric data is
hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed -- like in the recent
Equifax and Facebook data breaches -- employees have no means by
which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking or other
unlawful or improper use of this highly personal and private
information.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
          Haley R. Jenkins, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233 1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233 1560
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com


INOVALON HOLDINGS: Discovery in Securities Suit to End by Oct. 22
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The court has set October 22, 2018 as the deadline for the
completion of all discovery related to a motion for class
certification in a consolidated securities class action against
Inovalon Holdings, Inc., among other defendants, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

On June 24, 2016, a purported securities class action complaint
(Xiang v. Inovalon Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-04923) was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, certain officers,
directors and underwriters in the Company's initial public
offering (the "Complaint").  The Complaint was brought on behalf
of a purported class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased shares of the Company's Class A common stock pursuant
or traceable to the Registration Statement relating to the
Company's initial public offering on February 18, 2015.  The
Complaint asserted violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act based on allegedly false or misleading statements
and omissions with respect to, among other things, the Company's
revenues from sales in the city and state of New York and the
Company's effective tax rate.  The Complaint sought certification
as a class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus
interest and attorneys' fees.

On June 28, 2016, a nearly identical complaint was filed in the
same court captioned Patel v. Inovalon Holdings, Inc., et al.,
No.  1:16-cv-05065.  On July 5, 2016, the court consolidated the
Xiang and Patel actions.  On September 20, 2016, the court
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.  On December 21,
2016, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint
(the "Amended Complaint") purporting to assert violations of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, based on allegedly false or misleading statements and
omissions with respect to substantially the same topics as
alleged in the Complaint.

On February 21, 2017, and as required by the court's individual
practices, the Company invoked the pre-motion process required
prior to filing a motion to dismiss.  On May 23, 2017, the court
issued a decision and order construing the pre-motion letter
submitted by the defendants as a motion to dismiss, granting
dismissal of the Section 12 claims against the individual
defendants, but denying dismissal of the remaining claims.

On June 6, 2017, defendants filed a joint motion for
reconsideration and supporting memorandum of law seeking
reconsideration of the court's decision and arguing that
plaintiff's claims are time-barred.  Also on June 6, 2017,
defendants submitted a letter to the court requesting, in the
alternative to the motion for reconsideration, a pre-motion
conference concerning defendants' anticipated motion for
certification of an interlocutory appeal to resolve a controlling
question of law.  On July 11, 2017, the Company and its officers
and directors filed their answer to the Amended Complaint denying
that plaintiffs are entitled to any relief.  On July 28, 2017,
the court issued a decision and order denying both the motion for
reconsideration and defendant's request for an interlocutory
appeal.

On January 22, 2018, lead plaintiff filed its motion for class
certification, and on February 12, 2018, defendants filed an
opposition to such motion for class certification, which motion
remains pending.  The parties are presently engaged in discovery.
The court has set October 22, 2018 as the deadline for the
completion of all discovery.

The Company said, "In light of, among other things, the early
stage of the litigation, the Company is unable to predict the
outcome of these consolidated actions and is unable to make a
meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that
could result from this proceeding."

Inovalon is a technology company providing an integrated, cloud-
based platform, referred to as the Inovalon ONE(TM) Platform,
empowering a data-driven transformation from volume-based to
value-based models throughout the healthcare industry.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Still Faces Class Suits on Pelvic Mesh Units
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson still defends class actions in and outside of
the United States related to Ethicon, Inc.'s pelvic mesh devices,
according to the Johnson & Johnson's Form 10-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

Claims for personal injury have been made against Ethicon, Inc.
(Ethicon) and Johnson & Johnson arising out of Ethicon's pelvic
mesh devices used to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic
organ prolapse.  The Company continues to receive information
with respect to potential costs and additional cases.

Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been
organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.  The
Company has settled or otherwise resolved a majority of the
United States cases and the costs associated with these
settlements are reflected in the Company's accruals.

In addition, class actions and individual personal injury cases
or claims have been commenced in various countries outside of the
United States, including claims and cases in the United Kingdom,
the Netherlands and Belgium, and class actions in Israel,
Australia and Canada, seeking damages for alleged injury
resulting from Ethicon's pelvic mesh devices.  In Australia, a
trial of class action issues is ongoing and a decision is
expected in 2018.

The Company said in its Form 10-K filing that it has established
accruals with respect to product liability litigation associated
with Ethicon's pelvic mesh products.

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide.  It was founded in 1885 and is based in New
Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Still Defends XARELTO Suits in U.S., Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson continues to face class actions in the United
States and in Canada related to the oral anticoagulant
XARELTO(R), according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

The Company said, "Claims for personal injury arising out of the
use of XARELTO(R), an oral anticoagulant, have been made against
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JPI); Johnson & Johnson; and JPI's
collaboration partner for XARELTO(R) Bayer AG and certain of its
affiliates.  The number of pending product liability lawsuits
continues to increase, and the Company continues to receive
information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated
number of cases.  Cases filed in federal courts in the United
States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana.  In addition, cases have been filed in state courts
across the United States.  Many of these cases have been
consolidated into a state mass tort litigation in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; and there are coordinated proceedings in Delaware,
California and Missouri.  Class action lawsuits also have been
filed in Canada.  The Company has established an accrual for
defense costs in connection with product liability litigation
associated with XARELTO(R)."

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide.  It was founded in 1885 and is based in New
Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Suits on INVOKANA Ongoing in US, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson continues to face class action lawsuits in
Canada and in the United States related to the use of
prescription medication INVOKANA(R), according to the Company's
Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

Claims for personal injury have been made against a number of
Johnson & Johnson companies, including Janssen Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. and Johnson & Johnson, arising out of the use of
INVOKANA(R), a prescription medication indicated to improve
glycemic control in adults with Type 2 diabetes.  The number of
pending product liability lawsuits continues to increase, and the
Company continues to receive information with respect to
potential costs and the anticipated number of cases.  Cases filed
in federal courts in the United States have been organized as a
multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey.  Cases have also been filed in state
courts in Pennsylvania, California and New Jersey.  Class action
lawsuits have been filed in Canada.  The Company has established
an accrual with respect to product liability litigation
associated with INVOKANA(R).

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide.  It was founded in 1885 and is based in New
Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Still Defends Various U.S. AWP Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that it continues to face Average Wholesale
Price (AWP) Litigation in various states in the United States.

The Company said, "Johnson & Johnson and several of its
pharmaceutical subsidiaries (the J&J AWP Defendants), along with
numerous other pharmaceutical companies, were named as defendants
in a series of lawsuits in state and federal courts involving
allegations that the pricing and marketing of certain
pharmaceutical products amounted to fraudulent and otherwise
actionable conduct because, among other things, the companies
allegedly reported an inflated Average Wholesale Price (AWP) for
the drugs at issue.  Payors alleged that they used those AWPs in
calculating provider reimbursement levels.  The plaintiffs in
these cases included three classes of private persons or entities
that paid for any portion of the purchase of the drugs at issue
based on AWP, and state government entities that made Medicaid
payments for the drugs at issue based on AWP.  Many of these
cases, both federal actions and state actions removed to federal
court, were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a multi-
district litigation in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, where all claims against the J&J AWP
Defendants were ultimately dismissed.  The J&J AWP Defendants
also prevailed in a case brought by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.  Other AWP cases have been resolved through court
order or settlement.  Two cases remain pending.  In a case
brought by Illinois, the parties are awaiting assignment of a
trial date.  In New Jersey, a putative class action based upon
AWP allegations is pending against Centocor, Inc. and Ortho
Biotech Inc. (both now Janssen Biotech, Inc.), Johnson & Johnson
and ALZA Corporation."

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide.  It was founded in 1885 and is based in New
Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: June 2018 Trial Set for Ortho-Clinical Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson disclosed in its Company's Form 10-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that a June 2018 trial has been set in
class action litigation related to Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics,
Inc.

The Company said, "In June 2009, following the public
announcement that Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD) had
received a grand jury subpoena from the United States Department
of Justice, Antitrust Division, in connection with an
investigation that has since been closed, multiple class action
complaints were filed against OCD by direct purchasers seeking
damages for alleged price fixing.  These cases were consolidated
for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as In re Blood Reagent
Antitrust Litigation.  Following the appeal and reversal of its
initial grant of a motion for class certification, on remand, the
District Court in October 2015 again granted a motion by the
plaintiffs for class certification.  In July 2017, the Court
issued an opinion granting in part and denying in part OCD's
motion for summary judgment.  The Court granted summary judgment
concerning allegations of price fixing in 2005 and 2008, and
denied summary judgment concerning allegations of price fixing in
2001.  Trial has been set for June 2018.  OCD was divested in
2014 and Johnson & Johnson retained any liability that may result
from these cases."

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide.  It was founded in 1885 and is based in New
Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery Underway in Class Suit over McNeil
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that discovery is underway in a putative class
action suit related to McNeil over-the-counter products.

The Company said, "In April 2016, a putative class action was
filed against Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Sales and
Logistics Company, LLC, and McNeil PPC, Inc. (now known as
Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.) in New Jersey Superior Court,
Camden County, on behalf of persons who reside in the state of
New Jersey who purchased various McNeil over-the-counter products
from December 2008 through the present.  The complaint alleges
violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.  Following the
grant of a motion to dismiss and the filing of an amended
complaint, in May 2017, the Court denied a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  Discovery is underway."

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide.  It was founded in 1885 and is based in New
Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Status Bid in Lens Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a consolidated
action filed by contact lens patients remain pending, according
to Johnson & Johnson's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2017.

The Company said, "In March and April 2015, over 30 putative
class action complaints were filed by contact lens patients in a
number of courts around the United States against Johnson &
Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (JJVCI) and other contact lens
manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, alleging vertical and
horizontal conspiracies to fix the retail prices of contact
lenses.  The complaints allege that the manufacturers reached
agreements with each other and certain distributors and retailers
concerning the prices at which some contact lenses could be sold
to consumers.  The plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive
relief.  All of the class action cases were transferred to the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
in June 2015.  The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint in November 2015.  In June 2016, the Court denied
motions to dismiss filed by JJVCI and other defendants.
Discovery is ongoing.  In March 2017, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide.  It was founded in 1885 and is based in New
Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: XARELTO Suit in Louisiana Court Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson continues to defend in a purported class action
filed in Louisiana by two third-party payors over misinformation
on XARELTO(R), according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017.

