CAR_Public/180426.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Thursday, April 26, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 84



                            Headlines


4175 LLC: Ha's Bid to Certify Class Denied Without Prejudice
ADECCO USA: "Shepardson" CMC Continued to May 24
ADVANCED MICRO: Dickey Seeks to Certify Class of Chip Purchasers
ADVANCED OILFIELD: Brotherton Seeks to Certify Class of Welders
AEROTEK INC: Cal. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in "Serrano"

AMYRIS INC: Shareholder Derivative Suit Dismissed
APPLE HOSPITALITY: Wins Final Nod of $5.5-Mil. "Moses" Suit Deal
ATWELLS REALTY: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Binienda" FLSA Suit
AXA EQUITABLE: Court Partly Grants Bid to Amend Brach Family Suit
BIG BUBBA: "Furtado" Labor Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay

BRIDGEPORT HEALTH: Class Certification Denied in Local 1522 Suit
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Attorneys' Fees Hearing Moved to April 26
BYD COACH: Fails to Pay Overtime and Meal Premiums, "Tucker" Says
CACTUS BAR: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Miller Says
CANCER GENETICS: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action

CANCER GENETICS: Gainey Mckenna Files Securities Class Action
CANCER GENETICS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
CAPITAL ADVANCE: Sued by Abante Rooter for Invasion of Privacy
CARRIER IQ: $25K Atty's Fee Awarded in Consumer Privacy Suit
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Certification of Class Sought in "Meyer" Suit

CBOE GLOBAL: Robbins Geller Files Class Action Over SPX Options
CEMEX SAB: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
CEMTREX INC: Levi & Korsinsky to Lead in Securities Class Suit
CHAMPION PETFOODS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Dog Food
CHICAGO, IL: New Class Action Suit Against SAFE Team

CONVERGENT OURSOURCING: Guerrido Moves for Class Certification
D&A SERVICES: Certification of Class Sought in "Bauer" Suit
D&A SERVICES: Court Further Stays Proceedings in "Bauer" Suit
EARTHLINK HOLDINGS: Shareholders Files Class Action Suit
EAST GREENWICH, RI: Does Not Pay Overtime, "Perry" Suit Says

EDDIE BAUER: Court Won't Review "Heredia" Class Certification
EDWARD JONES: Customers Files Class Action Lawsuit
EMIL FRANC: "Miranda" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages
EQUIFAX INFO: Ct. Partly Grants Protective Order Bid in "Barnum"
FACEBOOK INC: Lodowski Sues Over Failure to Protect User Data

FOGO DE CHAO: Faces "Pazral" Class Suit Over Sale to Rhone
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Failed to Remit Property Tax, Harrell Says
FUNKO INC: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
GLH CAPITAL: Settlement in "Owens" Suit Over Unpaid OT Approved
GOOGLE INC: Fair Pay Class Action Moves Ahead

HAYT HAYT: Knight Hits Double Charging in Collection Suit
HILTON MANAGEMENT: Shuttle Not Wheelchair-Friendly, Colburn Says
HOPELE OF FORT: Ramos Moves for Class Certification Under TCPA
HUDSON SEAFOOD: Bid Extend Time to Reply to Judgment Offer Denied
ICICI BANK: Faces Risk of Class Action Suit, Jefferies Says

ILLINOIS: ADA Claim in "Peters" May Proceed vs. IDOC, Baldwin
ILLINOIS: Court Denies "Trainor" Class Certification
INFINITY PROPERTY: Court Won't Dismiss MAO-MSO Recovery Suit
IZEA INC: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action
J & D TRANSPORTATION: Thomas Seeks to Certify Class of Drivers

JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Class Certification Sought in "O'Boyle" Suit
JOHNNY WAS: Sued by Crosson for Not Having Blind-Usable Web Site
JRC VENTURES: Smith Moves to Certify Companion Care Workers Class
KELLER WILLIAMS: May 4 Date to Reply to "Finken" Suit
KRIEGER BEARD: Perry Renews Bid to Certify Class of Technicians

LA QUINTA: "Rosenblatt" Suit Seeks to Halt Wyndham Merger Deal
LENOVO US: Faces "Hassan" Suit Over Deceptive Phab Phone Speakers
LEXINGTON LAW: Khorloo Sues Over Unwanted SMS Ads
LONGFIN CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
LOS ANGELES, CA: Oct. 29 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set

LTD FINANCIAL: Court Denies Bid to Stay "Bordeaux" FDCPA Suit
M & Y CARE: "Nelson" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: "Klein" Suit Challenges B. Riley Merger Deal
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Barrack Rodos to Lead in Securities Suit
MB FINANCIAL: Boone Sues Over Excessive Overdraft Fees

MDL 2752: Claims in Yahoo! Data Security Breach Suit Narrowed
MDW CONSULTING: Class Certification Sought in "Klabbatz" Suit
MEDCAH INC: "Sloatman" Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
MENARD INC: Ct. Denies Bid to Stay "Astarita" Suit Over Unpaid OT
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Court Dismisses "Callaway" Suit

MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Class Cert. Sought in "Martinez" Suit
MFS GLOBAL: Schopp Files Suit Over TCPA Breach
MICHIGAN: Recommendation to Narrow Claims in "McBride" Adopted
MIDLAND COLLEGE: Seeks Final Approval of "Telles" Suit Settlement
MURRAY GOULBURN: Slater and Gordon Seeks Investors for Class Suit

NATIONAL GROCERY: Accused by "Hernandez" of Not Paying Overtime
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Narrows Claims in "Long" Suit
NEW YORK: OKs to New Oversight, Requirements in Ongoing Mold Suit
NEXEN CORP: "Kuta" Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
NONGSHIM CO: Wins Bid to Seal Mangum Info in Ramen Antitrust Suit

NORMAN BARWIN: Faces Class Action Suit Filed by Patients
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: "Infante" Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
OHIO: Judge Grants Class-Action Lawsuit in Disability Lawsuit
OHIO MULCH: Smyers Moves to Certify Class of Workers Under FLSA
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Store Employees File Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages

PNC FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of "McCoy" Class Action
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Consumers Seek Class-Action Status Lawsuit
PROGRESSIVE PRODUCE: Denied Employees Rest Breaks, Ramirez Says
RANBAXY PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Certification Sought in "Fenwick"
RIZNO INC: Brite Bite May Re-File Class Cert. Bid on May 18

ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL: May 1 "Singh" Deal Prelim Approval Hearing
ROUSE PROPERTIES: Court Dismisses Fiduciary Suit
S-L DISTRIBUTION: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, "Mode" Claims
SANCHEZ & SANCHEZ: "Navarrete" Action to Recover Unpaid Overtime
SCI DIRECT: Wins Summary Judgment in "Romano" Suit

SEALIFT INC: Bid to Up $33MM Security in "Dziennik" Denied
SHELBY COUNTY, TN: "Powell" and "Ingram" Class Suits Consolidated
SK BEAUTY SUPPLY: Cashiers Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SPORTS CITY CAFE: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Metcalf Says
STAFFMARK HOLDINGS: Fronda Seeks Final OK of $5.6-Mil. Settlement

SURETEMPS LLC: Agrees to Hoppers Class Certification
SYNACOR INC: June 4 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
TARGET CORP: Agrees to Settle Lawsuit Alleging Discrimination
TEAGUE ENTERPRISES: "Roots" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET ERICSSON: Labaton Sucharow Files Class Suit

TRS RECOVERY: Court Stays Further Actions in Ross' Bid to Certify
TRUECAR INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
UNITED AIRLINES: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in "Pumputyte" Suit
UNITED STATES: Immigration Detentions Draw Fire From ACLU
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Clark Files Suit Over Embryo Storage Mishap

US GEOTHERMAL: Riche Files Suit v. Board Over Sale to Ormat Tech
US GEOTHERMAL: Beard Challenges Proposed Sale to Ormat
UTAH: Court Tosses "Remick" Class Suit for Lack of Standing
VILLA BERULIA: Nacipucha Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
VIZION ONE: Richardson Moves for Class Certification Under FLSA

VROOM INC: Wins Summary Judgment; "Edelsberg" Class Suit Closed
WAGEWORKS INC: May 8 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
WALGREEN CO: Court Narrows Claims in "Forth" Suit
WAL-MART STORES: "Mays" Suit Moved from N.D. Cal. to C.D. Cal.
WIRED ELECTRICAL: "Losoya" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

WR GRACE: AMH Appeal from Class Certification Denial Junked
ZAIS GROUP: Kunkel Challenges Sale of Minority Shares to Zugel

* Accounting Securities Class Action Filings Hit Record High



                            *********


4175 LLC: Ha's Bid to Certify Class Denied Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Esther Salas denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
motion to conditionally certify a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act filed in the lawsuit captioned SIU CHING
HA and PAK CHUAN LEONG, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. 4175 LLC d/b/a BAUMGART'S CAFE, et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-05530-ES-MAH (D.N.J.).

Judge Salas directed the Clerk of Court to terminate docket entry
number 100.

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


ADECCO USA: "Shepardson" CMC Continued to May 24
------------------------------------------------
In the case, KAITLYN SHEPARDSON, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ADECCO USA, INC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-05102-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward
M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California continued the case management conference ("CMC")
scheduled for March 22, 2018 to May 24, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.

The Plaintiff filed the proposed class action on or about Aug.
18, 2015.  The Defendant removed the action to the Court and
filed a Motion to Compel single plaintiff arbitration pursuant to
the Dispute Resolution Agreement between the parties.  The Court
granted the Defendant's Motion to Compel pursuant to the
arbitration agreement, which contains a class action waiver.

After the Court ruled on the Motion to Compel in the case, the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal in Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP,
held that class action waivers in arbitration agreements violate
the National Labor Relations Act.  The United States Supreme
Court granted review of the Morris v. Ernst & Young decision.
The matter was stayed pending the Supreme Court's decision.

The Supreme Court held oral argument on Oct. 2, 2017, and, as of
the date of the Order, the Supreme Court has yet to render a
decision.  Accordingly, the parties request a six-week
continuance of the CMC.

Therefore, the parties stipulated and agreed, and Judge Chen
approved that the CMC be continued six weeks to a date after May
3, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 14, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/6QAXdK from Leagle.com.

Kaitlyn Shepardson, individually, and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented
by Matthew Righetti -- matt@righettilaw.com -- Righetti Glugoski,
P.C., John Glugoski -- jglugoski@righettilaw.com -- Righetti
Glugoski, P.C. & Michael C. Righetti -- mike@righettilaw.com --
Righetti Glugoski, P.C.

Adecco USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Allison Clare
Eckstrom -- allison.eckstrom@bclplaw.com -- Bryan Cave LLP &
Julie Westcott O'Dell -- Julie.odell@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave
LLP.


ADVANCED MICRO: Dickey Seeks to Certify Class of Chip Purchasers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled TONY DICKEY and PAUL
PARMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 4:15-cv-04922-HSG (N.D. Cal.), ask the Court to certify
this class:

     All individuals who purchased one or more of the following
     AMD computer chips either (1) while residing in California
     or (2) after visiting the AMD.com website: FX-8120, FX-8150,
     FX-8320, FX-8350, FX-8370, FX-9370, and FX-9590.

The claims in this case concern the marketing of a series of
computer chips constructed around the same basic design (or, in
industry terms, "microarchitecture").  AMD manufactures a line of
computer chips, under its "Bulldozer" brand, that rely on four
"modules" to execute computer processes.  Through its advertising
and branding AMD refers to these Bulldozer chips as "8-core"
chips.

The Plaintiffs contend that AMD's branding is misleading because
the chips at issue do not contain eight distinct subprocessors
capable of executing instructions independently.  Instead, the
Plaintiffs allege, the chips featuring the Bulldozer
microarchitecture are actually just modified 4-core chips.

The Court will commence a hearing on May 10, 2018, at 2:00 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sxcuwtc0

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Todd Logan, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212-9300
          Facsimile: (415) 373-9495
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  tlogan@edelson.com


ADVANCED OILFIELD: Brotherton Seeks to Certify Class of Welders
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled JOE BROTHERTON, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ADVANCED
OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-00825-MRH (W.D. Pa.),
moves, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, for entry of an
order:

   (1) conditionally certifying the proposed collective FLSA
       class;

   (2) implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
       Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail, e-mail and
       text message) to:

       All Welders Who Worked for Advanced Oilfield Services,
       LLC, At Any Time From June 21, 2014 Through the Final
       Disposition of this Matter, and Were Paid Hourly but Did
       Not Receive Overtime For Hours Worked Over Forty In Each
       Workweek ("FLSA Collective" or "Putative Class Members")

   (3) approving a Reminder Notice to be sent to Putative Class
       members halfway through the 60-day notice period; and

   (4) requiring the Defendant, within seven days of this Court's
       order, to identify all Putative Class Members by providing
       a list in electronic and importable format, of the names,
       mailing addresses, e-mail addresses and phone numbers of
       all Putative Class Members, who worked for Defendant at
       any time from June 21, 2014, through the present.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=q0x80EjT

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
          250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221-4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
          E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com


AEROTEK INC: Cal. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in "Serrano"
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NORMA SERRANO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AEROTEK,
INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No. A149187 (Cal. App.),
Judge James M. Humes of the Court of Appeals of California for
the First District, Division One, affirmed the trial court's
order granting summary judgment to Aerotek.

Plaintiff Serrano brought the lawsuit against her former
employer, Aerotek, which placed her as a temporary employee with
its client, Bay Bread.  She raised four causes of action against
Aerotek and Bay Bread based on their alleged failure to provide
meal periods.

Aerotek is a staffing agency that places temporary employees with
its clients.  Bay Bread operates a food production facility in
South San Francisco.  In September 2010, Aerotek and Bay Bread
entered a contract under which Aerotek provided temporary
employees to work at Bay Bread.  Aerotek's policies that applied
to temporary employees on assignment with clients were set forth
in an employee handbook.  In relevant part, Aerotek's meal period
policy required the following:

Bay Bread set the schedules that Aerotek temporary employees
worked and managed their shifts, including the taking of meal
breaks.  It had its own meal period policy that applied to its
employees but not Aerotek's temporary employees.  David Razon,
who was deposed as Bay Bread's "person most knowledgeable,"
testified that every Aerotek temporary employee who worked at Bay
Bread received the Aerotek employee handbook and went through an
orientation.  Aerotek representatives conducted training on
Aerotek's employment policies, including its meal period policy.

Aerotek hired Serrano to work as a temporary hourly employee at
Bay Bread from Sept. 10 to Oct. 4, 2012, and from Jan. 16 to
April 30, 2013.  Both times, she signed forms acknowledging she
had received Aerotek's employee handbook and understood that she
should consult her supervisor or the Human Resources Department
regarding any questions not answered in the handbook.  Both
times, she also signed forms waiving a meal period on any day she
worked no more than six hours, and she never revoked those
waivers.
Serrano worked in Bay Bread's production facility.  Scott
estimated that as many as 200 Aerotek temporary employees and as
many as 100 Bay Bread employees worked at the facility during the
periods she was employed there.  Her time records show that on
several days on which she worked more than six hours, she took
her meal breaks more than five hours after beginning work or, in
a couple instances, did not take a meal break at all.