In August 2015, two third-party payors filed a purported class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana against Janssen Research & Development,
LLC, Janssen Ortho LLC, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-
McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson (as
well as certain Bayer entities), alleging that the defendants
improperly marketed and promoted XARELTO(R) as safer and more
effective than less expensive alternative medications while
failing to fully disclose its risks.  The complaint seeks
damages.

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide.  It was founded in 1885 and is based in New
Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Still Faces Glucose Test Strips Suit in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson still defends itself against a purported class
action in New Jersey, originally filed in Washington, related to
alleged inflated prices for glucose monitor test strips,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

The Company said, "In May 2017, a purported class action was
filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington against Lifescan Inc., Johnson & Johnson,
other diabetes test strip manufacturers and certain Pharmacy
Benefit Managers (PBMs).  The complaint alleges that consumers
paid inflated prices for glucose monitor test strips as a
consequence of undisclosed rebates and other incentives paid by
manufacturers to PBMs.  The complaint includes RICO, ERISA, and
state consumer protection claims.  The complaint seeks equitable
relief and damages.  In November 2017, the case was ordered
transferred to United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey."

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide.  It was founded in 1885 and is based in New
Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Still Defends Remicade Antitrust Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that it continues to defend itself in the
consolidated case captioned, In re Remicade Antitrust Litigation.

The Company said, "Beginning in September 2017, multiple
purported class actions were filed against Johnson & Johnson and
Janssen Biotech, Inc.  (collectively Janssen) alleging that
Janssen's REMICADE(R) contracting strategies violated federal and
state antitrust and consumer laws and seeking damages and
injunctive relief.  In November 2017, the cases were consolidated
for pre-trial purposes in United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania as In re Remicade Antitrust
Litigation."

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide.  It was founded in 1885 and is based in New
Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Fails to Provide OT & Unpaid Wages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA SALAZAR, CHRISTINA JOHNSON, JOSE GARCIA, TROY HARRIS and
BEDIAKO ADDO, individuals, on behalf of themselves and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., a Corporation; and Does 1 through 15 50,
Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC702468 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
April 18, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime under
the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
          www.bamlawca.com
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551 1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551 1232


KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends Class Actions on Auryxia
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. continues to defend itself against
class action complaints related to Auryxia, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company said, "Four purported class action lawsuits have been
filed against us and certain of our current and former officers
(Gregory P. Madison, Scott A. Holmes, Ron Bentsur, and James
Oliviero).  Three of these actions were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned
respectively Terrell Jackson v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.,
et al., No. 1:16-cv-06131, filed on August 2, 2016, Richard J.
Erickson v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 1:16-cv-
06218, filed on August 4, 2016, and Richard King v. Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-06233, filed on
August 5, 2016."

"The Jackson complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
stockholders who purchased our common stock between February 25,
2016 and August 1, 2016, the Erickson complaint purports to be
brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased our common stock
between March 2, 2016 and July 29, 2016, and the King complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased
our common stock between February 25, 2016 and July 29, 2016.

"On August 26, 2016, the fourth complaint captioned Tim Karth v.
Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-11745, was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, which complaint was subsequently amended.  The
Karth complaint purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders
who purchased our common stock between May 8, 2013 and August 1,
2016.

"The Jackson, Erickson and King matters were transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April 5,
2017 and subsequently consolidated with the Karth action.  Each
complaint generally alleges that we and certain of our current
and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making
allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning us and
our business operations and future prospects in light of the
August 1, 2016 announcement of an interruption in our supply of
Auryxia.  We have moved to dismiss the consolidated action.

"Two stockholder derivative complaints were also filed on
December 16, 2016 against us and certain of our current and
former officers (Gregory P. Madison, Scott A. Holmes, Ron Bentsur
and James Oliviero), certain of our current directors (Kevin J.
Cameron, Daniel P. Regan, Steven C. Gilman, Michael Rogers and
John P. Butler) and our former directors (Michael P. Tarnok,
Joseph Feczko, Jack Kaye and Wyche Fowler, Jr.), in the Superior
Court of Massachusetts, one captioned Venkat Vara Prasad Malledi
v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 16-3865 and one
captioned James Anderson v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al., No. 16-3866.

"Each of these two complaints generally allege that the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to us,
unjustly enriched themselves by their actions, abused their
control positions with us, mismanaged us and wasted corporate
assets since July 31, 2013 in light of our August 1, 2016
announcement by us of an interruption in the supply of our
product Auryxia.

Keryx said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that on June 27, 2017, the Superior Court
granted the parties' motion to consolidate and stay the
derivative litigations. All of the complaints seek unspecified
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs.

In its Form 10-K Report, the Company said, "We deny any
allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend against
these lawsuits.  There is no assurance, however, that we or the
other defendants will be successful in our defense of either of
these lawsuits or that insurance will be available or adequate to
fund any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of these
actions.  Moreover, we are unable to predict the outcome or
reasonably estimate a range of possible losses at this time.  A
resolution of these lawsuits adverse to us or the other
defendants, however, could have a material effect on our
financial position and results of operations in the period in
which the particular lawsuit is resolved."

Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. is a commercial stage
biopharmaceutical company focused on bringing innovative
medicines to people with renal disease.


LIVE NATION: Poser Alleges Securities Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------
KATHRYN A. POSER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT,
INC., MICHAEL J. RAPINO, JOE BERCHTOLD, and JARED SMITH, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03242 (C.D. Cal., April 18, 2018),
seeks to recover significant losses and damages as a result of
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities.

The case is a class action on behalf of all persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Live Nation common stock
between February 23, 2017 and March 30, 2018, inclusive. The
Plaintiff pursues claims under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Live Nation produces live concerts and sells tickets to those
events over the internet. The Company owns and operates over 195
venues throughout the world, and the Company significantly
expanded its ticketing services with the purchase of Ticketmaster
Entertainment in 2010.

During the course of acquiring Ticketmaster, Live Nation agreed
to the terms of an antitrust consent decree with the Department
of Justice. The Consent Decree contained specific rules to
prevent the Company from monopolizing live music promotion and
ticketing. On April 1, 2018, after the close of the market, The
New York Times published a story entitled, "Roster of Stars Lets
Live Nation Flex Ticket Muscles, Rivals Say." Therein, the
article alleged that the Company failed to abide by the terms of
the Consent Decree aimed to prevent Live Nation and Ticketmaster
from monopolizing the market for live musical performances.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that
the Company failed to abide by the terms of the Consent Decree;
(2) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls to prevent
a violation of the Consent Decree; and (3) that, as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's financial statements and Defendants'
statements about Live Nation's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201 9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201 9160
          E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com


LOS ANGELES DODGERS: Tesillo Sues over Minimum Wage & OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
EPIGMENIO TESILLO on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. LOS ANGELES DODGERS LLC; and DOES 1
16 TO 100, INCLUSIVE, the Defendant, Case No. BC701266 (Cal.
Super. Ct., April 6, 2018), is a wage and hour class action
lawsuit on behalf of Plaintiff and other current and former non-
exempt employees of Defendants in California seeking: unpaid
wages to compensate employees for all hours worked at minimum
wage rate and/or overtime which were not paid wages; wages for
workdays Defendants failed to provide adequate meal periods;
wages for workdays Defendants failed to provide adequate rest
periods; statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate and
complete wage statements; waiting time penalties in the form of
continuation wages for failure to timely pay former employees all
earned and unpaid wages; applicable civil penalties; injunctive
relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees
pursuant to Labor Code sections 226(e), 1194, 2699(g)(1), costs,
and interest, if applicable, brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and
others similarly situated.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Joshua M. Webster, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432 0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432 0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawifirm.com
                  jwebster@lelawfirm.com


LPL FINANCIAL: Still Faces Putative Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
LPL Financial Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that it continues to face a putative
class action lawsuit over alleged misstatements and omissions
related to the Company's share repurchases and financial
performance in late 2015.

The Company said, "A putative class action lawsuit has been filed
against the Company and certain of its executive officers in
federal district court alleging certain misstatements and
omissions related to the Company's share repurchases and
financial performance in late 2015. The Company intends to defend
vigorously against the lawsuit."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

LPL Financial Holdings Inc., a Delaware holding corporation,
together with its consolidated subsidiaries (collectively, the
"Company"), provides an integrated platform of brokerage and
investment advisory services to independent financial advisors
and financial advisors at financial institutions in the United
States.  Through its custody and clearing platform, using both
proprietary and third-party technology, the Company provides
access to diversified financial products and services, enabling
its advisors to offer independent financial advice and brokerage
services to retail investors.


MADISON GLOBAL: Espindola Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
APOLONIO ESPINDOLA and RUFINA GALINDO, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MADISON GLOBAL
LLC (D/B/A NELLO), NELLO I. BALAN, THOMAS MAKKOS, GEORGE MAKKOS,
and PASKO NICAJ, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03420
(S.D.N.Y., April 18, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants Madison Global
which owns, operates, or controls an Italian restaurant, located
at 696 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10065 under the name "Nello".
The Plaintiffs were employed as a dishwasher and pasta cook and
dessert preparer at the restaurant. Espindola worked for
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the
hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to pay
Espindola appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.

Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Espindola the
required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to
work over 10 hours a day. Furthermore, Defendants repeatedly
failed to pay Plaintiff wages on a timely basis. The Defendants
maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and other
employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without
providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by
federal and state law and regulations.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: 2 Class Lawsuits in S.D. Texas Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, Inc. is facing two securities class
action lawsuits in Texas, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

On February 2, 2018, The George Leon Family Trust, a purported
CB&I shareholder, filed a purported class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
against CB&I, the members of the CB&I Supervisory Board,
McDermott and the subsidiaries of CB&I and McDermott that are
parties to the Business Combination Agreement.  The action is
captioned The George Leon Family Trust v. Chicago Bridge & Iron
Company N.V., et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-00314 (S.D.  Tex.).  The
complaint alleges violations by the defendants of Section 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 under the Exchange
Act with respect to the registration statement filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
Combination, based on various alleged omissions of material
information.  The complaint asserts liability against McDermott
as a controlling person of CB&I, based on an allegation that
McDermott had direct supervisory control over the composition of
the registration statement and the information disclosed therein,
as well as the information alleged to have been omitted and/or
misrepresented in the registration statement.

The plaintiff is seeking relief including an injunction to (1)
prevent the defendants from completing the Combination or, if the
Combination is consummated, to rescind it and set it aside, or an
award for rescissory damages, and (2) require the dissemination
of a registration statement that does not include any untrue
statements of material fact and includes all material facts
required or necessary to make the statements contained therein
not misleading.  The complaint also seeks an award for attorneys'
and experts' fees.

The alleged omissions and requests for relief are similar to
allegations contained in a putative class action complaint filed
in January 2018 against CB&I, the members of CB&I's Supervisory
Board, and certain officers of CB&I, also in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.  That action
is captioned McIntyre v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., et
al., Case No. 4:18-cv-00273 (S.D. Tex.) (the "McIntyre Action").
On February 7, 2018, the plaintiff in the McIntyre Action filed a
motion for preliminary injunction with the Court.  A hearing on
that motion has not yet been scheduled.

The Company said, "We believe the substantive allegations
contained in both complaints are without merit, and we intend to
defend against the claims made against us vigorously."

McDermott International, Inc. provides engineering, procurement,
construction and installation, front-end engineering and design,
and module fabrication services for upstream field developments.
It operates through three segments: the Americas, Europe and
Africa; the Middle East; and Asia.  The Company was founded in
1923 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


MENTOR USA: Weisberg Sues over Recorded Telephone Conversation
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID WEISBERG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated the Plaintiff, v. MENTOR USA, the Defendant,
Case No. BC702556 (Cal. Super. Ct. Fla., April 18, 2018), seeks
to recover damages, injunctive relief, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions
of the Defendant, its related entities, subsidiaries and agents
in knowingly, and/or willfully employing and/or causing to be
employed certain recording equipment in order to record telephone
conversation/s with Plaintiff without the knowledge or consent of
the Plaintiff, in violation of California Penal Code, thereby
invading Plaintiffs privacy.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's employees and agents
are directed, trained and instructed to, and do, record, the
telephone conversations with the public, including California
residents. The Defendant contacted Plaintiff multiple times to
solicit its student loan repayment services. On or around August
2017, the Defendant called Plaintiff on his cellular telephone to
sell him its loan repayment services. Defendant collected from
Plaintiff significant private, confidential, and sensitive
information pertaining to his identity and student loans. From
the outset, Defendant made a recording of the call and failed to
disclose to Plaintiff that the call was being recorded. At no
time did Plaintiff ever provide actual or constructive consent to
Defendant to record the telephone call. At no point did Plaintiff
have a reasonable expectation that any of the calls with
Defendant were being recorded especially because such private and
sensitive subjects, including but not limited to Plaintiffs
alleged student loans were discussed.

It is Defendant's pattern and practice to record incoming and
outgoing calls made to by California residents. The calls are
about individuals' finances and student loans. Defendants do
not inform, or warn, the California residents, including
Plaintiff, at the outset of the calls that the telephone calls
may be or will be recorded. The Plaintiff was unaware that the
phone calls between himself and Defendant in California were
recorded. There was no pre-call recorded message. The Defendant's
representatives did not inform Plaintiff that the call was being
recorded until after he had stated he may be interested in
Defendant's products.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


MIDWEST SUPPLY: Wells Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MELVINA WELLS, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, the
Plaintiff, v. MIDWEST SUPPLY AND MAINTENANCE COMPANY INC., and
CHARLOTTE CALLAGHAM, a Michigan for-profit company and officer of
said Michigan for-profit company, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-
cv-11105-GAD-SDD (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to
enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying collective action for unpaid wages
      under section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act;

   2. issuing Wells' proposed order;

   3. approving proposed court-supervised notice to the putative
      class members;

   4. appointing The Law Offices of Bryan Yaldou, PLLC, as class
      counsel;

   5. requiring Defendants to identify potential opt-in
      plaintiffs by promptly providing the Plaintiff with an
      updated computer-readable data file containing contact
      information for all potential opt-in plaintiffs within 10
      days;

   6. approving opt-in period of 90 days;

   7. allowing Wells to send notice to similarly situated
      individuals via e-mail in addition to regular mail; and

   8. requiring proposed notice to be posted in Defendants'
      workplaces (away from view of customers but in a common
      place for its employees to view).

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


MORGANS HOTEL: Islam et al. File Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Morgans Hotel Group
Management LLC. The case is captioned as Rejwanul Islam, Nasir
Ahmed, and Imran Hussain, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Morgans Hotel Group
Management LLC, and any other related entities, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-03091-GBD (S.D.N.Y., April 6, 2018). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge George B. Daniels.

Morgans Hotel Group was a global hospitality company acquired by
SBE Entertainment Group in 2016.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW PC
          1 Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873 9550
          Facsimile: (516) 747 5024
          E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com


ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Still Defends Securities Lawsuit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
OneMain Holdings, Inc. still defends itself against a federal
securities class action in New York, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company said, "On February 10, 2017, a putative class action
lawsuit, Galestan v. OneMain Holdings, Inc., et al., was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
naming as defendants the Company and two of its officers.  The
lawsuit alleges violations of the Exchange Act for allegedly
making materially misleading statements and/or omitting material
information concerning alleged integration issues after the
acquisition of OMFH in November 2015, and was filed on behalf of
a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's common stock between February 25, 2016 and November
7, 2016.  The complaint seeks an award of unspecified
compensatory damages, an award of interest, reasonable attorney's
fees, expert fees and other costs, and equitable relief as the
court may deem just and proper."

On March 23, 2017, the court appointed a lead plaintiff for the
putative class and approved the lead plaintiff's selection of
counsel.

OneMain said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that on March 23, 2017, the court
appointed a lead plaintiff for the putative class and approved
the lead plaintiff's selection of counsel. The plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on June 13, 2017, challenging statements
regarding the Company's projections of future financial
performance and certain statements regarding integration after
the OneMain Acquisition.  On September 29, 2017, pursuant to the
Court's Individual Rules and Practices, the company sought
permission to file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

The Company believes that the allegations specified in the
amended complaint are without merit, and intends to vigorously
defend against the claims.  As the lawsuit is in the preliminary
stages, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible
range of loss, if any, that may result from the lawsuit."

OneMain is a provider of responsible personal loan products,
primarily to non-prime customers.


PIZZA BAKER: Certification of Delivery Drivers Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Ronald Clark, On behalf of himself and
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pizza Baker Inc., et
al, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00157-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio),
the Plaintiffs Ronald Clark and opt-in Plaintiffs Dylan
Donaldson, Thomas Ray, Skyler Spray, Ben Brislawn, Preston Hill,
Jacob Ritchey, Joseph Cheeney, Shephelah Loyd, Richard Ward, Russ
Forney, Mariah Trepagnier, and Brittany Marlar move the Court for
an order conditionally certifying this action as a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards and designating Plaintiff
Clark as the representative of a class consisting of:

   "all current and former Domino's delivery drivers who worked
   at any Domino's corporate or franchise location within the
   three years prior to the filing of this Class Action Complaint
   and the date of final judgment in this matter, who drove their
   personal cars to complete deliveries, and who were not
   reimbursed for their actual expenses or at or above the IRS
   standard mileage rate for all miles driven while completing
   deliveries."

This definition excludes any individual who is part of a
certified class or collective action currently pending in any
other court against Domino's.

In connection with this conditional certification, the Plaintiffs
move the Court to order expedited discovery and to authorize
Plaintiffs to send notice of this lawsuit to putative class
members informing them of their rights.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Gm8zK9lD

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the putative class:

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Chris Stock, Esq.
          Andrew Kimble, Esq.
          Phil Krzeski, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: (513) 651 3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665 0219
          E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com
                  cstock@msdlegal.com
                  akimble@msdlegal.com
                  pkrzeski@msdlegal.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Rosenkranz Sues over Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN ROSENKRANZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02081-FB-PK (E.D.N.Y., April 6,
2018), seeks to recover damages and declaratory and injunctive
relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, some time prior to April 8, 2017, an
obligation was allegedly incurred by Plaintiff. The obligation
arose out of a transaction in which money, property, insurance or
services, which are the subject of the transaction, are primarily
for personal, family or household purposes.

The Plaintiff is a "consumer" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section
1692a(3) of the FDCPA. The Defendant is a "debt collector" as
defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(6) of the FDCPA. The Defendant
agreed to and did purchase from Creditor, directly or through an
intermediary, debt accounts. The Defendant purchased Plaintiff's
debt account from Creditor at or around April 8, 2017. In its
effort to collect on the obligation, the Defendant contacted
Plaintiff by written correspondence on April 8, 2017.

Debt collection is the principal purpose of Defendant's business
as reflected by a statement in Defendant's corporate website,
which reads "Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (PRA,
LLC) was founded in 1996 and is one of the nation's largest debt
collectors."

The letter stated, "All future payments and correspondence for
this account, including credit counseling service payments,
should be directed to: Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, PO Box
12914, Norfolk, VA 23541." The Defendant's correspondence further
stated, "Please call TOLL FREE at 1-800-772-1413 to discuss
payment arrangements." On the back, Defendant's correspondence
stated, "DISPUTES CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: PORTFOLIO RECOVERY
ASSOCIATES, LLC, Disputes Department, 140 Corporate Boulevard,
Norfolk, VA 23502 or E-Mail: PRA_Disputes@portfoliorecovery.com."
The Defendant's communication violated the FDCPA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Salim Katach, Esq.
          SIROTKIN VARACALLI & HAMRA, LLP
          110 East 59th Street, Suite 3200
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (646) 590 0571


PTT LLC: Wilson Sues over Online Casino Operation
-------------------------------------------------
SEAN WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PTT, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, d/b/a HIGH 5 GAMES, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-05275-RBL
(W.D. Wash., April 6, 2018), asserts that the Defendant illegally
profited from tens of thousands of consumers by operating its
online casino in violation of Washington law.

The Defendant High 5 Games owns and operates a video game
development company in the so-called "casual games" industry -
that is, computer games designed to appeal to a mass audience of
casual gamers. Defendant owns and operates a host of popular
online slot machine games including, inter alia, High 5 Casino
and High 5 Vegas. The Defendant's online slot machines are
available to play on Android and Apple iOS devices.

The Defendant provides bundle of free "chips" to first-time
visitors of its online casino that can be used to wager on its
games. After consumers inevitably lose their initial allotment of
chips, High 5 Games attempts to sell them additional chips
starting at $4.99 for 192,000 chips. Without chips, consumers
cannot play the gambling game.