Scott stated that Serrano approached him once to discuss a
conflict she had with a Bay Bread employee, but she never
questioned him about the meal period policy or about when meal
periods were available.  Nor did she ever share any concern with
him about meal periods or ever report that she was being
prevented from taking compliant meal periods.

In response to an interrogatory asking Serrano to specify the
facts supporting her claim that Aerotek in any way prevented her
from taking lawful meal periods, she stated that she was
presently unaware of any actions Aerotek affirmatively took to
prevent her from taking meal breaks within the first five hours
of work but believed that Aerotek failed to ensure that Bay Bread
implemented appropriate meal break policies.  In response to
another interrogatory, she explained that her coworkers informed
her that she should take her meal breaks at the same time as
others in her group.

Serrano filed this lawsuit as a putative class action in January
2014, and the operative complaint alleges causes of action
against both Aerotek and Bay Bread for failure to provide meal
periods under Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512, failure to pay
wages upon termination under Labor Code sections 201 and 202,
unfair competition under Business and Professions Code section
17200, and penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA").

Aerotek filed a motion for summary judgment of all the claims,
and the trial court granted the motion.  The court entered final
judgment for Aerotek in June 2016.  On appeal, Serrano challenges
an order granting summary judgment to Aerotek, arguing the trial
court erred by determining that Aerotek satisfied its own duty to
provide meal periods and was not liable for any meal period
violations by Bay Bread.

Judge Humes finds that Serrano's attempt to impose a heightened
duty on Aerotek finds no support in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v.
Superior Court or any other relevant authority.  The trial court
correctly determined that there was no triable issue of material
fact as to whether Aerotek fulfilled its own duty to provide meal
periods.

He also finds that Serrano fails to demonstrate that Aerotek is
vicariously liable for any meal period violations committed by
Bay Bread.  Serrano offers no authority suggesting the doctrine
allows her to hold Aerotek liable for any failure by Bay Bread to
provide meal periods.  Though Serrano argues in terms of the
nondelegable duty doctrine, her contention that Aerotek is liable
for Bay Bread's violations is essentially grounded on the idea
that Aerotek and Bay Bread were her joint employers.  In
addressing this issue, the Judge will assume without deciding
that both companies were her employers.

Finally, the Judge finds that in its ruling, the trial court
implicitly agreed with Aerotek that because the undisputed
evidence established it provided Serrano with compliant meal
periods, her meal period claim and derivative claims for waiting
time penalties, unfair business practices, and PAGA penalties
failed as a matter of law.  On appeal, Serrano accepts that the
derivative claims rise or fall based on the meal period claim,
and he therefore also affirms the dismissal of the derivative
claims.

For the reasons, he stated, Judge Humes affirmed the judgment.
The Respondent is awarded its costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/AQgKIj from Leagle.com.


AMYRIS INC: Shareholder Derivative Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the case, In re Amyris, Inc. Shareholder Derivative
Litigation, Case No. 17-cv-04719-WHO (N.D. Cal.) with leave to
amend.

In this shareholders' derivative class action, the Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendants violated their duties to the company
by taking an equity stake in lieu of a cash payment for allowing
a company to license Amyris's intellectual property.  The
Defendants allegedly also failed to disclose that the equity
stake would cause a reduction in the company's projected revenue
for 2016 and when that shortfall was disclosed, the company's
stock dropped erasing almost $614 million in market
capitalization.

On Dec. 30, 2016, Amyris entered into a license agreement with
Phyto Tech Corp. (doing business as Blue California).  Under the
agreement, Blue California was granted a license to use certain
of Amyris's intellectual property for research and commercial
purposes.  In exchange, Amyris was supposed to receive a $10
million cash payment.  The Board, however, caused or approved an
amendment to the agreement with Blue California and decided
instead that Amyris would take an equity stake in SweeGen, Inc.,
a Blue California affiliate.

The Defendants never told the stockholders about their decision
to retract a large cash payment due to Amyris in favor of a
minority equity stake in SweeGen and on March 2, 2017, caused
Amyris to issue a press release that touted Amyris's financials
and stated that the aggregate revenues for 2016 would include the
$10 million cash payment from Blue California that the Individual
Defendants had already renegotiated.  The same day, in an
earnings call, Defendant Melo reiterated the 2016 revenue
figures.  On April 3, 2017, Amyris announced that it could not
timely file its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending Dec. 31,
2016, but again claimed that the aggregate revenues for the year
were $77.2 million.

When Amyris did announce its yearly results on April 17, 2017, it
stated that its 2016 revenue totaled $67.2 million, $10 million
less than previously reported.  On April 18, 2017, Amyris
explained its reported revenue figures and revealed for the first
time that it was unable to recognize $10 million in revenue"
because of the Defendants' decision to take the equity stake in
SweeGen rather than the guaranteed cash payment under the
original license agreement.  As a result of this disclosure,
Amyris' stock decreased more than 20% in a two-day trading loss,
to close at $8.34 per share on April 19, 2017, and erasing almost
$614 million in market capitalization.

On April 20, 2017, a class action complaint was filed against
Amyris related to the stock drop.  The derivative action and a
second substantially identical action followed on Aug. 15, 2017
and Aug. 24, 2017.  The three cases were related, the two
derivative action consolidated, and Plaintiff Bonner appointed as
the Lead Plaintiff for the derivative action on Sept. 19, 2017.
The only cause of action asserted in the derivative action is a
breach of fiduciary duty claim.

The Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint.  They contend that
the Plaintiffs have failed to adequately allege a violation of
any fiduciary duty.  The Defendants point out that the Complaint
is devoid of any allegations that any of the directors were
acting in their own self-interests or placing any interests over
the corporation's interests.  They point out, there are no
allegations in the Complaint that any of the Defendants -- in
either the March 2, 2017 press release and earnings call or the
April 3, 2017 SEC filing -- knowingly disseminated false
information about the company's 2016 revenue figures.

Judge Orrick will give the Plaintiffs leave to amend to state
facts in support of their theory that the March 2 or April 3
disclosures were knowingly false in order to state their claim.

The Defendants also move to dismiss because the Plaintiffs failed
to make a pre-suit demand for legal action, as required under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1(b), or allege facts showing
that a pre-suit demand would have been futile.  The Judge finds
that the Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged futility of pre-
suit demand.  He explains that the issue here is that the
Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged facts supporting a breach
of the directors' duties.  Because the Plaintiff has not
adequately alleged that Melo (or any other Director) violated any
fiduciary duty, his "interested" status cannot be hinged to any
potential liability.

For these reasons, Judge Orrick granted with leave to amend the
Defendants' motion to dismiss.  Any amended complaint must be
filed within 20 days of the date of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/kwGMws from Leagle.com.

Wayne Bonner, Derivatively on Behalf of Amyris, Inc., Plaintiff,
represented by Felipe Javier Arroyo -- farroyo@robbinsarroyo.com
-- Robbins Arroyo LLP, Steven Ray Wedeking, II --
swedeking@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP & Brian J.
Robbins -- brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP.

Marc Goldstein, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Ray Wedeking, II
-- SWedeking@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP.

John Melo, Kathleen Valiasek, Geoffrey Duyk, John Doerr, Carole
Piwnica, Fernando de Castro Reinach, Abdullah bin Khalifa Al
Thani, R. Neil Williams, Patrick Yang, Abraham Klaeijsen,
Christophe Vuillez & Amyris, Inc., Nominal Defendant, Defendants,
represented by Laurie Carr Mims -- lmims@keker.com -- Keker Van
Nes & Peters LLP, Matan Shacham -- mshacham@keker.com -- Keker &
Van Nest LLP & Michael D. Celio -- mcelio@keker.com -- Keker, Van
Nest & Peters LLP.


APPLE HOSPITALITY: Wins Final Nod of $5.5-Mil. "Moses" Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold entered a memorandum & order
in the lawsuit entitled SUSAN MOSES, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. APPLE HOSPITALITY REIT, INC., Case
No. 14-CV-3131 (SMG) (E.D.N.Y.):

   a. granting final certification to the class for purposes of
      settlement;

   b. approving the Settlement Agreement, including its proposed
      plan of allocation;

   c. appointing the law firms of Salas Wang LLC, Eccleston Law,
      LLC, and Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C., as Class
      Counsel;

   d. awarding attorneys' fees to Class counsel equaling 25% of
      the Settlement fund, or $1,375,000;

   e. approving the class counsel's request for reimbursement of
      $24,844 of litigation expenses; and

   f. appointing Susan Moses as class representative and granting
      a $10,000 service award.

Representative plaintiff Susan Moses brought this breach of
contract action on behalf of participants in Apple Hospitality
REIT, Inc.'s Dividend Reinvestment Plans.  The Plaintiff contends
that the Defendant overvalued DRIP shares, breaching the parties'
contract and causing damage to class members by charging inflated
prices for the shares they acquired under the DRIPs.

The Parties Settlement Agreement provides for a $5,500,000 fund
from which class members' claims, incentive awards, attorneys'
fees, and costs will be paid.  The net fund, consisting of the
portion of the fund remaining after disbursements for incentive
awards, attorneys' fees, and costs are made, will be allocated to
the class members.

Of the net fund, 85% will be distributed to class members pro
rata based on shares purchased during what the parties refer to
as the tender offer period for each Real Estate Investment Trust.
The remaining 15% of the net fund will be distributed in the same
manner based on shares purchased outside the tender offer period.

The settlement class is defined as:

    "Any person in the United States who participated in the
     DRIPs for Apple REIT Seven and/or Apple REIT Eight from
     July 17, 2007 to June 27, 2013 inclusive."

The class excludes: "(a) Defendant, any entity in which Defendant
has a controlling interest or which has a controlling interest in
Defendant; (b) Defendant's legal representatives, predecessors,
successors and assigns; and (c) any persons who affirmatively
exclude themselves from the Class pursuant to the procedures
described in the Class Notice."

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


ATWELLS REALTY: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Binienda" FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SAMANTHA BINIENDA, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ATWELLS REALTY CORP. and
THE ONE, INC., all d/b/a CLUB DESIRE and LUST VIP, Defendants,
C.A. No. 15-253 WES (D. R.I.), Judge William E. Smith of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Rhode Island denied both the
Defendants' Motion To Dismiss and Compel Arbitration and denied
as moot the Defendants' Motion to Stay.

The Plaintiff began performing as an exotic dancer at the
Defendants' club in November 2013.  On June 20, 2015, the
Plaintiff brought this putative class action, alleging, inter
alia, that the Defendants misclassified exotic dancers as
independent contractors instead of employees, which resulted in
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Rhode Island state
law.  Both the parties participated in the litigation, engaging
in discovery and filing pre-trial motions.

During discovery, both parties discussed whether the Plaintiff
had ever signed the Defendants' standard Entertainers Independent
Contractor Agreement.  Gerard DiSanto II, the Defendants' general
manager, testified that he did not know whether all of the
dancers at the club had signed such a contract, and that many
signed contracts had gone missing in the disorderly records room.
During the Plaintiff's deposition on March 31, 2017, she was
asked if she ever signed the standard contract, to which she
replied that she never did.

After discovery closed, both the parties filed cross-motions for
summary judgment and cross-motions for class certification.  At
some point in June or July of 2017, DiSanto located the
Entertainers Independent Contractor Agreement, which had been
signed by the Plaintiff on Nov. 5, 2013.

On July 20, 2017, 25 months after the Plaintiff filed the
Complaint, the Defendants filed the instant motion to compel
arbitration pursuant to an arbitration provision within the
Binienda Contract.  In response, the Plaintiffs contend that the
Defendants waived their arbitration rights under the contract by
waiting more than two years to move to compel arbitration.

Consideration of factors reveals that the Defendants unduly
delayed asserting their arbitration rights, Judge Smith says.
The Plaintiff filed her complaint in June 2015, discovery ended
in January 2017, the Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment in May 2017, the Plaintiff filed her motions for summary
judgment and class certification in June 2017, and then the
Defendants moved to compel arbitration in July 2017.  These facts
are even more compelling than Joca-Roca because when the
Defendants filed the motion to compel arbitration, discovery was
complete, motions for summary judgment were filed, and trial
would soon follow.

The Plaintiff points to the time and money spent on two years of
litigation that would be wasted if the Court compels arbitration.
At the time the Defendants moved to compel arbitration, discovery
had been complete for five months, and the Plaintiff had already
responded to the Defendants' summary judgment motion, and filed
one of her own.  The Judge says the parties have advanced far
enough in the litigation that the Plaintiff would be prejudiced
if she were compelled to arbitrate her claims.

For the reasons he discussed, Judge Smith denied the Defendants'
Motion To Dismiss and Compel Arbitration, and denied as moot the
Defendants' Motion to Stay.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/TCVic8 from Leagle.com.

Samantha Binienda, Plaintiff, represented by Brant Casavant --
brant@fairworklaw.com -- Fair Work P.C., pro hac vice, Stephen
Churchill -- steve@fairworklaw.com -- Fair Work P.C., pro hac
vice & Stephen J. Brouillard -- sbrouillard@bbrilaw.com --
Bianchi & Brouillard, P.C.

Atwells Realty Corp., doing business as, Gerard Disanto II, doing
business as, THE ONE, INC. & Madeline DiSanto, Defendants,
represented by David S. Francazio, McKinnon & Harwood, Gerard M.
DeCelles & Richard W. Nicholson -- Rich@RILawCPA.com -- Nicholson
& Associates, LLC.


AXA EQUITABLE: Court Partly Grants Bid to Amend Brach Family Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted in part and denied in part Brach's
motion for leave to amend the case, BRACH FAMILY FOUNDATION,
INC., Plaintiff, v. AXA EQUITABLE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-740 (JMF)(S.D. N.Y.).

In this putative class action, Brach brings claims against AXA
based on AXA's increases in the cost of insurance for certain
flexible-premium universal life insurance policies.  Brach now
moves for leave to file an amended complaint, seeking to add two
new Plaintiffs -- Allen Dyer, as trustee of the Currie Children
Trust, and Malcolm Currie -- as well as new claims under (1) New
York General Business Law Section 349 on behalf of all
Plaintiffs; (2) California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), on
behalf of the Currie Plaintiffs; and (3) California's Elder Abuse
Law, also on behalf of the Currie Plaintiffs.

AXA raises no objection with respect to adding Dyer to an
existing breach-of-contract claim, but otherwise opposes the
motion.  First, it argues that Brach's motion to add claims on
behalf of the Currie Plaintiffs under Section 4226 of the New
York Insurance Law should be denied.  Specific to the Currie
Plaintiffs, AXA contends that Section 4226 does not apply to
"non-New York policyholders."  Those arguments, however, the
Judge says, are the subject of a pending motion for
reconsideration and will be addressed in that posture in due
course.  Accordingly, the motion to add Section 4226 claims on
behalf of the Currie Plaintiffs is granted, albeit subject to the
Court's later ruling on AXA's motion for reconsideration.