Freshly topped off with additional credits, consumers wager to
win more credits. The credits won by consumers playing
Defendant's games of chance are identical to the chips that
Defendant sells. Thus, by wagering 192,000 chips that were
purchased for $4.99, consumers have the chance to win hundreds of
thousands of additional chips that they would otherwise have to
purchase.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Janissa A. Strabuk, Esq.
          Cecily C. Shiel, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101-4416
          Telephone: (206) 682 5600
          Facsimile: (206) 682 2992
          E-mail: jstrabuk@tousley.com
                  cshiel@tousley.com

               - and -

          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1400
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589 6370
          Facsimile: 312 589 6378
          E-mail: brichman@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com


RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Klapper Alleges Securities Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH J. KLAPPER, JR., Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. RIOT BLOCKCHAIN, INC.
F/K/A, BIOPTIX, INC., JOHN O'ROURKE, and JEFFREY G. MCGONEGAL,
the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-08031-FLW-TJB (D.N.J., April 18,
2018), seeks remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a federa1 securities class action on behalf of all
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
publicly traded securities between November 13, 2017, and
February 15, 2018, inclusive.

Riot purports to build and support various blockchain
technologies and invest primarily in the Bitcoin and Ethereum
blockchains. The Company made materially false and/or misleading
statements, misrepresenting, inter alia, its involvement with
blockchain technologies, location, annual shareholder meeting,
and relationships with company insiders.

As the truth was revealed, in stages, the price of Riot stock:
(i) declined from $31.22 per share on December 26, 2017, to close
at $27.23 per share on December 28, 2017 (a drop of approximately
13% over two trading days); (ii) declined from $24.43 per share
on January 5, 2018, to $20.85 per share on January 11, 2018 (a
decline of $3.58 per share, or nearly 15% over four trading
days); and (iii) declined from $17.2 per share on February 16,
2018, to close at $11.46 per share (a decline of $5.74 per share,
or approximately 33%).

Riot Blockchain operates as a digital currency company. The
Company focuses on buying cryptocurrency and blockchain
businesses, as well as supports blockchain technology companies.
Riot Blockchain also maintains its existing biotechnology
business segments.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Joseph J. Klapper, Jr.:

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


ROBERT HALF: Fails to Pay Overtime & Minimum Wages, Dorff Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHARI DORFF; individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated and on behalf of other
aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys
General Act, the Plaintiff, v. ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL, INC.;
and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
BC701329 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 6, 2018), alleges that the
Defendant employed Plaintiff as a salaried finance and accounting
recruiter, and misclassified her as exempt from approximately
September 2, 2014, to approximately September 28, 2017, in the
State of California, County of Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, and
Ventura.

The Plaintiff was assigned to work out of Defendant's Westlake
Village, CA office, on an annual base salary of $55,000.00 with a
permanent placement total rewards compensation plan that entitled
Plaintiff to non-discretionary bonuses and commissions in
addition to her base salary. These non-discretionary bonuses were
not included by Defendant for purposes of calculating Plaintiffs
regular rate of pay. The Plaintiffs role as a recruiter involved
selling candidates to employers in need of hiring new employees.
Defendant was required to comply with all applicable wage laws
with respect to Plaintiffs employment. After approximately two
years of working out of the Westlake Village office and
generating substantial business in the Santa Barbara area,
Defendant told Plaintiff she was no longer able to work out of
the Westlake Village office. Despite the fact that over
95% of Plaintiffs work was done on the phone, that Plaintiff
resided in Thousand Oaks, and that Plaintiff was assigned to the
Westlake Village office when offered the job. Defendant forced
Plaintiff to travel and work out of Defendant's Santa Barbara and
Oxnard locations.

The Plaintiff alleges that this was one of many steps taken
to unfairly deny wages to Plaintiff causing her to forfeit
earnings and to take Plaintiffs credit and income generation for
others, and to deny Plaintiff the business and income
opportunities she had built up.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan I. Schimmel, Esq.
          Michael W. Parks, Esq.
          Arya Rhodes, Esq.
          SCHIMMEL & PARKS, APLC
          15303 Ventura Blvd., Suite 650
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 464 5061
          Facsimile: (818) 464 5091


ROHRER CORPORATION: "Cameron" Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Brent Cameron, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Rohrer Corporation and ShoreView Industries, LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 2018-CH-02900, was removed from the Circuit Court of
Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois (Chicago) on April 6, 2018. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-02482 to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Manish S. Shah.

Rohrer is an innovative consumer packaging provider, with visual
packaging options such as blister cards, club store packaging,
cartons, clamshells, and many more retail packaging
solutions.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Ryan F Stephan, Esq.
          Haley Renee Jenkins, Esq.
          STEPHAN, ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233 1550
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  hjenkins@stephanzouras.com

Attorneys for Rohrer Corporation and ShoreView Industries, LLC:

          J. Michael Williams, Esq.
          COHON RAIZES & REGAL LLP
          208 S. LaSalle No. 1440
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 726 2252
          E-mail: mwilliams@cohonraizes.com


RUBIO'S RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Sandoval Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND SANDOVAL, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. RUBIO'S RESTAURANT, INC., and DOES
1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 18CECG01203 (Cal.
Super. Ct. Fla., April 6, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay
and minimum wage under California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Rubio's has intentionally and
regularly employed Sandoval and similarly situated current and
former non-exempt employees in California for a work period of
more than five hours per day without providing them with a meal
period of not less than 30 minutes. Rubio's has not paid these
individuals one additional hour of pay at his or her regular rate
of compensation for each workday that the meal period was not
provided in accordance with California law. Within the relevant
time period, including within the past year, and in accordance to
a uniform, statewide policy, Rubio's intentionally and regularly
failed to provide 10 minute rest breaks to Sandoval and similarly
situated current and former non-exempt employees in California
for every 4 hours they worked. Rubio's has not paid these
individuals one additional hour of pay at his or her regular rate
of compensation for each workday that a rest period was not
provided in accordance with California law. Rubio's intentionally
and regularly failed to pay all overtime wages to Sandoval and
similarly situated current and former non-exempt employees in
California.

Rubio's Restaurants, Inc. owns and operates a chain of Mexican
restaurants in the United States. Its restaurants offer coastal
cuisine, including grilled marinated chicken and steak, salads,
handmade guacamole, pinto beans, blackened and grilled tilapia
tacos, shrimp and wild salmon, and various sauces.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas J. Scardigli, Esq.
          William J. Gorhamhi, Esq.
          Robert J. Wasskrman, Esq.
          Vladimir J. Kozina, Esq.
          MAYALL HURLEY, P.C.
          2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
          Stockton, CA 95207
          Telephone: (209) 477 3833
          Facsimile: (209) 473 4818


SABINE PASS: Class Action Suit over ITE Contract Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC remains a defendant in a class
action filed by JMCB, LLC, related to an Industrial Tax Exemption
(ITE) contract, according to Sabine Pass Liquefaction's Form 10-K
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company said, "We have utilized the ITE program, which is
available for a "new" manufacturing establishment or an
"addition" to an existing manufacturing establishment.  We have
entered into a total of nine ITE contracts, which exempt from ad
valorem property taxes all of our assets when placed in service.

"On October 12, 2016, a lawsuit was filed by JMCB, LLC ("JMCB")
against us, the Louisiana Department of Economic Development
("LED") and the Louisiana Board of Commerce and Industry ("BCI")
(the "Pending Matter").  In the Pending Matter, JMCB contends
that one of our ITE contracts should be declared an improper and
unauthorized act of BCI.  JMCB asks the court to declare the
contract null and void and without legal effect.  JMCB's petition
is filed as a class action that seeks declaratory relief for all
similarly situated taxpayers in Cameron Parish and for the
governmental agencies that would have received the ad valorem
property taxes, but for the ITE contract.

"We believe that the likelihood that the resolution of the
Pending Matter will have a material adverse effect on our
business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash
flow, liquidity or prospects is remote.  If we do not prevail in
the Pending Matter, the loss of such tax exemption could have a
material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial
condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and
prospects."

Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC owns, develops, and operates
natural gas liquefaction facilities in Cameron Parish, Louisiana.
It plans to construct six trains, which are in various stages of
development, construction, and operations.  The Company was
founded in 2010 and is based in Houston, Texas.  Sabine Pass
Liquefaction, LLC is a subsidiary of Cheniere Energy Investments,
LLC.


SALVATION ARMY: "Adams" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
STARKISHA ADAMS, KRYSTAL JOHNSON, MICHELLE LAFORET, and JEROME
GRIFFITHS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SALVATION ARMY OF THE UNITED
STATES, the Defendant, Case No. 153466/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April
17, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated nonexempt hourly paid sales associates
employed by the Defendant in the State of New York at any time
during the period commencing six years prior to the filing of
this action and continuing until such further date as the
practices complained of are discontinued.

According to the lawsuit, the Defendant by virtue of its
management and control over the wages and work of its Associates
is classified as an "employer" under New York Labor Law. The
Defendant has engaged and continues to engage in illegal and
improper wage practices. These practices include: (a) requiring
Associates to perform work without compensation before the start
of their scheduled shift; (b) requiring Associates to perform
work without compensation after the end of their scheduled shift;
(c) failing to pay Associates at their straight or agreed upon
rate for all hours worked under 40 hours in a week; and (d)
failing to provide accurate wages statements.

The Salvation Army is the second largest charity in the United
States, with private donations of almost $2 billion for the
fiscal year ending 30 September 2007.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
          1613 Northern Boulevard
          Roslyn, NY 11576
          Telephone: (516) 625 0105


SANDERSON FARMS: Faces New Complaints in Broiler Chicken Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc.'s subsidiaries are facing amended
complaints, which were filed in February 2018, in the
consolidated class action lawsuits related to the prices of
broiler chickens, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended January 31, 2018.

Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, Sanderson Farms,
Inc. and the Company's subsidiaries were named as defendants,
along with 13 other poultry producers and certain of their
affiliated companies, in multiple putative class action lawsuits
filed by direct and indirect purchasers of broiler chickens in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.  The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to
unlawfully fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of
broiler chickens, thereby violating federal and certain states'
antitrust laws, and also allege certain related state-law claims.
The complaints also allege that the defendants fraudulently
concealed the alleged anticompetitive conduct in furtherance of
the conspiracy.  The complaints seek damages, including treble
damages for the antitrust claims, injunctive relief, costs and
attorneys' fees.  The court has consolidated all of the direct
purchaser complaints into one case, and the indirect purchaser
complaints into two cases, one on behalf of commercial and
institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs and one on behalf of
end-user consumer plaintiffs.

On October 28, 2016, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed consolidated, amended complaints, and on November 23, 2016,
the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed second amended
complaints.  On December 16, 2016, the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs separated into two cases.  On that date, the
commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed
a third amended complaint, and the end-user consumer plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint.  On January 27, 2017, the defendants
filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints in all of the
cases, and on November 20, 2017, the motions to dismiss were
denied.