Next, Brach seeks to add claims on behalf of all the Plaintiffs
under New York General Business Law Section 349, which prohibits
deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade
or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state.
AXA opposes the motion on grounds of both undue delay and
futility.  Judge Furman finds that AXA fails to show either bad
faith or undue prejudice, as Brach had colorable (albeit not
entirely persuasive) reasons to wait before asserting Section 349
claims, AXA is facing analogous claims elsewhere, and the claims
arise from the same basic facts as Brach's existing claims.  As
for futility, drawing all inferences in favor of the Plaintiffs,
the Judge cannot say as a matter of law that the illustrations at
issue were not deceptive within the meaning of the statute.

That said, AXA's objections to the addition of Section 349 claims
on behalf of the Currie Plaintiffs are well taken.  As the New
York Court of Appeals has held, to qualify as a prohibited act
under the statute, the deception of a consumer must occur in New
York.  Like the plaintiffs in Goshen v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., the
Currie Plaintiffs -- residents of California who allege receiving
deceptive illustrations in California in connection with a policy
that they purchased in California -- fail to satisfy that
requirement.  In short, the Judge grants the motion for leave to
amend to add claims under Section 349 as to Brach, but denies the
motion as to the Currie Plaintiffs.

Finally, Brach seeks to add claims on behalf of the Currie
Plaintiffs under California's UCL and Elder Abuse law.  AXA's
sole arguments in opposition relate to futility.  But -- drawing
all inferences in favor of the Plaintiffs -- Judge Furman finds
them insufficient to carry the day at this stage of the
proceedings.   The proposed amended complaint adequately alleges
at least some allegedly fraudulent communications upon which the
Currie Plaintiffs relied.  Accordingly, the motion for leave to
amend is granted to the extent it seeks to add claims on behalf
of the Currie Plaintiffs under the California UCL and Elder Abuse
Law.

Judge Furman has considered AXA's remaining arguments --
including its half-hearted general arguments concerning prejudice
-- and finds them to be without merit.  Accordingly, and for the
reasons he stated, the Judge granted in part and denied in part
Brach's motion for leave to amend.  Brach will file its Third
Amended Complaint, consistent with the Memorandum Opinion and
Order, within seven days.  The Clerk of Court is directed to
terminate Docket No. 150.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/fwXpHY from Leagle.com.

Brach Family Foundation, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Frances Sarah Lewis
-- frances.lewis@usdoj.gov -- Susman Godfrey LLP, Glenn Charles
Bridgman -- gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP,
pro hac vice, Mark P. Musico, Susman Godfrey LLP, Rohit Nath --
RNath@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP, pro hac vice, Seth
D. Ard -- sard@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP & Steven
Gerald Sklaver -- ssklaver@SusmanGodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey
LLP.

Jeremy Wenokur, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated & Secondary Life Three LLC, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Deborah
Kravitz -- dkravitz@kamberlaw.com -- Kamber Law LLP, Leonard W.
Aragon -- leonard@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Michael Aschenbrener -- masch@kamberlaw.com -- Kamber Law LLC,
Robert B. Carey -- rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP & Scott Adam Kamber, Kamber Law LLC.

AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Daniel Robert Walfish, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, David
Robert Gelfand -- dgelfand@milbank.com -- Milbank, Tweed, Hadley
& McCloy LLP & Stacey Jill Rappaport -- srappaport@milbank.com --
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP.


BIG BUBBA: "Furtado" Labor Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glen Furtado, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. Big Bubba's LLC and
Eric Khozindar, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv- 00567 (N.D. Tex.,
March 12, 2018), seeks redress for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act for failure to pay overtime wages including but
limited to compensatory damages, liquidated damages, punitive
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest and other
damages.

Defendants operate a bail bonds business under the name Big
Bubba's Bail Bonds. Furtado worked for Defendants as an hourly-
paid employee from approximately April 2017 to March 2018,
answering the telephone, completing bond-related paperwork,
receiving payments, and doing data entry. He claims to have work
more than 40 hours in a workweek without being paid overtime pay.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Barry S. Hersh, Esq.
      HERSH LAW FIRM, PC
      3626 N. Hall St., Suite 800
      Dallas, TX 75219-5133
      Tel: (214) 303-1022
      Fax: (214) 550-8170
      Email: barry@hersh-law.com


BRIDGEPORT HEALTH: Class Certification Denied in Local 1522 Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Janet C. Hall denied without prejudice the motion for
class certification filed by the plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled
LOCAL 1522 OF COUNCIL 4, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY AND
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, ET AL. v. BRIDGEPORT HEALTH CARE CENTER,
INC., ET AL., Case No. 3:15-cv-01019-JCH (D. Conn.).

Carmen Espejo, Natividade Goncalves, Marion V. Perez, and Carlota
Rafael on behalf of themselves and certain other employees of
Bridgeport Health Care Center, Inc. and labor organization Local
1522 of Council 4, American Federation of State, County, and
Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, bring the action against
Defendants, Bridgeport Health Care Center, Inc. and BHCC Chief
Operating Officer Chaim Stern.  In their Third Amended Complaint,
the Plaintiffs bring 27 claims against one or both Defendants,
arising from the Defendants' alleged failure to fund employment
benefits programs, including a health plan, a pension plan,
disability insurance plans, life insurance plans, as well as the
defendants' failure to make payments to credit unions and other
designated entities on behalf of BHCC employees.

In their Motion, the Plaintiffs propose two subclasses:

   (a) All employees of Bridgeport Health Care Center from
       January 1, 2015 to the present, who are represented by
       Local 1522, who receive health insurance coverage from
       Bridgeport Health Care Center pursuant to Article 29 of
       the parties' collective bargaining agreement, life
       insurance or disability insurance, and/or have payments
       deducted for Bridgeport Federal Credit Union, and have
       union dues deducted from their paychecks.

   (b) All employees of Bridgeport Health Care Center from
       January 1, 2015 to the present, who are represented by
       Local 1522 and are participants in the Bridgeport Health
       Care Center Pension Plan pursuant to Article 33 of the
       parties' collective bargaining agreement.

Judge Hall notes that the Third Amended Complaint and the Motion
for Certification contain a wide range of legal claims and
request a wide range of relief.  Judge Hall states that one or
more of the claims and one or more of the types of relief
requested may be appropriate for certification, and the court is
cognizant that district courts generally enjoy broad discretion
to "alter or modify" proposed classes, citing In re Sumitomo
Copper Litig., 262 F.3d at 139.

"However, the court is neither qualified nor inclined to divine
from the sprawling Third Amended Complaint which of the thirteen
counts alleged by the putative class ought to be litigated as a
class action and what type of relief should be sought," Judge
Hall says.  "For example, a class comprised solely of Local 1522
members may be appropriate as to the breach of contract claims
based on the collective bargaining agreement, but whether it
would be appropriately certified as a Rule 23(b)(2) class or a
Rule 23(b)(3) class would depend on the type of relief sought,
which is not clear from the Third Amended Complaint."

"What is clear, however, is that the pending Motion -- which
moves for certification as to all claims and all relief -- must
be denied, as the proposed subclasses cannot be certified under
any of the Rule 23(b) types," Judge Hall opines.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4LcNsCk9


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Attorneys' Fees Hearing Moved to April 26
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION. This Document Relates to: ALL ACTIONS,
Case No. 3:16-cv-07081-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
continued the April 10, 2018 Hearing on Motion for Attorneys'
Fees until April 26, 2018 at 1:30 p.m.

A hearing on the GCK Group's Motion for An Award of Attorneys'
Fees and Expenses in the consolidated action is currently
scheduled for April 10, 2018, at 2:30 p.m.  The counsel for the
Lead Plaintiff have a scheduling conflict at that time on April
10, 2018.

The parties have met and conferred and agree that, in light of
the scheduling conflict, the April 10, 2018 Hearing on Motion for
Attorneys' Fees should be continued to April 19, 2018, at 1:30
p.m., subject to any scheduling conflicts that may arise for the
Court.

The parties stipulated and agreed, and Judge Chen approved that
the April 10, 2018 Hearing on Motion for Attorneys' Fees will be
continued until April 26, 2018 at 1:30 p.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Order is available
at https://goo.gl/H3zUbz from Leagle.com.

Chaile Steinberg & Douglas Bragan, Plaintiffs, represented by
Evan Jason Smith -- esmith@brodsky-smith.com -- Brodsky & Smith
LLC.

Giulio D. Cessario, Lead Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by
Danielle Suzanne Myers denim@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP.

Melvin Gross, Plaintiff, represented by David Eldridge Bower --
dbower@monteverdelaw.com -- Monteverde & Associates PC.

Anjani Kumar Jha, Plaintiff, represented by Joel E. Elkins --
jelkins@weisslurie.com -- WeissLaw LLP.

Elizabeth Chuakay, Plaintiff, represented by Rosemary M. Rivas --
rrivas@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP, Donald E. Enright --
denright@zlk.com -- Levin & Korinsky LLP, Elizabeth K. Tripodi --
etripodi@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP & Quentin Alexandre
Roberts -- qroberts@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP.

Bobby M. Mathew, Plaintiff, represented by David Todd
Wissbroecker, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & William Scott
Holleman, Johnson Fistel, LLP.

Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Judy Bruner, Lloyd A.
Carney, Renato A. DiPentima, Alan L. Earhart, John W. Gerdelman,
Kim C. Goodman, David L. House, L. William Krause, David E.
Roberson & Sanjay Vaswani, Defendants, represented by Aaron
Jedidiah Benjamin -- abenjamin@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich and Rosati, Boris Feldman -- boris.feldman@wsgr.com --
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Professional Corporation &
Gideon A. Schor -- isalceda@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati.

Broadcom Limited, Broadcom Corporation & Bobcat Merger Sub, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Matthew Rawlinson, Latham & Watkins
LLP & Hilary Hellmuth Mattis, Latham & Watkins LLP.


BYD COACH: Fails to Pay Overtime and Meal Premiums, "Tucker" Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW TUCKER, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. BYD COACH & BUS, LLC, a
California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. BC693921 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
March 20, 2018), accuses the Defendants of violating the
California Labor Code by, among other things, failing to pay
overtime and meal period premiums.

Byd Coach is a California limited liability company engaged
throughout the state of California, including the County of Los
Angeles.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are
currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          Daniel J. Park, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile (818) 230-7502
          E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
                  statavos@justicelawcorp.com
                  dpark@justicelawcorp.com


CACTUS BAR: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Miller Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
TANIA MILLER, NICHOL MONAHAN, and MICHELLE NEMOEDE v. CACTUS BAR,
INC., MELISSA TIVIS, RANDY TIVIS, and SHERRY FRALEY, Case No.
2:18-cv-00049-M (N.D. Tex., March 23, 2018), is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees
arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act as a result of the
Defendants' alleged failure to pay them all earned minimum wages
and overtime wages.

Cactus Bar, Inc., is a domestic for-profit corporation.  The
Individual Defendants are residents of Amarillo, Texas.  The
Defendants own, operate or manage Cactus Bar in Amarillo,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
          Collin Wynne, Esq.
          YOUNG & NEWSOM, PC
          1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200
          Amarillo, TX 79101
          Telephone: (806) 331-1800
          Facsimile: (806) 398-9095
          E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com
                  collin@youngfirm.com


CANCER GENETICS: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Cancer Genetics, Inc.
(NASDAQ:CGIX) securities between March 23, 2017 and April 2, 2018
(the "Class Period"). Investors have until June 4, 2018 to apply
to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Cancer
Genetics had ineffective disclosure controls and internal
controls over financial reporting; and (2) as a result,
Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations
and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

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

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

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


CANCER GENETICS: Gainey Mckenna Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Cancer Genetics, Inc. ("Cancer Genetics"
or the "Company") (Nasdaq:CGIX) in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of a class
consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Cancer Genetics securities on the open market from March 23, 2017
through April 2, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges the Company issued false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose information pertinent to
investors.  On April 2, 2018, the Company reported that,
following its CEO's departure, it conducted a comprehensive
review of its strategy and organization.  This led the Company to
record a bad debt expense of $4.4 million and write off $1.8
million of its accounts receivable in the fourth quarter, with a
significant portion related to collection issues with accounts
receivables recorded after 2015.  The Company also reported that,
on December 31, 2017, its "cash position and history of losses
required management to assess [its] ability to continue operating
as a going concern[.]"  When the truth was revealed to the
investing public, shares of the Company fell $0.55 per share or
over 33% to close at $1.10 per share on April 3, 2018, causing
shareholders harm.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the June 4, 2018
lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-
law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.

         Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
         Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
         Gainey McKenna & Egleston at
         Telephone:(212) 983-1300
         E-mail:tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                gegleston@gme-law.com [GN]


CANCER GENETICS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Cancer Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ: CGIX) from March 23, 2017 through
April 2, 2018, both dates inclusive ('Class Period'). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Cancer Genetics investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Cancer Genetics class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1315.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO
NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Cancer Genetics had ineffective disclosure controls and
internal controls over financial reporting; and (2) as a result,
Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations
and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable bases at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
June 4, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1315.htmlto join the class
action. You may also contact Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of
Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm is ranked #1 in
the nation by Institutional Shareholder Services for the number
of securities class action settlements in 2017.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail:lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN]


CAPITAL ADVANCE: Sued by Abante Rooter for Invasion of Privacy
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING INC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CAPITAL ADVANCE SOLUTIONS, LLC; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 4:18-cv-01762-KAW (N.D.
Cal., March 21, 2018), accuses the Defendant of negligently,
knowingly and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on its cellular
telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
and related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call
provisions, thereby invading its privacy.

Capital Advance Solutions, LLC, is a loan provider.  The true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown
to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, 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


CARRIER IQ: $25K Atty's Fee Awarded in Consumer Privacy Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE CARRIER IQ, INC., CONSUMER PRIVACY LITIGATION,
Case No. 12-md-2330-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward Chen of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, awarded $25,000 in attorneys' fee to Class
Counsel Sam A. Miorelli.

On June 6, 2016, Sam A. Miorelli, an attorney, filed an Objection
to Class Action Settlement.  On Aug. 25, 2016, the Court
overruled Miorelli's objections and entered the (i) Order
Granting Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement,
Certification of Settlement Class, and Appointment of Class
Representatives; (ii) Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part
Plaintiffs' Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, Expenses,
and Service Awards ("Fee Order"); and (iii) Judgment.

On Sept. 23, 2016, Miorelli filed a Notice of Appeal seeking
review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of the Orders.  On
Sept. 26, 2016, another purported class member, Patrick Sweeney,
filed a Notice of Appeal seeking review of the Orders by the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but that matter was dismissed by
the Ninth Circuit for failure to prosecute on Feb. 8, 2017.  On
Feb. 17, 2017, Miorelli filed his Opening Brief with the Ninth
Circuit challenging the Orders.

Based upon the filing date of Miorelli's notice of appeal,
together with a review of various Ninth Circuit dockets, it
appears that oral argument of Miorelli's appeal (if any) probably
would not occur until the fall or winter of 2018, after which it
could be many months until the Ninth Circuit issues its decision,
which would further delay the disbursement of settlement benefits
to eligible claimants.