On February 7, 2018, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed their
third amended complaint, adding three additional poultry
producers as defendants.  On February 12, 2018, the end-user
consumer plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, in
which they also added three additional poultry producers as
defendants, along with Agri Stats.  On February 15, 2018, the
commercial indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion for leave
to file their fourth amended complaint.  The Company is awaiting
a ruling on that motion.

The Company said, "The lawsuits will now move into discovery, and
we intend to continue to defend them vigorously; however, the
Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions.  If the
plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for
damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our
financial position and results of operations."

The Company further disclosed that between December 8, 2017 and
January 30, 2018, additional purported direct purchaser entities
individually brought four separate suits against 16 poultry
producers, including Sanderson Farms, and Agri Stats in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.  These suits allege substantially similar claims to the
direct purchaser class complaint and are now pending in front of
the same judge.

"They are likely to move into discovery on the same or similar
timeline as the putative class action lawsuits.  It is possible
additional individual actions may be filed," the Company said.

Sanderson Farms is the third largest poultry producer in the
United States and produces 9.375 million chickens per week. It is
the only Fortune 1000 company headquartered in Mississippi.


SANDERSON FARMS: Appeal from Nixed N.Y. Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a dismissed securities class action lawsuit in New
York against Sanderson Farms, Inc., among other defendants,
remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended January 31, 2018.

Sanderson Farms, Inc.; Joe F. Sanderson, Jr., the Chairman of the
Registrant's Board of Directors and its Chief Executive Officer;
and D. Michael Cockrell, director and Chief Financial Officer,
were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed
on October 28, 2016, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On March 30, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
adding Lampkin Butts, director, Chief Operating Officer, and
President, as a defendant, and on June 15, 2017, the lead
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made statements in the
Company's SEC filings and press releases, and other public
statements, that were materially false and misleading in light of
the Company's alleged, undisclosed violation of the federal
antitrust laws.  The complaint also alleges that the material
misstatements were made in order to, among other things,
"artificially inflate and maintain the market price of Sanderson
Farms securities." The complaint alleges the defendants thereby
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), including Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and, for the individual
defendants, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and seeks damages,
interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

On January 19, 2018, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and entered judgment for the defendants.  On January 31,
2018, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Company said, "The Company cannot predict the outcome of this
action or the appeal.  If the plaintiffs were to prevail in the
action, the Company could be liable for damages, which could have
a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results
of operations."

Sanderson Farms is the third largest poultry producer in the
United States and produces 9.375 million chickens per week. It is
the only Fortune 1000 company headquartered in Mississippi.


SANDERSON FARMS: Plaintiffs in Oklahoma Suit to File New Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended January 31, 2018, that on February 2, 2018, the plaintiffs
in a consolidated class action in Oklahoma filed a letter with
the Court stating their intention to file a substantially similar
complaint against Sanderson Farms in a judicial district in which
both personal jurisdiction and venue would be proper.

The Company said, "On January 27, 2017, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and
our subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with four other
poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies, in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.  On March 27, 2017,
Sanderson Farms, Inc. and our subsidiaries were named as
defendants, along with four other poultry producers and certain
of their affiliated companies, in a second putative class action
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Oklahoma.

"The court ordered the suits consolidated into one proceeding,
and on July 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.  The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the
defendants unlawfully conspired by sharing data on compensation
paid to broiler farmers, with the purpose and effect of
suppressing the farmers' compensation below competitive levels.
The consolidated amended complaint also alleges that the
defendants unlawfully conspired to not solicit or hire the
broiler farmers who were providing services to other defendants.
The consolidated amended complaint seeks treble damages, costs
and attorneys' fees.

"On September 8, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint, on October 23, 2017, the plaintiffs filed
their response, and on November 22, 2017, the defendants filed a
reply.  On January 19, 2018, the Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

"On February 2, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a letter with the
Court stating their intention to file a substantially similar
complaint against Sanderson Farms in a judicial district in which
both personal jurisdiction and venue would be proper.

"Should the plaintiffs file another complaint, we intend to
defend it vigorously; however, the Company cannot predict the
outcome of this action.  If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the
Company could be liable for damages, which could have a material,
adverse effect on our financial position and results of
operations."

Sanderson Farms is the third largest poultry producer in the
United States and produces 9.375 million chickens per week. It is
the only Fortune 1000 company headquartered in Mississippi.


SAS SERVICES: Fails to Repay Expenses, Harris & Melendez Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY HARRIS and CHRISTIAN MELENDEZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SAS SERVICES
GROUP, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC702655 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
April 17, 2018), seeks to recover penalties and/or damages
resulting from Defendant's violations of the California Labor
Code.  The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant failed to provide
off-duty meal periods and rest periods, complete and accurate
wage statements, and reimbursement of business expenses to the
Plaintiffs and the Class.

SAS Services provides consulting, training and resources.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
          Nick Rosenthal, Esq.
          Mai Tulyathan, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488 6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488 6554


SEDGWICK, KS: Ridley Seeks to Certify Hindu Students Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ANTHONY EARL RIDLEY, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF SEDGWICK, ET AL., the
Defendants, Case No. 18-3097-SAC (D. Kan.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court for an order determining that the action may be
maintain as class action on behalf of the following class:

   "Religious Student Association of Hindu Vaishnava Brahmacari
   since July 2017 have been, who are currently or who will be
   designated Plaintiff by e-mail or by first class mail".

The Class includes more than 2 Religious Student Association of
Hindu Vaishnava Brahmacari housed in Sedgwick County Detention
Facility Units and an undetermined number of past and future
residents.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9jjMh8Er

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SERVIS ONE: "Rivera" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ALEXI RIVERA and YERIKA M. RIVERA,
individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SERVIS ONE, INC., a foreign
corporation, doing business as BSI FINANCIAL SERVICES, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00722-BJD-JBT (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify classes pursuant to the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act (FCCPA), and the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).

The proposed FCCPA Class is defined as:

   "all persons within the state of Florida who, within the two
   years prior to the filing of the initial Complaint in this
   action through the date that Notice issues to the Class:(a)
   had a residential mortgage loan serviced by BSI after default;
   (b) received a Chapter 7 discharge of the mortgage debt
   serviced by BSI; and (c) were subsequently sent a Mortgage
   Statement which referenced payments due on the previously
   discharged mortgage debt".

The FCCPA Class encompasses two years, because the statute of
limitations for the FCCPA is two years. An FDCPA subclass of
class members falling within the above definition who received
statements within one year prior to the filing of the Complaint
is also appropriate since the limitations period for a FDCPA
claim is only one year.

The Plaintiffs also propose a "TCPA Class" defined as:

   "all persons in the United States who, within the four years
   prior to the filing of the initial Complaint in this matter
   through the date that Notice issues to the class,: (a) had a
   residential mortgage loan serviced by BSI while in default;
   (b) received a Chapter 7 discharge of the mortgage debt
   serviced by BSI; and (c) to whom Defendant,, subsequent to the
   discharge order, placed a non-emergency telephone call to
   their cellular telephone number using an automatic telephone
   dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice.

The TCPA class is temporally limited to four years and can
ascertained by examining the internal call records and customer
servicing notes of BSI.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          Lady Lake, FL 32158
          VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
          Telephone: (352) 753 8600
          Facsimile: (352) 504 3301
          E-mail: jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com
                  bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
                  kstroly@varnellandwarwick.com

               - and -

          Max Story, Esq.
          MAX STORY, P.A.
          328 2nd Avenue North, Suite 100
          Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
          Telephone: (904) 372 4109
          Facsimile: (904) 758 5333
          E-mail: max@maxstorylaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          S. Douglas Knox
          Zachary S. Foster
          J. Kirby McDonough
          QUARLES & BRADY LLP
          101 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 3400
          Tampa, FL 33602
          E-mail: douglas.knox@quarles.com
                  zachary.foster@quarles.com
                  kirby.mcdonough@quarles.com
                  littledawn.crazyriver@quarles.com
                  donna.santoro@quarles.com


SMALL PLANET: "Peacock" Suit Moved to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Brendan Peacock, an individual,
on behalf of himself, the general public and those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Small Planet Foods, Inc., the
Defendant and General Mills, Inc., Case No. 18895553, was removed
from the Superior Court of California County of Alameda, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on April 6, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:18-cv-02105-WHA to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge William Alsup.

Small Planet grows, markets, and distributes organic fruits and
tomatoes. The company offers blueberries, strawberries,
raspberries, hardy kiwis, peppers, corn, and pumpkins.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Adam Gutride, Esq.
          Marie Ann McCrary, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 271 6469
          Facsimile: (415) 449 6469
          E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
                  adam@gutridesafier.com
                  marie@gutridesafier.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

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


SOCAL RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Sanchez Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA SANCHEZ, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SOCAL RESTAURANTS LLC, a California
limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC702610 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 17, 2018),
alleges that Defendants failed to pay all wages at the applicable
minimum wage and/or 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; failed to provide accurate wage
statements; and failed to timely pay employee all earned and
unpaid wages due upon separation of employment.

According to complaint, the Defendants maintained a policy,
practice, and/or procedure whereby it auto-deducted time for
employees' meal periods, even if a meal period was not taken
(potentially other times of time deduction such as rounding
and/or time shaving were also employed), which reduced the daily
hours worked by the Plaintiff and others similarly situated. The
Plaintiff and others similarly situated were not paid for this
time. This resulted in time during each workday which Plaintiff
and similarly situated employees were under control of Defendants
but were not compensated.[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: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  arosenkranz@lelawfirm.com


SOUTHERN CO: Securities Class Suit by Monroe County ERS Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Southern Company still defends itself against a purported
class action lawsuit initiated by the Monroe County Employees'
Retirement System, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017.

On January 20, 2017, a purported securities class action
complaint was filed against Southern Company, certain of its
officers, and certain former Mississippi Power officers in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division, by Monroe County Employees' Retirement System on behalf
of all persons who purchased shares of Southern Company's common
stock between April 25, 2012 and October 29, 2013.  The complaint
alleges that Southern Company, certain of its officers, and
certain former Mississippi Power officers made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Kemper County energy
facility in violation of certain provisions under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  The complaint seeks, among
other things, compensatory damages and litigation costs and
attorneys' fees.

On June 12, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
provided additional detail about their claims, increased the
purported class period by one day, and added certain other former
Mississippi Power officers as defendants.  On July 27, 2017, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended
complaint with prejudice, to which the plaintiffs filed an
opposition on September 11, 2017.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report
related to this matter.