With the foregoing in mind, and with the assistance of the Ninth
Circuit Mediator, Margaret Corrigan, the Class Counsel negotiated
with Miorelli and reached a settlement that that they signed with
him on Sept. 21, 2017.  Miorelli has conditionally dismissed his
appeal per the terms of the Agreement and Fed. R. App. P. 42(b),
such that jurisdiction is now present in the Court to decide the
instant request.

Miorelli represents that he has performed 87.1 hours of work on
the appeal and settlement at the hourly rate of $346, resulting
in a reported lodestar of $30,136.60, and that he has expended
sums in the amount of $1,182.87, relating to the appeal.

The Agreement provides that, subject to the Court's approval and
other conditions, Miorelli will be paid $25,000 by the settlement
administrator in the matter, Gilardi & Co., LLC, from the
attorneys' fees awarded to the Class Counsel by the Court in the
Fee Order.  This payment to Miorelli from the Plaintiffs' fee
award will not reduce the recovery to the class whatsoever.

The parties stipulated that $25,000 from the $2,250,000 award of
fees to the Class Counsel be paid to Miorelli per the terms of
the Agreement, such that his appeal will be dismissed with
prejudice.

Judge Chen, pursuant to the stipulation of the Class Counsel and
objector Miorelli, ordered that $25,000 from the $2,250,000 award
of fees to Class Counsel be reallocated to Miorelli by the
settlement administrator, Gilardi & Co.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/hEFurW from Leagle.com.

Patrick Kenny, an Arizona resident, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Justin Sharp, a California resident,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Jeremy
Feitelson, an Iowa resident, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly, Greg Feitelson, a Kentucky resident, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Eric Thomas, a Texas
resident, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Benjamin Lancaster, a Pennsylvania resident, on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Colleen Fischer, a Wisconsin resident,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Kurt
Fairfield, a Wisconsin resident, David Sarafian, a California
resident, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
David Williams, a California resident, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Stephanie Wirth, a California
resident, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
John Swafford, a Florida resident, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Luke Szulczewski, an Illinois
resident, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Richard Rosenfeld, a Kentucky resident, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Michael Zemartis, a New Jersey
resident, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Timothy Dodson, a Texas resident, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Evan Brooks, a Washington resident, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Marcus Neal,
a Washington resident, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Brian Sandstrom, a Washington resident, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, John Woods,
a Washington resident, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Leonard Hobbs, a Nevada resident, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated & Kenneth Tishenkel,
an Ohio resident, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Shana E. Scarlett --
gbscarlett@sbcglobal.net -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Robert F. Lopez -- robl@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser --
toml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac
vice.

Eric Steiner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Edward Shumate, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Adam Schwartz, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Daniel Massey,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated &
Matthew Thornton, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Paul R. Kiesel --
kiesel@kbla.com -- Kiesel Law LLP.

Daniel Pipkin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel L. Warshaw --
dwarshaw@pswlaw.com -- Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Aaron M.
Sheanin -- asheanin@pswplaw.com -- Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP,
Bobby Pouya -- bpouya@pswlaw.com -- Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP,
Bruce Lee Simon -- bsimon@pswlaw.com-- Pearson Simon & Warshaw,
LLP, Clifford H. Pearson -- cpearson@pswlaw.com -- Pearson, Simon
& Warshaw LLP, Robert F. Lopez, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Thomas Kay Boardman -- TBOARDMAN@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- SCOTT+SCOTT,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP & William James Newsom --
wnewsom@cooley.com -- Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP.

Chad Ulrich, on behalf of himself all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Daniel L. Warshaw, Pearson, Simon &
Warshaw, LLP, Aaron M. Sheanin, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP,
Bobby Pouya, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bruce Lee Simon,
Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Clifford H. Pearson, Pearson, Simon
& Warshaw LLP, Thomas Kay Boardman, SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT
LAW, LLP & William James Newsom, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP.

Rowena Silvera & Andrew Sanders, Plaintiffs, represented by
Andrea S. Hirsch, Herman Gerel, LLP, Christopher V. Tisi, Herman
Gerel, LLP, Mark G. Crawford, Skikos Crawford Skikos Joseph &
Millican & Steven James Skikos -- sskikos@skikoscrawford.com --
Skikos, Crawford, Skikos & Joseph.

Jennifer Sue Patrick, an individually and on behalf of herself
and for the benefit of all with the Common and General Interest,
any persons injured and all others similarly situated & Scott
Lewis, an individually and on behalf of himself and for the
benfit of all with the Common and General Interest, any persons
injured and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Ira P. Rothken, Rothken Law Firm, LLP, Jared
Robinson Smith, Rothken Law Firm & John R. Parker, Jr., Kershaw
Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP.

Steven Watts, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated & Eliezer Pilowsky, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Heather Baker
Dobbs, Kirtland & Packard, LLP, Behram Viraf Parekh, Kirtland &
Packard LLP & Michael Louis Kelly, Kirtland & Packard LLP.

Rodney Shively, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory B. Scarlett,
Wasserman Comden Casselman Esensten LLP & Melissa Meeker Harnett,
Wasserman Comden Casselman & Esensten, L.L.P.

Justin Conley, Brandon Ivy-Perry, Laura Lebryk & Jeremy Bain,
Plaintiffs, represented by David I. Cates, Cates Law Firm
Generally Admitted.

Joseph Cosme, Margaret Elliott, Elizabeth Lammert & Lisa
Rosenburg, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Eric Davis Holland, Holland,
Groves, Schneller and Stolze.

Carrier IQ, Inc, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented
by Rodger R. Cole -- rcole@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP,
Annasara Guzzo Purcell, Fenwick and West LLP, Christopher E.
Carey, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker, Carey & Hymel, Eugene J.
Podesta, Jr., Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz,
P.C., James Christie, Christie Pabarue Mortensen & Young,
Jennifer Jane Johnson, Fenwick & West LLP, Jennifer J. Johnson,
Fenwick & West LLP, Tyler Alexander Baker, Fenwick & West LLP &
Tyler Griffin Newby -- tnewby@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP.

HTC America Inc, a Washington corporation, Defendant, represented
by Jonathan Hugh Blavin -- Jonathan.Blavin@mto.com -- Attorney at
Law Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP, Rosemarie Theresa Ring --
Rose.Ring@mto.com -- Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Bryan H.
Heckenlively -- Bryan.Heckenlively@mto.com -- Munger, Tolles and
Olson LLP, Catherine A. Miller, Freeborn & Peters, Henry Weissman
-- Henry.Weissmann@mto.com -- Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, J. Thad
Heartfield, The Heartfield Law Firm, Jennifer Amy Baker, Roshka
DeWulf & Patten PLC, Michael Benjamin Alexander, Preis & Roy,
PLC, Ross Eric Morrison, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP & Sean F.
O'Shea, O'Shea Partners LLP.

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, a Korean company, Defendant,
represented by Lance Allan Etcheverry -- letcheve@skadden.com --
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Shouying Sheryl Leung
-- sheryl.leung@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and
Flom LLP.

Samsung Electronics America Inc, a New York corporation,
Defendant, represented by Lance Allan Etcheverry, Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Eugene J. Podesta, Jr., Baker,
Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C. & Shouying Sheryl
Leung, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom LLP.

Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, represented by Lance Allan Etcheverry, Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, R. Patrick Vance, Jones Walker, Eugene
J. Podesta, Jr., Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz,
P.C. & Shouying Sheryl Leung, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and
Flom LLP.

LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, represented by
Jeff Eric Scott -- scottj@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP,
Lori Chang -- changl@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP, Rebekah
Susanne Strawn Guyon, Greenberg Traurig LLP & Ian Ballon --
ballon@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP.

Pantech Wireless, Inc., Defendant, represented by Wilson W. Lin,
H.C. Park and Associates, PLC.


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Certification of Class Sought in "Meyer" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Meyer moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit captioned SHARON MEYER, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CAVALRY
PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC, and CAVALRY SPV I, LLC, Case No. 2:18-
cv-00484 (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay
the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff
(and the Defendants) relief from the Local Rules setting
automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting
material to be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of
the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the
court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing
of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual
settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision
cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from
representing a class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing
Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App.
LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017).  The Plaintiff
asserts that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by
sending a certified check to the proposed class representative.
Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also
Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No.
15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24,
2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense
when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an
amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CBOE GLOBAL: Robbins Geller Files Class Action Over SPX Options
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ('Robbins Geller')
(http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/vix/)announced that it has
commenced a class action on behalf of investors who held or
traded S&P 500 ('SPX') option contracts ('SPX Options'), CBOE
Volatility Index ('VIX') option contracts ('VIX Options'),
futures based on the VIX ('VIX Futures'), or VIX Exchange Traded
Products ('VIX ETPs') on exchanges run by Cboe Global Markets,
Inc. (formerly known as CBOE Holdings, Inc.) and its affiliates
('CBOE') during the following time periods ('Class Period'):

   -- From March 26, 2004 to the present in the case of VIX
Futures and SPX Options;

   -- From February 24, 2006 to the present in the case of VIX
Options; and

   -- From August 2008 to the present in the case of VIX ETPs.

This action was filed in the United States District Court for
Northern District of Illinois and is captioned Bueno v. Cboe
Global Markets, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-02435.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from April 4. If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren
J. Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or
via email at djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of this class,
you can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/vix/.Any member of the putative
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain
an absent class member.

The complaint alleges CBOE participated with others to manipulate
the VIX 'fear gauge' in a systematic manner during the 2004 to
2018 timeframe. This alleged improper manipulation caused
economic damages to investors who traded in VIX futures, options
and certain other VIX derivatives. As a consequence of these
activities, the complaint alleges that CBOE and a few of its
preferred traders violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the Commodity Exchange Act and the Sherman Act.

CBOE runs the exclusive exchange for core VIX financial
instruments in the United States and is not permitted to run the
VIX market in a 'rigged' manner, as the complaint alleges. The
complaint alleges that in February 2018, a whistleblower, who
reportedly had held senior positions at some of the largest
investment firms in the world, disclosed widespread manipulation
of the VIX. After these disclosures were made public, one former
regulatory official responded that the whisteblower's claim
'rings true.' Another former regulatory official reportedly
explained it was 'quite clear' that the VIX can be manipulated
and that CBOE 'should have sprung in to action' to bring any
manipulation to a halt. The complaint's forensic quantitative
analysis corroborates the whistleblower's claim. It also
corroborates academic work that was published in a prestigious,
peer-reviewed academic journal in May 2017, raising questions
about whether the VIX was being manipulated and suggesting
various means of demonstrating that it was, in fact, manipulated.

As alleged in the complaint, plaintiff's recently completed
forensic analyses confirm that the VIX was manipulated during the
Class Period. The analyses also show, however, that the VIX
manipulation abated to some degree in the immediate aftermath of
the May 2017 peer-reviewed academic article mentioned above. The
complaint alleges these May 2017 changes in the trading patterns
underlying the VIX market tend to show defendants' culpable state
of mind because, in essence, they changed their trading behavior
when faced with the risk being discovered. These and other facts
set forth in the complaint support the allegations that CBOE and
its preferred traders were 'banging the VIX close' in a
systematic manner, throughout the Class Period. CBOE allegedly
conferred financial benefits and special trading privileges to a
few traders who, in exchange for driving higher trading volume
(and fees) for CBOE, enjoyed special privileges that allowed them
to game the VIX and manipulate VIX derivative prices to the
detriment of the Class. CBOE, in turn, benefited financially from
the manipulation as VIX products were its 'flagship' products,
which generated much of CBOE's revenues, as the complaint
alleges.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all investors who
lost money trading VIX Options, VIX Futures and other VIX
derivatives during the Class Period (the 'Class'). The plaintiff
is represented by counsel that has extensive experience defending
investors' financial interests and recovering their investment
capital where, as the complaint alleges in this case, their
losses do not stem from normal market forces but from market
misconduct.

         Darren Robbins, Esq.
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Telephone: 800-449-4900
         Telephone: 619-231-1058
         E-mail: djr@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


CEMEX SAB: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm disclosed that a class action complaint has
been filed on behalf of shareholders of CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V.
(NYSE:CX) who purchased shares between August 14, 2014 and March
13, 2018. The action, which was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges
that the Company violated federal securities laws.

In particular, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that (i) CEMEX executives
had engaged in an unlawful bribery scheme in connection with the
Company's business dealings in Colombia; (ii) discovery of the
foregoing conduct would likely subject the Company to heightened
regulatory scrutiny and potential criminal sanctions; (iii) the
Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial
reporting; and (iv) as a result, CEMEX's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders have until May 15, 2018 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery does
not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. You may choose to
be an absent class member.

If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain
additional information, please contact Joseph Klein, Esq. by
telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-c/cemex?wire=3.

Joseph Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in
securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the
nation. [GN]


CEMTREX INC: Levi & Korsinsky to Lead in Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS CULLINAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. CEMTREX,
INC., ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-1067 (JFB)(AYS)(E.D.
N.Y.), Judge Joseph F. Bianco of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York (i) granted the motions to
consolidate Cullinan, Monteil, and Guerrier; (ii) appointed the
Cemtrex Investor Group as the Lead Plaintiff; and (iii) approved
the Cemtrex Investor Group's selection of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP,
as the lead counsel.

Presently before the Court are two competing motions requesting
that the Court (1) consolidate three related securities class
actions, (2) appoint movant as the Lead Plaintiff, and (3)
approve the Movant's selection of lead counsel, pursuant to
Section 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  The
pending motions were filed in Cullinan, the first-filed action,
one by Umang Khetarpal, Benjamin Webb, Gang Chen, Timothy Heath,
and Minh Nguyen ("Cemtrex Investor Group"), and the other by Zan-
in Nelson.   The Cemtrex Investor Group and Nelson filed their
motions on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Cemtrex,
Inc. securities during the period of the Defendants' alleged
Exchange Act violations.  The Defendants include Cemtrex, as well
as Cemtrex's Chief Executive Officer, Saagar Govil, Executive
Director, Aron Govil, and Vice President of Finance and Principal
Financial Officer, Renato Dela Rama.

The Plaintiffs brought the instant actions on Feb. 24, 2017,
following the Feb. 22, 2017 publication of a blog post entitled
"Cemtrex: Documents And Photos, All Signs Point To Deception And
Failure," on Seeking Alpha.com, a popular investing website.  The
Seeking Alpha post claimed that Cemtrex was involved in conduct
that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission had previously
found, with regard to other companies, to be fraudulent.  The
post discussed problematic conduct and omissions including
payments by "Cemtrex insiders" that were not disclosed to
investors, and which had resulted in securities fraud suits in
similar cases; the apparent failure to disclose insiders' sales
of shares; and fraudulent conduct by Cemtrex's auditor.  The
Plaintiffs allege that, "on this news," the price of Cemtrex
common stock fell $1.72 per share, or 33.5%, "on unusually heavy-
tracing volume" that same day.

The Plaintiffs filed their complaints in the three related
actions on Feb. 24, 2017, claiming in each that the Defendants
violated the Exchange Act through their materially false and/or
misleading statements and failure to disclose material adverse
facts about Cemtrex's "business, operations, and prospects"
during the class period, in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  They name
the same Defendants in all three actions.

In addition to their Exchange Act claim against all defendants,
the Plaintiffs in the three actions bring a separate claim
against the individual Defendants, whom they allege acted as
controlling persons and are liable for violating Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.  The Plaintiffs in the three actions bring
their claims on behalf of a putative class of investors who had
acquired Cemtrex securities during the class period and suffered
damages as "a direct and proximate result of Defendants' wrongful
conduct."

The Plaintiffs' factual allegations are largely similar. All
three complaints describe the same alleged "scheme" to "deceive
the investing public," through which the Defendants caused the
class to purchase Cemtrex's common stock at artificially inflated
prices.

Though largely similar, the three complaints vary in certain
respects.  Most significantly, the complaints all use different
class periods: Cullinan defines the class period as Feb. 11, 2016
through Feb. 22, 2017, Monteil defines the class period as Dec.
7, 2016 through Feb. 21, 2017, and Guerrier defines the class
period as Oct. 26, 2016 through Feb. 22, 2017.

On April 3, 2017, the Defendants filed a letter informing the
Court of their intention to move to consolidate these three
related actions.  They've not since moved for consolidation, but
various plaintiff groups have filed or acquiesced to such a
motion.

On April 25, 2017, four separate plaintiffs or plaintiff groups
filed motions (1) to consolidate the related actions, (2) for
appointment as lead plaintiff; and (3) for approval of their
selection of lead counsel.  The following plaintiffs subsequently
submitted letters withdrawing their motions, and expressing their
support for another potential lead plaintiff: (1) Ajith Chennadi,
Wei Cao, Mark Mitchell, Thanh Monat, and Ben Webb ("Cemtrex
Investor Group 2") withdrew their motion for appointment as lead
plaintiff on May 8, 2017, and (2) Lewis Monteil withdrew his
motion on May 3, 2017.

The Court granted the motions to withdraw on Oct. 24, 2017.  The
Cemtrex Investor Group and Nelson filed the two motions presently
pending before the Court.  On withdrawal, Cemtrex Investor Group
2 indicated that it does not oppose Nelson's competing Lead
Plaintiff motion."  Monteil, in withdrawing, expressed his
support for the Cemtrex Investor Group's motion.

On May 9, 2017, Nelson and the Cemtrex Investor Group filed their
oppositions.  Both movants submitted replies on May 16, 2017.  On
July 17, 2017, Nelson submitted a notice of supplemental
authority, bringing to the Court's attention the decision in
Galmi v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd.  On Dec. 20, 2017,
the Cemtrex Investor Group submitted a notice of supplemental
authority, bringing to the Court's attention the decision in In
re Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. Sec. Litig.  Nelson responded to the
Cemtrex Investor Group's notice of supplemental authority on Dec.
21, 2017.

Judge Bianco agrees with the parties' determination that the
cases present common questions of law and fact, and finds that
consolidation would serve the interests of judicial economy.  In
light of the Court's independent determination that consolidation
is appropriate, as well as the parties' support for
consolidation, the Judge will grant the motions to consolidate.

Based on its review of the record, the Judge finds that the
Cemtrex Investor Group is far from the type of makeshift, lawyer-
driven group Nelson describes.  The Cemtrex Investor Group
members have even attested to their willingness to personally
travel to and participate in litigation proceedings.  The Cemtrex
Investor Group has more than adequately demonstrated that its
members will be able to function cohesively and to effectively
manage the litigation apart from their lawyers.  The Court,
therefore, will accept Cemtrex Investor Group's proposed
aggregation for purposes of appointing the Lead Plaintiff.

Finally, the Cemtrex Investor Group states that Levi & Korsinsky,
LLP possesses adequate experience in securities litigation and
has successfully prosecuted numerous securities fraud class
actions on behalf of injured investors, and that the Court may,
therefore, be assured that by granting the Movant's motion, the
Class will receive the highest caliber of legal representation.
Based on the Cemtrex Investor Group's representations, the Judge
will approve Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, as the lead counsel.

For these reasons, Judge Bianco granted the motions to
consolidate Cullinan, Monteil, and Guerrier; appointed the
Cemtrex Investor Group as the Lead Plaintiff; and approved the
Cemtrex Investor Group's selection of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, as
the lead counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/QxFU7t from Leagle.com.

Ajith Chennadi, Wei Cao, Mark Mitchell & Thanh Monat, Movants,
represented by Phillip Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- Rosen Law
Firm, P.A. P.C.

Ben Webb, Movant, represented by Phillip Kim, Rosen Law Firm,
P.A. P.C., Lawrence P. Eagel -- eagel@bespc.com -- Bragar Wexler
Eagel & Morgenstern, LLP, Melissa Ann Fortunato --
fortunato@bespc.com -- Bragar Eagel & Squire PC & Shannon Lee
Hopkins -- shopkins@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP.

Umang Khetarpal, Gang Chen, Timothy Heath & Minh Nguyen, Movants,
represented by Lawrence P. Eagel, Bragar Wexler Eagel &
Morgenstern, LLP, Melissa Ann Fortunato, Bragar Eagel & Squire PC
& Shannon Lee Hopkins, Levi & Korsinsky LLP.

Zarrin Nelson, Movant, represented by Thomas J. McKenna --
tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- Gainey McKenna & Egleston.

Thomas Cullinan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Frank
Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Lewis Monteil, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Bennett Singer --
ssinger@saxenawhite.com -- Saxena White P.A.

Cemtrex, Inc., Saagar Govil, Aron Govil & Renato Dela Rama,
Defendants, represented by Douglas W. Greene --
dgreene@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice.


CHAMPION PETFOODS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Dog Food
--------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Carrozza, writing for Veterinarian's Money Digest, reports
that a class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S.- and
Canada-based Champion Petfoods, which makes Acana and Orijen cat
and dog foods. The lawsuit, filed in a California district court,
includes plaintiffs from Florida, Minnesota and California who
allege that the Acana and Orijen dog food brands contain arsenic,
mercury, lead, cadmium and bisphenol A (BPA).

The lawsuit accuses the company of the 'negligent, reckless
and/or intentional practice of misrepresenting and failing to
fully disclose' the presence of heavy metals and toxins in its
pet foods sold throughout the United States. The court documents
go on to state that Acana and Orijen packaging and labels
emphasize fresh, quality and properly sourced ingredients, yet
the labeling, advertising and packaging do not disclose the
presence of heavy metals or BPA.

The court files include the chart below, which outlines the
levels of heavy metals and BPA for 12 of the company's Acana and
Orijen products. While the lawsuit presents the risks associated
with high levels of consumption of the toxins, some reports are
arguing that the levels may fall below what the National Research
Council (NRC) deems acceptable in its second edition of Mineral
Tolerance of Animals. This version provides updates on animal
tolerances and toxic dietary levels based on requests from the
FDA.

In addition to financial compensation, the plaintiffs want
Champion to cease selling its products until the heavy metals and
BPA are removed or their presence is disclosed on all packaging.
They also want the company to release an ad campaign retracting
previous statements about the pet foods' safety or naturalness.

'The allegations contained within a class action complaint that
was brought against us are meritless and based on
misinterpretation of the data,' a Champion Petfoods spokesperson
told Petfood Industry. 'We will comprehensively refute the wide
range of false allegations in a court of law at the appropriate
date. We are confident that we will prevail as the facts and
evidence are presented to the court.'

This is not the first time Champion Petfoods has had to defend
the presence of metals in its cat and dog food products. In May
2017, the company released a white paper comparing the levels of
arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury in its foods with the NRC
standards for heavy metals and the maximum tolerable levels
listed in the FDA Target Animal Safety Review Memorandum. As the
company notes in its report, small quantities of heavy metals
occur naturally in meat and protein sources and the levels found
in its products are the direct result of the high amounts of
fresh and raw meat ingredients used in the pet foods.

'We believe that describing heavy metals as 'contaminants' in pet
foods confuses pet lovers on the origin of these elements as well
as their safety limits for dogs and cats,' the report reads. [GN]


CHICAGO, IL: New Class Action Suit Against SAFE Team
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Collins, writing for the News Tribune, reports that seventeen
people stopped by the SAFE Team -- some of whom were imprisoned -
- are trying to mount a class action lawsuit against the
disbanded drug unit, arguing that it violated federal anti-
racketeering law.

On April 5, Elgin attorney Patrick Flanagan, Esq. --
pflanagan@cooley.com -- filed a lawsuit against 26 named
defendants, a list topped by the La Salle County State's Attorney
Felony Enforcement Team, in Chicago's U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

The case is assigned to Judge Robert Dow Jr. Court dates are
pending.

Flanagan argued the SAFE Team and the many people he attached to
it (the list of defendants includes Spring Valley's city clerk)
violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
(RICO) Act, a sprawling law that has been used to prosecute
members of the mafia.

"They (defendants) exceeded the bounds of their official lawful
authority when they fraudulently operated an unofficial police
force, stopping interstate motorists on Interstate 80 in
Illinois," Flanagan wrote in the lawsuit, adding later, "The
search and seizure was conducted as part of the Defendants'
unlawful violations of RICO by operating a corrupt unlawful
vigilante police force that had no jurisdiction or right to stop
(motorists)."

The La Salle County State's Attorney's Office said they are still
reviewing the just-filed lawsuit and deferred comment at this
early stage of the case.

Flanagan's lawsuit is not yet a class action.

There is a process by which a federal judge determines whether a
group of plaintiffs can proceed as a class, and that could be
weeks or months in the making.

A previous attempt to file a class action against the SAFE Team
was not successful. Last month, a different federal judge threw
out a federal lawsuit brought by two detained motorists who
sought to form a class of up to 1,000 plaintiffs.

U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve granted La Salle County and
various officers attached to the SAFE Team a motion to dismiss,
primarily on the grounds the statute of limitations ran out.[GN]


CONVERGENT OURSOURCING: Guerrido Moves for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennie Guerrido and Patrick Maniaci move the Court to certify the
class described in the complaint of their lawsuit titled JENNIE
GUERRIDO and PATRICK MANIACI, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. CONVERGENT OURSOURCING INC.,
AMERICAN CORADIUS INTERNATIONAL LLC, and PINNACLE CREDIT
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00479-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), and
further ask that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiffs (and the Defendantd)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of
the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the
court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing
of a class certification motion, the Plaintiffs assert, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual
settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision
cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from
representing a class, the Plaintiffs tell the Court, citing
Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App.
LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017).  The Plaintiffs
assert that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by
sending a certified check to the proposed class representative.
Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also
Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No.
15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24,
2016).

The Plaintiffs are obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiffs
contend.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense
when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an
amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs argue.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives, and to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iBqH9NYj

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


D&A SERVICES: Certification of Class Sought in "Bauer" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jossette Bauer moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit styled JOSETTE BAUER, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. D&A SERVICES,
LLC, and CROWN ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00456-WED
(E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the
motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and
the Defendants) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic
briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material
to be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of
the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the
court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing
of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual
settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision
cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from
representing a class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing
Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App.
LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017).  The Plaintiff
asserts that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by
sending a certified check to the proposed class representative.
Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also
Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No.
15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24,
2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense
when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an
amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VZiOpzV8

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


D&A SERVICES: Court Further Stays Proceedings in "Bauer" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin grants the Plaintiff's
motion to stay further proceedings in the lawsuit entitled
JOSETTE BAUER v. D&A SERVICES, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 2:18-cv-
00456-WED (E.D. Wisc.).

On March 22, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint.
At the same time, the plaintiff filed what the Court commonly
refers to as a "protective" motion for class certification,
according to the Court's order.  In this motion the Plaintiff
moved to certify the class described in the complaint but also
moved the Court to stay further proceedings on that Motion.

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint," Judge
Duffin notes.  "The pendency of that motion protects a putative
class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."  However,
Judge Duffin explains, because parties are generally unprepared
to proceed with a motion for class certification at the beginning
of a case, the Damasco court suggested that the parties "ask the
district court to delay its ruling to provide time for additional
discovery or investigation."

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings
is granted and the parties are relieved from the automatic
briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c).
Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the
Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification,
Judge Duffin opines.  However, Judge Duffin adds, this motion
will be regarded as pending to serve its protective purpose under
Damasco.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WL06Zapf


EARTHLINK HOLDINGS: Shareholders Files Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP, announced that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of former stockholders
of EarthLink Holdings Corp. ('EarthLink') (NASDAQ: ELNK) and
current stockholders of Windstream Holdings, Inc. ('Windstream'),
in connection with the acquisition of EarthLink by Windstream
(the 'Acquisition').  The case is brought on behalf of holders of
Earthlink common stock (other than defendants) on the record
date, January 23, 2017, entitled to vote on the Merger and/or
former holders of Earthlink common stock (other than the Company,
Windstream or any of their respective direct or indirect
subsidiaries) at the Effective Time of the Merger who received
0.818 shares of Windstream common stock per each share of
EarthLink common stock issued and outstanding immediately before
the Effective Time of the Acquisition.  This action was filed in
the Eastern District of Arkansas and is captioned Murray v.
EarthLink Holdings Corp., et al., No. 4:18-cv-00202-BRW.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from April 4, 2018.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, W. Scott
Holleman of Johnson Fistel at 212-802-1486 or via e-mail at
rel='nofollow'>scotth@johnsonfistel.com. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

Prior to the Acquisition, EarthLink's networking solutions helped
the world's leading organizations turn their networks into
platforms for business innovation. On November 7, 2016, EarthLink
and Windstream announced that they had entered into a definitive
merger agreement (the 'Merger Agreement') under which EarthLink
would be acquired by Windstream.  Following a vote of EarthLink
shareholders approving the Acquisition, under the terms of the
Merger Agreement, EarthLink stockholders were to receive just
0.818 shares of Windstream for each share of EarthLink common
stock held, which the complaint alleges was insufficient and
undervalued EarthLink as it was inconsistent with EarthLink's
recent financial performance, statements by EarthLink's mangement
and analyst targets.

The complaint charges EarthLink, certain of its officers and
directors, and Windstream with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
More specifically, the complaint alleges that in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Acquisition, on January 24,
2017, the defendants issued materially false and misleading
prospectus and proxy solicitation materials.  The prospectus and
proxy materials, which recommended that EarthLink shareholders
vote in favor of the Acquisition, misrepresent or omit material
information about the Acquisition in violation of the federal
securities laws.

         W. Scott Holleman,Esq.
         Johnson Fistel, LLP
         Telephone: 212-802-1486
         E-mail: scotth@johnsonfistel.com [GN]


EAST GREENWICH, RI: Does Not Pay Overtime, "Perry" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned WILLIAM PERRY, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated current and retired members of the EAST
GREENWICH FIRE DEPARTMENT v. TOWN OF EAST GREENWICH, By and
Through Its Finance Director, LINDA DYKEMAN, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00134-WES-LDA (D.R.I., March 23, 2018), is brought for
declaratory judgment, overtime pay, liquidated damages and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Mr. Perry, a firefighter and dispatcher currently employed by the
Town, brought the lawsuit on behalf of himself individually and
on behalf of all affected current and former members of the East
Greenwich Fire Department.  He accuses the Defendant of failing
and refusing to pay him and other similarly situated employees
all compensation due them under the FLSA and its implementing
regulations.