Southern Company was incorporated under the laws of Delaware on
November 9, 1945. Southern Company is registered and qualified to
do business under the laws of Georgia and is qualified to do
business as a foreign corporation under the laws of Alabama.
Southern Company owns all of the outstanding common stock of
Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power, and Mississippi Power,
each of which is an operating public utility company. The
traditional electric operating companies supply electric service
in the states of Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Mississippi.
Southern Company owns all of the common stock of Southern Power
Company, which is also an operating public utility company.
Southern Power constructs, acquires, owns, and manages generation
assets, including renewable energy projects, and sells
electricity at market-based rates in the wholesale market.


SOUTHERN CO: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Pending
----------------------------------------------------
The Southern Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that a decision from the Georgia Supreme Court
is "expected in late 2018" regarding its request for writ of
certiorari.

In 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against the
Company in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, alleging
that the Company's collection in rates of municipal franchise
fees (all of which are remitted to municipalities) exceeded the
amounts allowed in orders of the Georgia PSC and alleging certain
state tort law claims.  In November 2016, the Georgia Court of
Appeals reversed the trial court's previous dismissal of the case
and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
The Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the
Georgia Supreme Court, which was granted on August 28, 2017.  A
decision from the Georgia Supreme Court is expected in late 2018.

The Southern Company said, "The Company believes the plaintiffs'
claims have no merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in
this matter.  The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be
determined at this time."

The Southern Company was incorporated under the laws of Delaware
on November 9, 1945. Southern Company is registered and qualified
to do business under the laws of Georgia and is qualified to do
business as a foreign corporation under the laws of Alabama.
Southern Company owns all of the outstanding common stock of
Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power, and Mississippi Power,
each of which is an operating public utility company. The
traditional electric operating companies supply electric service
in the states of Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Mississippi.
Southern Company owns all of the common stock of Southern Power
Company, which is also an operating public utility company.
Southern Power constructs, acquires, owns, and manages generation
assets, including renewable energy projects, and sells
electricity at market-based rates in the wholesale market.


STATE FARM: "Schwartz" Suit Moved to District of New Mexico
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Dana Schwartz, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, the Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-01264, was removed from the Second Judicial
District Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Mexico - (Albuquerque) on April 6, 2018. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-00328-KBM-SCY to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Magistrate Judge Karen B.
Molzen.

State Farm is a large group of insurance and financial services
companies throughout the United States with corporate
headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul M Dominguez, Esq.
          THE DOMINGUEZ LAW FIRM, LLC
          PO Box 10865
          Albuquerque, NM 87184
          Telephone: (505) 850 5854
          Facsimile: (505) 796 5107
          E-mail: paul@dominguez.law

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Terry R. Guebert, Esq.
          Elizabeth M. Piazza, Esq.
          GUEBERT BRUCKNER P.C.
          P.O. Box 93880
          Albuquerque, NM 87199-3880
          Telephone: (505) 823 2300
          Facsimile: (505) 823 9600
          E-mail: tguebert@guebertlaw.com
                  epiazza@guebertlaw.com


STERN & EISENBERG: Faces "Harris" Suit in W.D. North Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stern & Eisenberg
PC. The case is captioned as Scottie Harris, On behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Stern &
Eisenberg PC; Stern & Eisenberg Southern PC; and John Does
1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00171-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.,
April 6, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge
Robert J. Conrad, Jr.

Stern & Eisenberg PC is a firm serving Warrington in general
practice, real estate and wills cases.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig Matthew Shapiro, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOHN T. ORCUTT, P.C.
          1738 Hillandale Rd Ste D
          Durham, NC 27705
          Telephone: (919) 286 1695
          E-mail: cshapiro@johnorcutt.com


STURM RUGER: Bid to Dismiss Putative Class Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a putative class
representative's claims against the Company remains pending,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

The Company said, "David S. Palmer, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated vs. Sturm, Ruger & Co. is a putative
class-action suit filed in Florida state court on October 17,
2017 on behalf of Florida consumers. The suit alleges breach of
warranty and deceptive trade practices related to the sale of
10/22 Target Rifles. The Company filed an Answer denying all
material allegations and a Motion to Strike the putative class
representative's claims. That motion remains pending."

Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells
firearms under the Ruger name and trademark in the United States.
It operates in two segments, Firearms and Castings.  The Company
was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in Southport,
Connecticut.


SUEZ WATER: Fails to Pay Wages & Benefits, Rivera Says
------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SUEZ WATER ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC., SUEZ WATER LONG ISLAND, INC. SUEZ WATER
WESTCHESTER, INC., SUEZ WATER, NEW YORK, INC., SUEZ WATER SOUTH
COUNTY, INC., SUEZ WATER OWEGO-NICHOLS, INC. and/or any other
entities affiliated with or controlled by Defendants, the
Defendants, Case No. 605034/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 17, 2018),
seeks to recover wages and benefits which Plaintiff and members
of the putative class were contractually entitled to receive for
work performed on various public sewage treatment plants in New
York, including but not limited to, the Bay Park Sewage Treatment
Plant and the Cedar Creek Sewage Treatment Plant.

Suez Environmental entered into contracts with government
entities, such as the County of Nassau, to perform construction,
maintenance or repair work at the sites of the Public Works
Projects during the relevant period (November 2011). The
Plaintiff and other members of the putative class performed
construction, maintenance and repairs in trades, such as,
steamfitter and electrician, on the Public Works Projects in
furtherance of the Public Works Contracts. On information and
belief, a schedule of prevailing rates of wages and supplemental
benefits to be paid was annexed to, and was made a part of each
of the Public Works Contracts. The promise to pay and ensure
payment of the prevailing wage and supplemental benefit rates in
the Public Works Contracts was made for the benefit of all
workers furnishing labor on the sites of the Public Works
Projects and, as such, the workers furnishing labor on the sites
of the Public Works Projects are the beneficiaries of that
promise. Suez Environmental paid Plaintiff and the other members
of the putative class less than the prevailing rates of wages and
supplemental benefits to which plaintiff and the other members of
the putative class were entitled.

Suez Environmental maintained a policy and practice of paying
Plaintiff and members of the putative class for 7 hours for
construction, repair, or maintenance work and one hour at a
"paperwork" rate. Regardless of how many hours Plaintiff and
members of the putative class actually spent doing paperwork,
they were instructed to record on their timesheets that they
performed one hour of paperwork. The Plaintiff and members of the
putative class normally spent more than 7 hours each day
performing construction, repair, or maintenance work on the
Public Works Projects.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Putative Class:

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

               - and -

          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Sean O'Hara, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, New York 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873 9550
          E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Barry I. Levy, Esq.
          John Diviney, Esq.
          RIVKIN RADLER, LLP
          926 RXR Plaza
          Uniondale, NY 11556


SUMMIT RETAIL: Underpays Brand Representatives, Modeski Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH MODESKI 4058 Saint Augustine Lane Baltimore, Maryland
21222 Resident of Baltimore City; GIOVANNI ZAMMITO 7518 189th
Street Flushing, New York 11366 Resident of New York City; and
NATHAN DAMBOISE 589 East Market Street Marietta, Pennsylvania
17547 Resident of Lancaster County, Individually and on Behalf of
All Similarly Situated Employees, the Plaintiffs, v. SUMMIT
RETAIL SOLUTIONS, INC. 227 Union Street New Bedford,
Massachusetts 02740 Serve: Allstate Corporate Services Corp., 9
E. Loockerman Street, Suite 311 Dover, Delaware 19901, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01099-GLR (D. Md., April 17, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the
Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act, and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendant provides marketing services for various products.
These products range from cleaning supplies to high end
cosmetics, as well as toys, electronics and perishable food
items. The Defendant markets these products on behalf of its
clients. Defendant's client base is extensive. The Defendant
maintains relationships with wholesale clubs, department stores,
grocery stores and discount markets.  The Defendant develops
marketing strategies for the various products sold at these
establishments.

The Defendant employs individuals to assist with marketing these
products. These individuals hold the title of Brand
Representative or Senior Brand Representative. Brand
Representatives are assigned to the stores of the Defendant's
clients. They are primarily responsible for promoting products at
these stores.

The lawsuit contends that the Defendant's payment structure was
not a bona fide commission system. Instead, the Defendant
designed a system that would cause its employees to strive to
meet unattainable sales goals. This system was nothing more than
a scheme that compelled Brand Representatives to underreport
their hours. Due to having to underreport their hours, Plaintiffs
and other Brand Representatives were not paid for many hours of
work. In turn, they failed to receive overtime wages for all
hours worked over 40 in a week. Defendant evaded the payment of
wages owed to Plaintiffs and other Brand Representatives. These
conflicts with the standards set forth by the FLSA and numerous
state wage laws. Defendant is currently engaged in this unlawful
activity. Hundreds of Brand Representatives continue to be
cheated.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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


SWN PRODUCTION: Violates Oil and Gas Lease Agreement, McCord Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN E. McCORD and BECKY McCORD, and all other persons and
entities similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SWN PRODUCTION
COMPANY and STATOIL USA ONSHORE PROPERTIES, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 5:18-cv-00053-FPS (N.D.W.Va., April 17, 2018), seeks to
recover compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs expended in this
action, any other specific and/or general relief as may become
apparent as this matter progresses and such other relief as this
Court deems proper.

The Plaintiffs executed an oil and gas lease agreement with
Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC on or about January 14, 2009. The
Defendants, by and through their predecessors, subsidiaries
and/or partners, acquired the leases of the Plaintiffs in West
Virginia and have, upon information and belief, obtained most or
all of Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC's lease interest in West
Virginia.

The Defendants have engaged in oil and gas production efforts
under authority of the subject agreements and have deducted post-
production costs from royalty checks due and payable to John E.
McCord and Becky McCord and other similarly situated persons
and/or entities.

The Defendants owed duties and had responsibilities to comply
with the lease terms and conditions The subject leases lack any
specific method of calculating the amount of alleged post-
production costs to be deducted directly from the Lessor's share
of production and, at best, create ambiguity in the language of
the lease agreement itself. Further confusion is found in the
language purporting to allow the defendants to deduct "reasonable
depreciation and amortization expenses relating to [its own
pipelines and/or equipment], together with Lessee's cost of
capital and a reasonable return on its investment in such
facilities."

There is no proof that any of the actual costs deducted by the
operators have actually been incurred or that they are reasonable
in any way. The burden is on the lessees to prove, by evidence of
the type normally developed in legal proceedings requiring an
accounting, that the lessees actually incurred such costs and
that they were reasonable.