Town of East Greenwich, Rhode Island, is a municipal corporation
organized under a Home Rule Charter enacted by the Rhode Island
General Assembly and was, at all relevant times, Plaintiffs'
employer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth Wiens, Esq.
          GURSKY WIENS ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LTD.
          1130 Ten Rod Rd., Suite C207
          North Kingstown, RI 02852
          Telephone: (401) 294-4700
          Facsimile: (401) 294-4702
          E-mail: ewiens@rilaborlaw.com


EDDIE BAUER: Court Won't Review "Heredia" Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHANIE HEREDIA, Plaintiff, v. EDDIE BAUER LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-06236-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth
Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, denied the Defendant's
motion for leave to seek reconsideration of the Court's Class
Certification Order.

On Jan. 10, 2018, the Court granted Heredia's motion for class
certification as to the first, second, fifth and seventh causes
of action in her Complaint.

Eddie Bauer moves for leave to file a motion for reconsideration
pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(1), (2) and (3).  It contends
that it is entitled to reconsideration based upon a "material
difference in fact or law" and a "change of law," that developed
after the Court issued its Class Certification Order.  In
addition, it seeks leave to file a motion for reconsideration
based on the Court's manifest failure to consider material facts
or dispositive legal arguments presented to the Court prior to
its issuance of the Class Certification Order.

Further, Eddie Bauer challenges two aspects of the Court's
determination that class certification is warranted.  First, it
takes issue with the Court's finding of commonality, arguing that
common proof requires common answers, of which there are none in
the case.  It argues that individualized inquiries are necessary
to answer the common question of which employees were subject to
bag checks on-the-clock, and therefore cannot be part of the
class because they were already paid for time spent in connection
with bag checks.  Moreover, Eddie Bauer argues that the only
common proof offered at the class certification stage supports
the conclusion that Eddie Bauer's policies required bag checks to
be performed on-the-clock.  Finally, it points to the lack of
evidence in the record regarding whether bag checks were off-the-
clock for any employee other than Heredia.  According to Eddie
Bauer, the lack of evidence cannot support class-wide liability.

Judge Freeman finds that Eddie Bauer's arguments do not support
reconsideration of the Class Certification Order.  The "new
authority" cited by Eddie Bauer is not binding, and does not
change the law that was before the Court at the time of its
decision on Heredia's class certification motion.

In addition, Eddie Bauer impermissibly repeats many of its
previous arguments made at the hearing and in its brief in
opposition to Heredia's motion for class certification, which the
Court has already considered.  Its emphasis on the discrepancies
between the Court's comments during the give-and-take discussion
at the hearing, and the Court's ultimate determination granting
class certification, are also not grounds for reconsideration.
Throughout its motion, the Judge says, Eddie Bauer ignores the
Court's concerns with Eddie Bauer's evidence, and the ultimate
failure of that evidence to contradict Heredia's testimony which
resulted in certification of the class.  The appropriate recourse
for Eddie Bauer to move is to decertify the class, not
reconsideration.

Although Eddie Bauer clearly disagrees with the Court's ruling on
class certification, Eddie Bauer has not demonstrated a material
difference in law," a "change of law" or "a manifest failure by
the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal
arguments which were presented to the Court before" issuance of
the Class Certification Order.  The Judge did consider all
material facts and legal arguments presented by Eddie Bauer, and
Eddie Bauer's surprise or disagreement with the outcome is not an
appropriate basis for seeking reconsideration.  Moreover, Eddie
Bauer can address its concerns regarding potential individualized
issues by supplementing the evidentiary record in a motion to
decertify the class.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Freeman denied Eddie Bauer's
motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the
Court's Order Granting Class Certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/edOOmG from Leagle.com.

Stephanie Heredia, as an individual and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kristen Michelle
Agnew -- kagnew@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law Group, APC,
Larry W. Lee -- lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law Group,
P.C. & William Lucas Marder -- bill@polarislawgroup.com --
Polaris Law Group, LLP.

Eddie Bauer LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant,
represented by Jonathan Douglas Meer, -- jmeer@seyfarth.com --
Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Michael Afar -- mafar@seyfarth.com --
Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


EDWARD JONES: Customers Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
Brian Feldt of St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that four
customers of Edward Jones have sued the financial advisor for
allegedly forcing its brokers to push fee-based advisory accounts
between March 2013 and March 2018.

The class-action suit was filed March 30 in an Eastern District
of California court by plaintiffs Edward Anderson, Raymond Keith
Corum, Jesse Worthington and Colleen Worthington.

The suit was based upon 'a reverse churning scheme by (Edward
Jones) to take advantage of trusting, long-standing clients and
unlawfully shift their commission-based accounts to a fee-based
program,' the filing said.

To do that, Edward Jones made misleading statements to their
clients about the amount of fees they would pay after their
assets were moved to those programs, which was a breach in its
fiduciary duty as clients that were engaged in little to no
trading activity paid more in fee-based accounts than they did in
commission-based accounts, the suit alleged.

Edward Jones reported more than $17 billion in revenue from
asset-based fees between 2013 and 2017, the suit said. Edward
Jones finished 2017 with $7.5 billion in revenue, up from $6.5
billion in the prior year. Asset-based fees totaled just over $5
billion last year.

The suit alleges Edward Jones, which for decades had relied on a
commission-based model, shifted its strategy in 2008 by
introducing a fee-based platform called Advisory Solutions.
Moving forward, the company increasingly relied on asset-based
fees as opposed to commissions, the suit said.

The suit names Edward Jones along with several of its executives,
including Managing Partner Jim Weddle, and subsidiaries as
defendants.

In a statement, Edward Jones said it was 'reviewing the complaint
and will respond appropriately. Edward Jones has consistently
offered both fee-based and commission-based client accounts that
adhere to all regulatory requirements. We believe Edward Jones
client accounts are among the best options in the industry, and
we intend to vigorously defend this action.'

A wide range of firms, from Edward Jones to Ameriprise Financial
to wirehouses such as Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and UBS, have
been promoting advisory accounts in recent years because they
generate stable fees regardless of retail customers' trading
activities, according to Advisor Hub, a financial advisory
industry publication.

Edward Jones reported assets under care of $1.12 trillion in
2017, up from $963 billion in 2016.[GN]


EMIL FRANC: "Miranda" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Alvaro S. Miranda and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff(s), v. Emil Franc, Inc., Hector Eduardo Reglero
Montaner, individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00021 (S.D.
Fla., March 9, 2018), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Emil Franc operates Cafe Ragazzi, an Italian restaurant located
at 9500 Harding Avenue, Surfside, FL 33154, where Miranda worked
as a non-exempt full-time busser and food runner from
approximately December 22, 2016 to October 3, 2017. Plaintiff was
not paid the minimum wages established for tipped employees
despite working more than 40 hours or more every week. Miranda
earned exclusively on tips from restaurant patrons. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Telephone: (305) 446-1500
     Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
     Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


EQUIFAX INFO: Ct. Partly Grants Protective Order Bid in "Barnum"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHARON BARNUM, et al., Plaintiff(s), v. EQUIFAX
INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Defendant(s), Case No. 2:16-cv-02866-
RFB-NJK (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada denied the Plaintiffs'
motion to compel; granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's counter-motion for protective order; and denied the
Plaintiff's motion for a special master.

The parties argue at some length as to whether the Plaintiffs
have made a sufficient showing to engage in class discovery
generally.  This dispute is not properly before the Court.  The
parties requested that the Court delay class certification
precisely so that discovery could occur.  Discovery is now in its
final stages.  Equifax has not provided in the joint statement
sufficient reason for the Court to opine on this issue at this
time.  As the specific discovery disputes may be resolved on
other grounds, the Magistrate Judge declines to address this
overarching argument at this time.

The first set of disputes before the Court involves the
Plaintiffs' attempt to obtain discovery specific to the different
manners in which Equifax was notified of a dispute and
information as to its responses broken down by the manner in
which notification was provided.   Equifax has filed a
declaration explaining that complying with the itemized discovery
requests would require an individualized review of millions of
files.  Such review would require an extensive time commitment by
Equifax's employees.  Hence, it has shown by sworn evidence that
complying with these discovery requests would require a
significant effort on its part.  Moreover, the Magistrate Judge
fails to discern a sufficiently important benefit in the
Plaintiffs' discovery of the information at issue that outweighs
the burden to Equifax identified.  Accordingly, he finds that
these discovery requests impose an undue burden on Equifax.  He
therefore will deny the Plaintiffs' request to compel further
responses, and will grant Equifax's request for a protective
order.

The second set of disputes involves three requests for production
in which the Plaintiffs seek documents as to Equifax's
transmission of Dispute Responses to a Disputing Consumer and its
policies to ensure the results of a reinvestigation are provided
to a consumer.  This set of disputes appears to encompass two
primary issues: scope of Request for Production No. 2 and
allegedly missing documents.

Magistrate Judge Koppe agrees with Equifax that the discovery
request asks for documents concerning transmission of disputes to
costumers and, whether they may be relevant to the case in
general or not, documents about Canon's handling of incoming
disputes do not fall within the scope of that request.  He will
not compel the production of documents that have not been
requested.  He finds that the best approach is for Equifax to
provide a declaration detailing the search it undertook and
attesting that no unproduced responsive documents were found
notwithstanding that search.  That declaration will be provided
to the Plaintiffs within 14 days.  Accordingly, he will deny
without prejudice this aspect of the competing motions to compel
and for protective order.

Finally, as to the Plaintiff's motion for a special master to
oversee discovery, the Magistrate Judge finds that the Plaintiff
has not made a sufficient showing that appointment of a special
master is warranted.  He therefore will deny that request.

For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Koppe denied the Plaintiffs'
motion to compel; granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's motion for protective order; and denied the
Plaintiff's motion for a special master.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Q55TMf from Leagle.com.

Robert Sustrik & Sharon Barnum, Plaintiffs, represented by David
H. Krieger, Haines & Krieger, LLC, Matthew I. Knepper --
matthew.knepper@knepperclark.com -- Knepper & Clark, LLC & Miles
N. Clark -- miles.clark@knepperclark.com -- Knepper & Clark LLC.

Equifax Information Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Bryan Zubay -- bzubay@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, pro hac
vice, Kevin Jordan O'Brie -- kobrien@kslaw.com -- King &
Spaulding LLP, pro hac vice, Misty L. Peterson --
mpeterson@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, pro hac vice, Zachary A.
McEntyre -- zmcentyre@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, pro hac
vice & Bradley T. Austin -- baustin@swlaw.com -- Snell & Wilmer
LLP.


FACEBOOK INC: Lodowski Sues Over Failure to Protect User Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW LODOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FACEBOOK, INC., CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA LLC,
ROBERT LEROY MERCER, and ALEKSANDR KOGAN, Case No. 4:18-cv-00907
(S.D. Tex., March 23, 2018), alleges violations of the Stored
Communications Act and common law.

Mr. Lodowski alleges that the Defendants conspired to improperly
obtain, and did obtain, private and personal profile data from
nearly 50 million Facebook users without their consent or
knowledge, including the Plaintiff and Class members, in excess
of the authorization granted by Facebook and Facebook users, in
violation of the SCA.

Facebook negligently failed to protect its user data, and, upon
learning of the unauthorized access and use of this data, failed
to take reasonable measures necessary to retrieve the data, Mr.
Lodowski also contends.  He adds that Facebook also failed to
notify its users that their data had been obtained when it
learned of the unauthorized acquisition, and only spoke publicly
on the issue after news stories exposed their negligent behavior.

Facebook is a corporation organized under the laws of the state
of Delaware with its principal offices located in Menlo Park,
California.

Cambridge Analytica LLC is a limited liability company organized
under the laws of the state of Delaware with its principal
offices located in New York City.  CA is a privately held company
that combines data mining and data analysis with strategic
communication for the electoral process.  The Mercer family,
known for its far-right conservative positions, reportedly
invested millions of dollars in the company, and Rebekah Mercer
(Robert Mercer's daughter) sits on CA's Board of Directors.

Robert Leroy Mercer is a resident of New York.  CA was created in
2013 by its British parent company SCL Group, Limited, and
Defendant Mercer, who is reported to be a "secretive hedge fund
billionaire" participating in American politics.

Aleksandr Kogan is a resident of Cambridge, England, and a
Cambridge University professor.  Kogan contracted to work with CA
and designed the plan to acquire user data from Facebook.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
          2700 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1120
          Galleria Tower I
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 322-6387
          Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
          E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com
                  jarrett@hughesellzey.com


FOGO DE CHAO: Faces "Pazral" Class Suit Over Sale to Rhone
----------------------------------------------------------
JAN PAZRAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FOGO DE CHAO, INC., TODD ABBRECHT, GERALD W.
DEITCHLE, DOUGLAS A. HABER, LAWRENCE JOHNSON, NEIL MOSES, DOUGLAS
R. PENDERGAST, and JEFF T. SWENSON, Case No. 2018-0202 (Del. Ch.
Ct., March 22, 2018), accuses the Defendants of breaching their
fiduciary duties in connection with their attempt to sell the
Company to Prime Cut Intermediate Holdings, Inc. ("Parent"), a
wholly owned subsidiary of Rhone Partners V L.P. and Rhone
Offshore Partners V L.P., and investment fund affiliated with
Rhone Capital V L.P.

On February 20, 2018, the Company announced that it had entered
into a definitive agreement by which Rhone will acquire all of
the outstanding shares of Fogo de Chao through Parent and its
wholly owned subsidiary, Prime Cut Merger Sub, Inc.  Each share
of Fogo de Chao common stock will be cancelled and converted into
the right to receive $15.75 in cash.  The Proposed Transaction is
valued at approximately $560 million.

Fogo de Chao is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the state of Delaware and maintains its principal
executive offices in Plano, Texas.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

Fogo de Chao is a Brazilian steakhouse chain.  Founded in 1979,
the Company offers a tasting menu of a variety of meats in a
"continuous service" model.  The Company currently operates 38
restaurants in the United States, nine in Brazil, and four joint
venture restaurants in Mexico and the Middle East.

Non-party Rhone is a private equity investment firm based in New
York City.  Founded in 1995, Rhone managed approximately $8.5
billion in assets as of 2015 according to Forbes.

Non-party Parent is a Delaware corporation and indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of funds affiliated with Rhone.  Non-party
Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation, wholly owned by Parent, and
incorporated solely to effect the Proposed Transaction.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
          Daniel P. Murray, Esq.
          O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC
          901 Market Street, Suite 1000
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 778-4000
          Facsimile: (302) 295-2873
          E-mail: rernst@oelegal.com
                  dmurray@oelegal.com

               - and -

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com
                  etripodi@zlk.com


FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Failed to Remit Property Tax, Harrell Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Rodney W. Harrell, on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00275 (E.D. Va., March 12, 2018), seeks
redress for violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act of 1974.