The Defendants SWN and StatOil had the responsibility to pay John
E. McCord and Becky McCord and all other similarly situated
persons and/or entities all moneys exactly due and owing to them
under and pursuant to the leases above. The Defendants SWN and
StatOil were responsible to account for the oil and/or gas which
was removed from John E. McCord and Becky McCord and all other
similarly situated persons' and/or entities' mineral interest and
to pay them all money exactly due them.

The Defendants were responsible to not withhold moneys from the
royalties due to John E. McCord and Becky McCord and all other
similarly situated persons and/or entities.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          James G. Bordas, Jr., Esq.
          Christopher J. Regan, Esq.
          Jeremy M. Mcgraw, Esq.
          Jake R. Stout, Esq.
          BORDAS & BORDAS, PLLC
          1358 National Road
          Wheeling, WV 26003
          Telephone: (304) 242 8410


TECHNICOLOR USA: "Sharp" Suit Moved to Middle Dist. of Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Robert Sharp, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Technicolor USA, Inc. and Prologistics, LLC., the
Defendants, Case No. 18C661, was removed from the Circuit Court
of Davidson County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee (Nashville) on April 18, 2018. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00379 to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Aleta A. Trauger.

Technicolor USA, Inc. provides production, postproduction, and
distribution services to content creators, network service
providers, and broadcasters worldwide. The company offers film
processing, visual effects, and animation services; manufactures
and distributes DVDs, including Blu-ray discs; and supplies set-
top boxes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian C. Winfrey, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN (NASHVILLE OFFICE)
          810 Broadway, Suite 105
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 601 1276
          Facsimile: (615) 473 3243
          E-mail: bwinfrey@forthepeople.com

Attorneys for Technicolor USA, Inc.:

          Craig A. Cowart, Esq.
          Pamela R. Irons, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS LLP (MEMPHIS OFFICE)
          999 Shady Grove Road, Suite 110
          Memphis, TN 38120
          Telephone: (901) 462 2600
          Facsimile: (901) 462 2626
          E-mail: craig.cowart@jacksonlewis.com
                  ironsp@jacksonlewis.com


TELEFONICA BRAZIL: Two Suits over Pension Plan Spin-Off Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Telefonica Brazil S.A. continues to defend two class actions
related to a pension benefit plan spin-off, according to the
Company's Form 20-F filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company said, "Two associations -- Sistel Participants
Association in Sao Paulo (ASTEL) and National Federation of
Associations of Retirees and Pensioners and Participants in
Pension Funds in Telecom (FENAPAS) -- filed distinct class
actions, with the same object, against the Company, seeking the
annulment of the spin-off of the PBS pension benefit plan, that
occurred in 2000, and created the specific TELESP-PBS pension
benefit plan, and corresponding allocation of resources resulted
from the technical surplus and fiscal contingencies existing at
that time.

"The success rate in both of the claims is deemed possible based
on the opinion of our legal advisors.  The amount involved in
both cases cannot yet be determined until an expert appraisal
report is conducted since it includes the spun-off portion of
Sistel related to the telecommunication operators from the former
Telebras System.

"With respect to the class action filed by ASTEL, the action was
ruled in favor of the Company by the lower court.  ASTEL filed an
appeal, which is awaiting a ruling.

"With respect to the class action filed by FENAPAS, both the
lower and superior courts ruled against the Company.  A new
appeal of the Company to Superior Court is awaiting a ruling."


TELEFONICA BRAZIL: Appeal in "SISTEL" Class Action Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Telefonica Brazil S.A. disclosed in its Form 20-F filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the class action filed by SISTEL
Participants' Association (ASTEL) in the state of Sao Paulo is
"in the appeal phase."

In the lawsuit, SISTEL associates question the changes made in
the HealthCare Plan for Retired Employees (PAMA) of the
Association and seek the reestablishment of the status quo.

The Company said, "The amount cannot be estimated in that it
entails a return to the prior conditions."


THERAPEUTICSMD INC: Class Complaints Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
TherapeuticsMD, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that the class action complaints filed
against the company have been voluntarily dismissed.

On April 17, 2017, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the company company and certain of its officers and
directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (Case No. 9:17-cv-80473-RLR) that purported to state a
claim for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on
statements made by the defendants concerning the NDA for TX-
004HR.

The complaint sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and other costs. On July 18, 2017, the complaint was
voluntarily dismissed by the lead plaintiff without prejudice.

The company and certain of its officers and directors are also
subject to two shareholder derivative lawsuits regarding the NDA
for TX-004HR, one filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on May 30, 2017 (Case No. 9:17-cv-
80686-RLR) and one filed in Florida state court in Palm Beach
County on June 5, 2017 (Case No. 502017CA006289XXXXMB). These
complaints were both voluntarily dismissed by the lead plaintiffs
without prejudice on August 14, 2017.

TherapeuticsMD, Inc. is a women's health care company focused on
creating and commercializing products targeted exclusively for
women. Currently, the company is focused on pursuing the
regulatory approvals and pre-commercialization activities
necessary for commercialization of its advanced hormone therapy
pharmaceutical products. The company is based in Boca Raton,
Florida.


TRANSPORT EXPRESS: Misclassifies Drivers, Munoz Claims
------------------------------------------------------
BALDOMERO SOLARES MUNOZ, an individual; on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TRANSPORT
EXPRESS, INC. dba Port Logistics Group; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC702520 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
April 18, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent all current or former California
drivers for Defendants who were misclassified as "independent
contractors" in connection with these wage and hour violations.

The Defendants employed Plaintiff and Class members as drivers to
perform trucking services in California. The Defendants paid
Plaintiff and Class members on a piece rate, per-load basis. The
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class minimum wages or
all time worked, failed to compensate for rest breaks, failed to
reimburse business expenses, failed to pay all wages on
separation, and engaged in other labor code violations and unfair
business practices.[BN]

Transport Express is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business from Dodge
City, Kansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNION BANK: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & Overtime, Cleveland Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DONTA CLEVELAND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNION BANK, N.A., a
California corporation; MUFG UNION BANK, N.A., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. BC702642 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 18, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid compensation arising from Defendants' failure to
provide employees meal and rest periods (or compensation
therefor) as required under California law, unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid minimum wages, waiting time penalties, wage
statement statutory damages, and unreimbursed business expenses.

The Plaintiff and Class Members were employed by Defendants under
employment agreements that were partly written, partly oral, and
partly implied. In perpetrating the acts and omissions alleged
herein, Defendants, and each of them, acted pursuant to, and in
furtherance of, their policies and practices of not paying the
Plaintiff and Class Members all wages earned and due, through
methods and schemes which include, but are not limited to,
failing to pay overtime premiums; failing to provide rest periods
and meal periods; failing to properly maintain records; failing
to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failing to properly
reimburse Plaintiff and Class Members for necessary business
expenditures; and requiring, suffering or permitting PLAINIFFS
and Class Members to work off the clock, in violation of the
California Labor Code and the applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission Order.

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]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Andrew J. Sokolowski, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531 1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531 1901


UNITED PARCEL: Appeal on Decertified Class Status Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that in the case, Morgate v. The UPS
Store, Inc. et al., proceedings in the trial court are stayed
pending resolution by the California Court of Appeal.

The Company said, "UPS and our subsidiary The UPS Store, Inc. are
defendants in Morgate v. The UPS Store, Inc., et al., an action
in the Los Angeles Superior Court brought on behalf of a
certified class of all franchisees who chose to rebrand their
Mail Boxes Etc. franchises to The UPS Store in March 2003.
Plaintiff alleges that UPS and The UPS Store, Inc. misrepresented
and omitted facts to the class about the market tests that were
conducted before offering the class the choice of whether to
rebrand to The UPS Store.

"Defendants' motion to decertify the class was granted in August
2017.  The plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal, and further
proceedings in the trial court are stayed pending resolution by
the California Court of Appeal.

"There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to
estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from the
remaining aspects of this case, including: (1) we are vigorously
defending ourselves and believe we have a number of meritorious
legal defenses; (2) it remains uncertain what evidence of
damages, if any, plaintiffs will be able to present; and (3)
plaintiff's notice of appeal is pending.

"Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a
possible loss or range of loss that may result from this matter
or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations
or liquidity."


UNITED PARCEL: Settlement for Wright and Zislin Lawsuit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that final resolution of the case Ryan
Wright and Julia Zislin v. United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. is
"subject to the negotiation, execution and delivery of a
settlement agreement and court approval."

The Company said, "We are a defendant in Ryan Wright and Julia
Zislin v. United Parcel Service Canada Ltd., an action brought on
behalf of a certified class of customers in the Superior Court of
Justice in Ontario, Canada.  Plaintiffs filed suit in February
2007, alleging inadequate disclosure concerning the existence and
cost of brokerage services provided by us under applicable
provincial consumer protection legislation and infringement of
interest restriction provisions under the Criminal Code of
Canada.

"Partial summary judgment was granted to us and the plaintiffs by
the Ontario motions court in August 2011, when it dismissed
plaintiffs' complaint under the Criminal Code and granted
plaintiffs' complaint of inadequate disclosure.  We appealed the
Court's decision pertaining to inadequate disclosure in September
2011.

"In October 2017, we reached an agreement in principle to resolve
the case for an immaterial amount.  Final resolution of this
matter is subject to the negotiation, execution and delivery of a
settlement agreement and court approval."


UNITED STATES: "Manriquez" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARTIN CALVILLO MANRIQUEZ, JAMAL CORNELIUS,
RTHWAN DOBASHI, and JENNIFER CRAIG on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ELISABETH
DEVOS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States
Department of Education, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-07210-SK
(N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on June 4, 2018,
for an order certifying a class of:

   "all individuals who borrowed a Direct Loan to finance the
   cost of a program who are covered by the Department's
   Corinthian Job Placement Rate Rule, who have applied, or will
   apply for a borrower defense, and who have not been granted
   the relief provided for by the Rule."

In the alternative, the Plaintiffs request authority to conduct
limited discovery in support of class certification. The
Plaintiffs' motion is based on this submission, the accompanying
declarations and exhibits, the pleadings and other documents on
file in this case, and any argument presented to the Court.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=p6jUt6th

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Noah Zinner, Esq.
          Megumi Tsutsui, Esq.
          HOUSING & ECONOMIC RIGHTS ADVOCATES
          1814 Franklin Street, Suite 1040
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 271-8443
          Facsimile: (510) 868 4521
          E-mail: nzinner@heraca.org
                  mtsutsui@heraca.org

               - and -

          Eileen M. Connor, Esq.
          Toby R. Merrill, Esq.
          Joshua D. Rovenger, Esq.
          LEGAL SERVICES CENTER OF
          HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
          122 Boylston Street
          Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
          Telephone: (617) 390 3003
          Facsimile: (617) 522 0715
          E-mail: econnor@law.harvard.edu
                  tmerrill@law.harvard.edu
                  jrovenger@law.harvard.edu



U.S. STEEL: Still Defends Shareholder Class Suit in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation continues to defend itself
against a shareholder class action in Pennsylvania, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

On October 2, 2017, an Amended Shareholder Class Action Complaint
was filed in Federal Court in the Western District of
Pennsylvania consolidating previously-filed actions.

The underlying consolidated class action lawsuit alleges that
U.S. Steel, certain current and former officers, an upper level
manager of the Company and the financial Underwriters who
participated in the August 2016 secondary public offering
violated federal securities laws in making false statements
and/or failing to discover and disclose material information
regarding the financial condition of the Company.  The lawsuit
claims that this conduct caused a prospective class of plaintiffs
to sustain damages during the period of January 27, 2016 and
April 25, 2017 as a result of the prospective class purchasing
the Company's common stock at artificially inflated prices and/or
suffering losses when the price of the common stock dropped.

Separately, four related shareholder derivative lawsuits were
filed in Pennsylvania and Federal courts in Pittsburgh.

The derivative lawsuits generally make the same allegations
against the same officers and also allege that certain members of
the Board of Directors failed to exercise appropriate control and
oversight over the Company and were unjustly compensated.  They
seek to recover losses that were allegedly sustained.  The
Company is vigorously defending these matters.

United States Steel Corporation produces and sells flat-rolled
and tubular steel products primarily in North America and Europe.
It operates through three segments: Flat-Rolled Products (Flat-
Rolled), U.S. Steel Europe (USSE), and Tubular Products
(Tubular). The Company was founded in 1901 and is headquartered
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


WALMART INC: Videotapes Credit Card Deals, Valesquez Says
---------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH CARLOS VALESQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WALMART, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. 37-2018-00019280-CU-MC-CTL (Cal. Sup. Ct., April 18,
2018), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendant's violation
of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act.

The Plaintiff brings this cause of action against Walmart, Inc.
for its failure to comply with the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act,
Civil Code section, in that it utilizes a video camera at its
self-check-out kiosks that records an up-close image of the
customer's personal identification information, to wit, his
personal likeness including his eye color, hair color, and facial
features, throughout the entire duration of the customer's credit
card transaction. By employing this video recording practice in
conjunction with credit card transactions, the Defendant
intentionally violates section 1747.08(a)(2) of Song-Beverly.

Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlson Lynch Sweet, Esq.
          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          Brittany C. Casola, Esq.
          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
                  bcasola@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 350 4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  sgold@kalielpllc.com


WAWA INC: "Pfeifer" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GREG PFEIFER and ANDREW DORLEY, the
Plaintiffs, v. WAWA, INC., RETIREMENT PLANS COMMITTEE OF WAWA,
INC., JARED G. CULOTTA, MICHAEL J. ECKHARDT, JAMES MOREY,
CATHERINE PULOS, HOWARD B. STOECKEL, DOROTHY SWARTZ, RICHARD D.
WOOD, JR. and KEVIN WIGGINS, the Defendants, and WAWA, INC.
EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, the Nominal Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-00497-PD (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
grant Plaintiffs' unopposed second renewed motion for class
certification of:

   "all persons who were Terminated Employee Participants in the
   Wawa, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("Wawa ESOP") as of
   January 1, 2015 with account balances greater than $5,000.00
   and the beneficiaries of such participants and any Alternate
   Payees whose stock in the Wawa ESOP was liquidated pursuant to
   2015 Plan Amendment."

Excluded from the Class are the Defendants and their immediate
families; the officers and directors of Defendant Wawa and their
immediate families; and legal representatives, successors, heirs,
and assigns of any such excluded persons.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dnB9W5Cu

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          1735 20th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005-3964
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: joe@blockesq.com

               - and -

          Daniel Feinberg, Esq.
          FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW LLP
          383 4th Street, Suite 201
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 269 7998
          Facsimile: (510) 269 7994
          E-mail: dan@feinbergjackson.com

               - and -

          Richard E. Donahoo, Esq.
          DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          440 W. First Street, Suite 101
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone: (714) 953 1010
          Facsimile: (714) 953 1777
          E-mail: rdonahoo@donahoo.com

               - and -

          Raymond M. Sarola, Esq.
          Gary L. Azorsky, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS
          & TOLL PLLC
          3 Logan Square, 1717 Arch Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 479 5700
          Facsimile: (267) 479 5701
          E-mail: rsarola@cohenmilstein.com
                  gazorsky@cohenmilstein.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Brian T. Ortelere, Esq.
          David I. Monteiro, Esq.
          Jeremy P. Blumenfeld, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
          Telephone: (215) 963 5150


WESTERN CULINARY: "Surrett" Pact Approval Hearing Set for June 8
----------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017, that it has entered into an
agreement to settle the case, Surrett, et al. v. Western Culinary
Institute, Ltd. and Career Education Corporation.  The final
approval hearing is scheduled for June 8, 2018.

On March 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in Portland, Oregon in
the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah
County naming Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. ("WCI") and the
Company as defendants.  Plaintiffs filed the complaint
individually and as a putative class action and alleged two
claims for equitable relief: violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade
Practices Act ("UTPA") and unjust enrichment.  Plaintiffs alleged
WCI made a variety of misrepresentations to them, relating
generally to WCI's placement statistics, students' employment
prospects upon graduation from WCI, the value and quality of an
education at WCI, and the amount of tuition students could expect
to pay as compared to salaries they could expect to earn after
graduation.

The Company entered into a settlement agreement as of February 2,
2018, pursuant to which the Company will make a payment to
settlement class members who complete, sign and return a claim
form within 90 days of mailing of the claim form.  The amount of
the payment to each settlement class member returning a form will
be 44% of the total charged to that person by WCI for tuition,
books and fees, less institutional grants and scholarships
received by the person, amounts charged by WCI but not paid by
the person and refunds applied as a result of withdrawal by the
person.  The settlement class consists of 1,169 individuals who
enrolled at WCI primarily from 2006-2007.  The institution is no
longer in operation and closed in 2017.  Unless they opt out,
settlement class members will release the Company from all claims
against the Company alleged in the case.  If more than 30
settlement class members opt out of the settlement, the Company
will have the option of withdrawing from the settlement.  The
Company makes no admission of liability pursuant to the terms of
the settlement.  On February 8, 2018, the court preliminarily
approved the settlement.  The final approval hearing is scheduled
for June 8, 2018.

The Company's liability pursuant to the settlement will depend on
how many settlement class members return valid claim forms, but
is estimated to be at least US$2.8 million.  If all settlement
class members returned valid claim forms the total amount would
be approximately US$14.0 million.  Because it is uncertain how
many class members will return valid claim forms, the Company
does not have a best estimate where in that range the liability
is likely to be.  Accordingly, for the year ended December 31,
2017, the Company recorded a reserve of US$2.8 million related to
this matter.

The settlement terms also provide that the court will determine
the amount of attorneys' fees and costs payable by the Company to
counsel for plaintiffs, although the parties have agreed that the
attorneys' fees and costs awarded shall be in the range of
US$3.75 to US$8.0 million.  Because the amount of attorneys' fees
and costs that the court will determine is uncertain, the Company
does not have a best estimate where in that range the liability
is likely to be.  Accordingly, for the year ended December 31,
2017, the Company recorded a reserve of US$3.75 million related
to the attorneys' fees and costs.

In addition to the settlement class members, there are
approximately 1,100 individuals that have been compelled to
arbitration pursuant to a January 21, 2016 appellate court
ruling.  The number of individuals, if any, which may pursue
arbitration separately on their own behalf is uncertain.

The Company's academic institutions offer a quality education to
a diverse student population in a variety of disciplines through
online, campus-based and hybrid learning programs.


WINPIN 85: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, "Clegg" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA CLEGG, AMY DEFOREST, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated and on
behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California
Private Attorneys General Act, the Plaintiffs, v. WINPIN 85
INVESTMENTS, INC., a California corporation; SSC BAKERYNEW ARK,
an unknown business entity; PERFECT 85 DEGREES C INC, a
California corporation; 85C BAKERY CORPORATE, an unknown business
entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. RG18901281 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 17, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the California
Labor Code.

The Defendants directly hired and paid wages and benefits to
Plaintiffs and the other class members. The Defendants continue
to employ hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of
California. The Plaintiffs and the other class members worked
over eight hours in a day, and/or 40 hours in a week during their
employment with the Defendants. The Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of wage abuse
against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the
State of California. This pattern and practice involved, inter
alia, failing to pay them for all regular and/or overtime wages
earned and for missed meal periods and rest breaks in violation
of California law. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants knew or
should have known that Plaintiffs and the other class members
were entitled to receive certain wages for overtime compensation
and that they were not receiving accurate overtime compensation
for all overtime hours worked.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265 1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265 1021


WOW AIR: Tatars Sue over In-Flight Meal Amenities
-------------------------------------------------
JEROME TATAR AND JUDY TATAR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. WOW AIR EHF, the
Defendant, Case No. 2018-CH-04977 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cty, April
17, 2018), seeks to recover damages for WOW Air's breach of
contract.

WOW Air is an Icelandic airline that touts itself as providing
the cheapest transatlantic fares in the industry.  To facilitate
its rock-bottom pricing, those amenities that other airlines
typically provide for free -- such as in-flight entertainment,
snacks, and even water -- are not included with the price of a
standard ticket. In general, WOW Air makes no secret of its "no
frills" business model. As WOW Air's CEO put the point "this way
you won't have problems with expectations." Unfortunately, WOW
Air's candor does not extend to its recently launched business
class known as "WOW Biz." In exchange for a considerably higher
ticket price, WOW Air expressly promised to provide travelers
with, among other amenities, an in-flight meal of their choice.

The problem, however, is that WOW Air does not actually provide
meal service on flights originating from Chicago's O'Hare
International Airport ("O'Hare"). Despite knowing that it cannot
live up to its end of the bargain, WOW Air continues to market
and sell WOW Biz tickets to consumers travelling to and from
O'Hare.

WOW Air is an Icelandic low-cost carrier. The airline is
headquartered in Reykjavik and based at Keflavik International
Airport.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ernest P. Wagner, Esq.
          Gregg M. Barbakoff
          MAURICE WUTSCHER LLP
          105 W. Madison Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 416 6170
          Facsimile: (312) 284 4751






                            *********


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  * * *