Harrell owns a single-family, residential property at 981
Powhatan St., Alexandria VA 22314 with Freedom Mortgage
Corporation as the mortgage lender and servicer of the loan.
Harrell claims that Freedom Mortgage did not remit the property
tax to Alexandria City despite being complete with his mortgage
payments. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John J. Beins, Esq.
      BEINS GOLDBERG LLP
      2 Wisconsin Circle, Suite 700
      Chevy Chase, MD 20815
      Tel: (240) 235-5040
      Email: jbeins@beinsgoldberg.com

             - and -

      Justin P. Keating, Esq.
      BEINS, AXELROD, P.C.
      1030 15th St., NW, Suite 700 East
      Washington, DC 20005
      Tel: (202) 328-7222
      Email: info@beinsaxelrod.com


FUNKO INC: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gardy & Notis, LLP, announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of purchasers of Funko, Inc. (NASDAQ: FNKO)
common stock in connection with or traceable Funko's November 1,
2017 initial public offering.  The lawsuit alleges that Funko's
officers and directors and others violated the federal securities
laws by making materially misleading statements regarding Funko's
sales and inventories.

Funko investors have the option to participate in the class
action as a lead plaintiff.  If you have questions about the
case, you may contact Mark C. Gardy, at Gardy & Notis, LLP, 126
East 56th Street, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Telephone: 212-
905-0509, Fax: 212-905-0508, email: mgardy@gardylaw.com.

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

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

If you acquired shares of Funko issued in connection with the IPO
you have until June 4, 2018 to seek to participate in the case as
a lead plaintiff. If you wish to learn more about this action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Mark Gardy, Gardy & Notis, LLP, 126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor,
New York, NY 10022, at 212-905-0509 or by email to
mgardy@gardylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
[GN]


GLH CAPITAL: Settlement in "Owens" Suit Over Unpaid OT Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TABITHA OWENS and CHAD WALTERS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GLH
CAPITAL ENTERPRISE, INC., M.L.K. ENTERPRISES, LLC, BACK STREET
ENTERTAINMENT, LTD., and CHARLES "JERRY" WESTLUND, JR., an
individual, Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-1109-NJR-SCW (S.D. Ill.),
Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois granted the Parties' Joint Motion
for Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing the Action with
Prejudice.

Plaintiffs Owens and Walters filed the lawsuit in their
individual capacities and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, alleging that the Defendants failed to pay them
overtime at a rate of one and one-half times the regular rate for
hours worked in excess of forty hours in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.  On July
13, 2017, the Court conditionally certified the case as a
collective action and authorized notice to the proposed
collective class.

Five current and former employees of the Defendants, in addition
to the two named Plaintiffs, have filed consents to join the
lawsuit.  On Jan. 10, 2017, Defendant Westlund filed a motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims.  He also filed a counterclaim
against the Plaintiffs for False Light and Defamation Per Se.  On
Jan. 31, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss Defendant
Westlund's counterclaim.

On July 14, 2017, the Court denied Defendant Westlund's motion to
dismiss and granted the Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Defendant
Westlund's counterclaim.  The case then moved into the collective
notice period, discovery, and settlement negotiations.  The
Plaintiffs and the Defendants have reached a settlement of the
case and now seek final settlement approval and dismissal of the
case with prejudice.  The Notice of the settlement was sent out
to the class members and they had until March 2, 2018 to file any
objections to the settlement.  No objections have been filed.

Judge Rosenstengel finds that approving the settlement will save
the parties from years of litigation and tremendous uncertainty
as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation.  It should further
be noted that no objections were filed to the Settlement
Agreement.  She ultimately finds that the settlement is fair,
adequate, reasonable, and in the best interest of the parties,
and is therefore approved.

As part of the Settlement, the Plaintiffs' counsel seeks the
approval of $20,000 in attorneys' fees and costs.  Taking into
account the stage of the litigation, which included discovery,
research, and negotiations, the Judge considers the discounted
amount of $20,000in the Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs to
be reasonable.  She further finds it reasonable in light of the
risk of nonpayment that counsel faced, since they took the case
on a contingent basis.  Accordingly, she approved the request for
attorneys' fees.

Accordingly, Judge Rosenstengel granted the parties' Joint Motion
to Approve Settlement and to Dismiss Action with Prejudice.  She
dismissed with prejudice the action.  Judgment will be entered
accordingly.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2018 Supplemental
Approval and Dismissal Order is available at https://is.gd/IvX4Vu
from Leagle.com.

Tabitha Owens, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles R. Ash, IV --
crash@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice,
Martine P. Jackson -- mjackson@rhodeandjackson.com -- Rhode &
Jackson, P.C. Jackson County & Shari R. Rhode --
srhode@rhodeandjackson.com -- Rhode Law Firm.

Chad Walters, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles R. Ash, IV, Sommers
Schwartz, P.C., Martine P. Jackson, Rhode & Jackson, P.C. Jackson
County & Shari R. Rhode, Rhode Law Firm.

GLH Capital Enterprise, Inc., M.L.K. Enterprises, L.L.C., Back
Street Entertainment, L.T.D. & Charles Westlund, Jr., also known
as Jerry Westlund, Defendants, represented by John R. Schneider,
Johnson, Schneider & Ferrell, LLC.

Back Street Entertainment, L.T.D., Counter Claimant, represented
by John R. Schneider, Johnson, Schneider & Ferrell, LLC.

Tabitha Owens, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, & Chad Walters, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Counter Defendants, represented by Charles R.
Ash, IV, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice, Martine P.
Jackson, Rhode & Jackson, P.C. Jackson County & Shari R. Rhode,
Rhode Law Firm.


GOOGLE INC: Fair Pay Class Action Moves Ahead
---------------------------------------------
Kate S. Gold and Irene M. Rizzi, writing for The National Law
Review, reports that a California state court in San Francisco
ruled that a California Equal Pay Act class action against Google
Inc. has survived the pleading stage. The California Equal Pay
Act currently requires equal pay for employees who perform
"substantially similar work" when viewed as a composite of skill,
effort and responsibility. The 2016 amendment to the Equal Pay
Act also prohibits employers from relying on the employee's prior
salary to justify a sex-based difference in salary. Plaintiffs
allege in their amended complaint that Google relies on gender
stereotypes and has a company-wide policy of relying on former
salary history in setting pay and assigning jobs. These
allegations were critical to the court's decision to allow the
case to proceed as a class action.

Background

In September 2017, three former female Google employees filed a
class action alleging systemic pay disparity between men and
women at the company. The court originally granted Google's
motion to dismiss and strike class allegations, but granted
Plaintiffs leave to amend. The amended complaint narrowed the
scope of Plaintiffs' class definition from "all women employed by
Google in California" to "all women employed by Google in
California" who have held a "Covered Position," which included
job levels within 30 positions, including engineers, business
systems managers, sales specialists and pre-school teachers. In
addition, the amended complaint alleges that Google has a
company-wide policy of relying on former salary history in
setting pay and assigning jobs, despite its purported knowledge
that this policy adversely affects women.  Plaintiffs alleged
that this policy, as well as stereotypes about what jobs women
can and should do, perpetuated pay disparities at Google.

Google's Second Attempt to Defeat the Class Action
In response to the amended complaint, Google again sought to
dismiss the class allegations and the class-wide intentional
discrimination claim. Google argued that the amended class
definition was still too broad as Plaintiffs themselves did not
hold certain Covered Positions and accordingly failed to plead
facts that female employees in these Covered Positions performed
substantially similar work to men, the crux of a fair pay claim
under California law.

In addition, Google argued that Plaintiffs' intentional
discrimination claim was based on their own individual
experiences, rather than a company policy that could form the
basis for a class action. The court rejected both arguments.

The Court's Decision

In the order, the court held that Plaintiffs' amended complaint
pled sufficient facts to proceed. The court was unpersuaded by
the fact that Plaintiffs did not hold jobs in certain Covered
Positions because Plaintiffs successfully alleged a company-wide
policy that applied to all Google employees in Covered Positions.
By alleging a uniform policy -- the reliance on prior pay to set
salaries and determine job levels -- Plaintiffs adequately pled
an ascertainable class that encompassed all Covered Positions.

For similar reasons, the court held that Plaintiffs' intentional
discrimination claim was sufficient to survive the pleading
stage. The court found that Plaintiffs' reference to Google's
alleged policy of considering prior pay and acting on stereotypes
about women was sufficient to demonstrate at the pleading stage
that Plaintiffs' intentional discrimination claim was not unique
to them. Moreover, the court accepted Plaintiffs' allegation that
Google knew or should have known of the pay differences between
men and women in Covered Positions based, in large part, on the
company's annual audits and the U.S. Department of Labor's Office
of Federal Contract Compliance Programs' (OFCCP) audit that
revealed gender pay disparities last year.

The court must assume the truth of Plaintiffs' allegations about
Google's policies and practices for purposes of ruling on
Google's initial motion to dismiss, and its ruling therefore
reflects the relatively low threshold needed for Plaintiffs to
survive an effort to dismiss the class claims at the outset of
the case. However, the pleading stage is only the first hurdle
that Plaintiffs must clear. Plaintiffs will need to demonstrate
that Google actually maintains the allegedly common
discriminatory policies and practices as to the Covered Positions
in order to certify a class of employees in the Covered
Positions. [GN]


HAYT HAYT: Knight Hits Double Charging in Collection Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Devin Knight, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Law Offices of Hayt, Hayt & Landau, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00320, (W.D. Pa., March 12, 2018),
seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to
the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Hayt is a collection agency with an office located at Two
Industrial Way West, Eatontown, NJ 07724-0500. Defendants filed a
lawsuit against Knight in an attempt to collect a debt incurred
by Knight with Capital One Bank, N.A. The amount they were
seeking to collect, $4,022.74, already included the costs of
$171.50. Defendants illegally attempted to collect the costs
twice from the Plaintiff by adding the costs into the unpaid
balance and seeking costs on top of that, says the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark G. Moynihan, Esq.
      MOYNIHAN LAW, P.C.
      112 Washington Place, Suite 230
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Tel: (412) 889-8535
      Email: mark@moynihanlaw.net


HILTON MANAGEMENT: Shuttle Not Wheelchair-Friendly, Colburn Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gaynell C. Colburn, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. Hilton Management LLC, doing business as
Hilton Management Services, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00730, (D.
Md., March 12, 2018), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Hilton manages and/or operates hotels throughout the United
States. Defendant provides its customers transportation services,
including, but not limited to, complimentary shuttle services.

Colburn requires a wheelchair accessible vehicle in order to
utilize transportation services offered by hotels. Plaintiff was
told that the complimentary shuttle service was not wheelchair
accessible. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      E. David Hoskins, Esq., No. 06705
      The Law Offices of E. David Hoskins, LLC
      16 East Lombard Street, Suite 400
      Baltimore, MD 21202
      Tel: (410) 662-6500
      Email: davidhoskins@hoskinslaw.com

             - and -

      Kathleen P. Hyland, Esq.
      HYLAND LAW FIRM, LLC
      16 E. Lombard Street, Suite 400
      Baltimore, MD 21202
      Tel: (410) 777-5396
      Fax: (410) 777-8237
      Email: kat@lawhyland.com

             - and -

      R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
      1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
      Pittsburgh PA, 15222
      Tel: (412) 322-9243
      Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


HOPELE OF FORT: Ramos Moves for Class Certification Under TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned KATIRIA RAMOS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
HOPELE OF FORT LAUDERDALE, LLC d/b/a PANDORA @ GALLERIA, a
Florida limited liability company, and PANDORA JEWELRY, LLC, a
Maryland limited liability company, Case No. 0:17-cv-62100-FAM
(S.D. Fla.), seeks to certify this Class:

     All persons within the United States who were sent Pandora
     Marketing Texts from Defendants or anyone on Defendants'
     behalf, to said person's cellular telephone number, without
     emergency purpose and without the recipient's prior consent.

Excluded from the Class is Pandora, Pandora's directors and
officers, Pandora's employees, immediate families of Pandora's
directors and officers, or the legal representatives, agents,
affiliates, heirs, successors-in-interests or assignees of any
such excluded person, and the Judge presiding over this action,
including the Judge's staff, clerk, and family members.

Ms. Ramos moves to certify a class with respect to the two claims
for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act set forth
in Counts I and II of her complaint; to designate her as class
representative; and to designate the law firms of Kopelowitz
Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert; Hiraldo P.A.; and Shamis &
Gentile P.A., as class counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  edelsberg@kolawyers.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


HUDSON SEAFOOD: Bid Extend Time to Reply to Judgment Offer Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Lydia Carlock and Nicolas Fabrizio, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Hudson Seafood Corporation d/b/a Hudson's Seafood House on the
Docks; and John Doe 1-10, individually, Defendant, Civil Action
No. 9:18-cv-590-RMG (D. S.C.), Judge Richard Mark Gergel of the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Beaufort
Division, denied the Plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time
to respond to the Defendants' Rule 68 Offer of Judgment.

Carlock and  Fabrizio filed the action on March 1, 2018, as a
Collective Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
and as a Rule 23 Class Action for violation of the South Carolina
Payment of Wages Act ("SCPWA").  On March 14, 2018, the counsel
for the Defendants sent a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment and checks to
both the named Plaintiffs purporting to fully compensate them for
any claim they may have against the Defendants.

Pursuant to Rule 68, the Plaintiffs' deadline to respond is April
2, 2018.  On March 23, 2018, the counsel for the Plaintiffs
requested, via email, a 14-day extension to respond to the Offer;
on that date, the counsel for the Defendants responded via email
that he could not consent to the requested extension.

Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion for an extension of
time of 14 days to respond to the Defendants' Rule 68 Offer of
Judgment.  The Defendants have filed a response in opposition.

Judge Gergel holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to show good
cause under Rule 6(b) for the Court to extend the 14-day period
provided under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The
Plaintiffs argue that they have shown good cause for an extension
because their request is based on their counsels' need to
research fully the issue of the Plaintiffs' duties as Class
Representatives under both the FLSA Collective Action and Rule 23
Class Action, after receiving the Defendants' Rule 68 Offer of
Judgment, and then advising the Plaintiffs' of their rights and
duties.  The need to conduct additional research about this
foreseeable issue falls short of the good cause needed for the
Court to extend the fourteen-day acceptance period set forth in
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

For these reasons, Judge Gergel denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
an extension of time to respond to the Defendants' Rule 68 Offer
of Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Order and Opinion
is available at https://goo.gl/JFft9J from Leagle.com.

Lydia Carlock, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce E. Miller --
bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com -- Bruce E. Miller Law Office &
Elisabeth Anne Germain -- bgermain@brucemillerlaw.com -- Bruce E.
Miller Law Office.

Nicolas Fabrizio, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce E. Miller,
Bruce E. Miller Law Office.

Hudson Seafood Corporation, doing business as Hudson's Seafood
House on the Docks & John Doe 1-10, individually, Defendants,
represented by James Keith Gilliam -- jgilliam@mcnair.net --
McNair Law Firm.


ICICI BANK: Faces Risk of Class Action Suit, Jefferies Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mydigitalfc.com reports that troubles seem to be far from over
for ICICI Bank, which is accused of quid pro quo in Rs 3,250
crore loan to Videocon group. US-based brokerage firm Jefferies
said India's biggest private sector lender now faces the risk of
a class action suit in the US. It also cut ICICI Bank's price
target to Rs 370 apiece from Rs 410 per share.

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

ICICI Bank shares are traded at NYSE in ADR form. It was trading
at $8.28, 0.24 per cent higher than its previous close, in early
trading on April 4.

Meanwhile, the government said it is well within SIFO's ambit to
make a reference about a case but there is no such reference
currently with the corporate affairs ministry on the issue.

ICICI Bank and its chief executive Chanda Kochhar and her family
members are mired in a controversy over the alleged conflict of
interest and quid pro quo in extending the loan to Videocon
group.
The Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) has sought
permission to look into the matter. The CBI has launched a
preliminary investigation into the case and the role of Chanda
Kochhar's husband Deepak Kochhar.

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


ILLINOIS: ADA Claim in "Peters" May Proceed vs. IDOC, Baldwin
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SCOTT PETERS, #M52851, Plaintiffs, v. JOHN BALDWIN,
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CHRIS BRADLEY, JAQUELINE
LASHBROOK, FRANK LAWRENCE, HOLLY HAWKINS, GAIL WALLS, CINDY
MEYER, R. ROWOLD, ANGELA CRAIN, and ERIN SMITH, Defendants, Case
No. 17-cv-0852-DRH (S.D. Ill.), Judge David R. Herndon of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois ordered
that Count 1 will proceed against IDOC and Baldwin (official
capacity only).

Peters, an inmate in Menard Correctional Center, brings the
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for alleged
deprivations of his constitutional rights.  In his Second Amended
Complaint, the Plaintiff claims the Defendants have failed to
accommodate his disabilities and have been deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical issues in violation of the
Eighth Amendment.

The case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
Second Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A.
Upon careful review of the Second Amended Complaint and any
supporting exhibits, Judge Herndon finds it appropriate to allow
the case to proceed past the threshold stage.

Based on the allegations of the Complaint, the Judge finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into 5 counts.  The
parties and the Court will use these designations in all future
pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial
officer of the Court.  The designation of these counts does not
constitute an opinion regarding their merit.

     a. Count 1 - The Defendants violated the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Rehabilitation Act for failing to
accommodate the Plaintiff's disabilities.

     b. Count 2 - The Defendants exhibited deliberate
indifference toward the Plaintiff, in violation of the Eighth
Amendment, by denying disabled inmates devices to assist them in
walking and mobility.

     c. Count 3 - The Defendants were medically negligent by
denying disabled inmates devices to assist them in walking and
mobility.

     d. Count 4 - The Defendants showed deliberate indifference
to the Plaintiff's serious medical needs involving injuries he
sustained while in the military by confining him to lay-in-feed-
in for three months, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

     e. Count 5 - The Defendants violated the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") by
conducting medical visits with ADA inmates within earshot of
other inmates and corrections officers.

Judge Herndon holds that Count 1 will proceed against IDOC and
Baldwin in his official capacity only.  It will be dismissed
against all other Defendants with prejudice.  The Plaintiff's
claims cannot proceed against the individual Defendants because
individual employees of IDOC cannot be sued under the ADA or
Rehabilitation Act.

Given that Count 2 is a duplicate of one already pending, and the
Plaintiff has not clearly indicated in his Second Amended
Complaint which Defendants are to blame for the alleged
constitutional deprivations, the Judge will dismiss Count 2
without prejudice.  He says the Plaintiff may choose to focus his
efforts on litigating this claim in 16-cv-382, or move to amend
his complaint in this action to more clearly associate the
specific Defendants with it.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiff has failed to effectively
associate any Defendants with his medical negligence claim, and
he has also failed to file the necessary affidavits or reports.
Therefore, he will dismiss Count 3 without prejudice.

Judge Herndon also finds that the allegations imply that Crain
and Smith chose the alleged course of treatment believing it
would help the Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff disagrees, but mere
disagreement does not give rise to an Eighth Amendment claim.
Further, without specific allegations tying Hawkins and Walls to
the decision, the Judge will not infer they were directly
involved or deliberately indifferent.  He says the Plaintiff does
not claim that any of these Defendants were aware of the sores he
developed from the chosen course of treatment either, much less
were deliberately indifferent to them.  For these reasons, Count
4 will be dismissed without prejudice.

The Judge holds that HIPAA does not furnish a private right of
action.  Count 5, based on HIPAA, will therefore be dismissed
with prejudice.

Given the lack of urgency and clarity, and the fact that the
Plaintiff failed to file a separate motion pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 65 seeking any sort of interim relief,
the Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction will be
denied without prejudice.  However, the Plaintiff may still
request a preliminary injunction by filing a separate motion
pursuant to Rule 65, should he so choose.

Finally, the Plaintiff has filed several motions for recruitment
of counsel, which are referred to a United States Magistrate
Judge for a decision.  The Plaintiff has also filed multiple
motions for certification of class, which will be denied without
prejudice.

For these reasons, Judge Herndon ordered that Count 1 will
proceed against IDOC and Baldwin (official capacity only).  He
dismissed Count 1 with prejudice against all other Defendants, as
well as against Baldwin in his individual capacity.  The Judge
further dismissed without prejudice Counts 2, 3, and 4 for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and
Count 5.  Baldwin (individual capacity only), Bradley, Lashbrook,
Lawrence, Hawkins, Walls, Meyer, Rowold, Crain, and Smith are
dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.

As to Count 1, Judge Herndon directed the Clerk of Court to
prepare for IDOC and Baldwin (official capacity only): (1) Form 5
(Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons),
and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of Service of Summons).  The Clerk is also
directed to mail these forms, a copy of the Second Amended
Complaint, and the Memorandum and Order to the Defendants' place
of employment as identified by the Plaintiff.  If one of the
Defendants fails to sign and return the Waiver of Service of
Summons (Form 6) to the Clerk within 30 days from the date the
forms were sent, the Clerk will take appropriate steps to effect
formal service on that Defendant, and the Court will require the
Defendant pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent
authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

With respect to a Defendant who no longer can be found at the
work address provided by the Plaintiff, the employer will furnish
the Clerk with the Defendant's current work address, or, if not
known, the Defendant's last-known address.  This information will
be used only for sending the forms as directed above or for
formally effecting service.  The Judge notes that any
documentation of the address will be retained only by the Clerk.
Address information will not be maintained in the court file or
disclosed by the Clerk.

The Judge also directed the Defendants to timely file an
appropriate responsive pleading to the Second Amended Complaint
and will not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
1997e(g).

Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(a)(2), he referred the action to a
United States Magistrate Judge for further pre-trial proceedings.
Further, this entire matter will be referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge for disposition, pursuant to Local Rule
72.2(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c), if all parties consent
to such a referral.

If judgment is rendered against the Plaintiff, and the judgment
includes the payment of costs under Section 1915, the Plaintiff
will be required to pay the full amount of the costs, despite the
fact that his application to proceed in forma pauperis has been
granted.

Finally, he advised the Plaintiff that he is under a continuing
obligation to keep the Clerk of Court and each opposing party
informed of any change in his address; the Court will not
independently investigate his whereabouts.  This will be done in
writing and not later than seven days after a transfer or other
change in address occurs.  Failure to comply with the order will
cause a delay in the transmission of court documents and may
result in dismissal of the action for want of prosecution.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/vxtChf from Leagle.com.

Scott Peters, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, pro se.


ILLINOIS: Court Denies "Trainor" Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, COREY TRAINOR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LARRY GEBKE,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-627-DRH-DGW (S.D. Ill.), Judge
David R. Herndon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois adopted Magistrate Judge Donald G.
Wilkerson's Report and Recommendation on Jan. 22, 2018 in its
entirety, including its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
and denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Report recommends that the Court denies the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification.  Specifically, Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson found that pursuant to the four considerations
contained in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) regarding
class certification, the Plaintiffs' motion failed on all
grounds.

Regarding numerosity, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson found that the
Plaintiffs did not describe the class with any other detail other
than to state the proposed class is all offenders within the
custody of Centralia CC which they allege includes 1,500
offenders.  Additionally, they did not provide how many inmates
had been wrongfully denied any publications due to the alleged
censorship policy of defendant Gebke.

In finding no commonality or typicality, the Magistrate Judge
noted that factual analysis of why each alleged publication was
banned would differ between each publication; and the Plaintiffs
did not provide allegations that the materials they were denied
were similarly denied to other inmates.

As to typicality, he found no evidence before the court as to how
many of the alleged 1,500 inmates at Centralia requested and were
denied materials based on the race or ethnicity of the author or
subjects of the materials making the Court unable to find that
the Plaintiffs' claims would be typical of those of the class.

Finally, as to adequacy, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson held that
based on the evidence, it was not certain the Plaintiffs would
have any incentive to vigorously advocate for those materials
they were not themselves denied.  And, the Seventh Circuit has
held that it is not an abuse of discretion to deny a motion for
class certification as a pro se litigant is not adequate class
representation.

Only Plaintiff Michael Turner filed an objection to the Report.
On Feb. 9, 2018, Turner filed a mere three-page
objection/response to the Magistrate's recommendation of denying
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Judge Herndon first looks at Turner's erroneously placed response
to the Jan. 19, 2018 Order, denying the Plaintiffs' motion to
issue an order allowing one another to correspond for purposes
relating to their case.  From the date the non-dispositive
January 19th Order was entered, the Plaintiffs had 14 days in
which to file an appeal.  As Turner's combined objections were
filed 21 days later, the response is untimely.  Even if the Court
were to consider the objections timely, it does so under the
"clear error" standard.  Accordingly, he finds no merit in
Plaintiff Turner's first objection.

Turner's second objection addresses the Report at issue regarding
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  In his response,
Turner appears to only raise objection to Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson's finding concerning the numerosity inquiry of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1).  Specifically, he argues that
the Plaintiffs' complaint adequately alleges that they and
prisoners alike are being violated by the unconstitutional
policies of Defendant Gebke, and that the Plaintiffs are unable
to provide documents from other offenders' denials of similar
publications as prisoners cannot be in possession of other
offenders names and identification information.  Because of this,
Tuner seeks a stay allowing time for the Plaintiffs to obtain
documentation on other prisoner's publication denials, the Court
assumes to aid in proving that the numerosity requirement has
been met.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs provide little in the way of
helping the Court define the proposed class of upwards of 1,500
prisoners at Centralia Correctional Center.  In the only support
of his objection, Turner directs the Judge to certain portions of
the Complaint.

After reviewing the record, Judge Herndon concludes, as
Magistrate Judge Wilkerson concluded, that based on the evidence
presented, it is not reasonable to believe the numerosity
requirement has been met.  And if the proposed class fails to
meet any of the four class requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, class certification is precluded.

The Judge finds that Magistrate Wilkerson's Jan. 22, 2018 Report
denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is well
written and clearly sets out the reasons for his recommendation.
Accordingly, he adopted the Report in its entirety, including its
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.  Thus, Judge Herndon
denied the motion for class certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/4qA0mY from Leagle.com.

Corey Trainor, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, pro se.

Michael Turner, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, pro se.

Larry Gebke, Chairman of the Publication Review Committee -- sued
individually and in their official capacity & Robert C. Mueller,
Warden at Centralia CC -- sued individually and in their official
capacity, Defendants, represented by Rachel D. Schwarzlose,
Attorney General's Office.


INFINITY PROPERTY: Court Won't Dismiss MAO-MSO Recovery Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MAO-MSO RECOVERY II LLC, a Delaware entity, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. INFINITY PROPERTY & CASUALTY GROUP, an Alabama
company, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00513-KOB (N.D. Ala.), Judge
Karon Owen Bowdre of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama, Southern Division, denied Infinity's motion
to dismiss the amended complaint, but granted its alternative
motion for a more definite statement.

The case arises under the Medicare Secondary Payer statute.
Under the statute, Medicare is the "secondary payer" after all
other sources of coverage.  In the words of the Medicare
Secondary Payer statute, if a primary plan has not made or cannot
reasonably be expected to make payment with respect to an item or
service promptly, the secondary payer -- Medicare -- may make a
conditional payment.  But if Medicare does pay for a service that
a primary payer should have covered, it can seek reimbursement
from the primary payer or from the recipient of the payment, and
damages if the primary payer fails to reimburse it.

Intersecting with the Medicare Secondary Payer statute is the
existence of private insurers called Medicare Advantage
Organizations.  Medicare Advantage Organizations, either
themselves or through Maintenance Service Organizations deliver
the Medicare benefits and assume the risks related to insuring
the Medicare enrollees.  As a result, if a Medicare Advantage
Organization and another insurance company provide overlapping
coverage for a Medicare beneficiary, the other insurance company
becomes the primary payer and the Medicare Advantage Organization
is the secondary payer; if the insurance company fails to make a
required payment and the Medicare Advantage Organization makes a
conditional payment, the Medicare Advantage Organization may sue
the insurance company for damages.

The Plaintiffs assert that Infinity provided car insurance, which
included coverage for medical payments for any automobile
accident-related medical expenses, to numerous Medicare
beneficiaries who were members of the assignor Medicare Advantage
Organizations.  They allege that the Medicare beneficiaries were
involved in car accidents and incurred medical expenses, and that
Infinity was aware of the accidents and even assigned claim
numbers.  But, according to the Plaintiffs, Infinity failed to
pay and/or properly reimburse the Medicare Advantage
Organizations.

In the putative class action, the Plaintiffs assert two claims:
(1) a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1395y(b)(3)(A) for double
damages because Infinity failed to make the required primary
payments or reimbursements to the assignor Medicare Advantage
Organizations; and (2) direct right of recovery, under 42 C.F.R.
Section 411.24(e), for Infinity's breach of contract with its
insureds.  They provide two "representative" claims with two
named Medicare Advantage Organizations, one Maintenance Service
Organization, and the initials of two Medicare beneficiaries.

After Infinity moved to dismiss the amended complaint, the Court
ordered the Plaintiffs to submit the document or documents
purporting to assign the two representative Medicare Advantage
Organizations' rights of recovery and reimbursement to the
Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs responded to the show cause order
with several sets of assignment agreements assigning a Medicare
Advantage Organization's and a Maintenance Service Organization's
rights to Plaintiff MSPA Claims 1.

Infinity moves to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), for lack of standing, and under
Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim.  In the alternative,
it moves for a more definite statement, under Rule 12(e).
Infinity seeks specific information about the assignor Medicare
Advantage Organizations, the Medicare beneficiaries, the medical
bills at issue, and an explanation for why the Medicare Advantage
Organizations determined that Infinity could not reasonably be
expected to make a prompt payment.

Given the standard used to evaluate a motion to dismiss for lack
of standing, Judge Bowdre finds that the Plaintiffs' allegation
of valid assignments alone is sufficient to show that they have
standing.  Plaintiff MSPA Claims 1 has established the existence
of at least one valid assignment. In short, Plaintiff MSPA Claims
1 has standing because it has submitted evidence of a valid
assignment of a Medicare Advantage Organization's rights to
recovery and reimbursement.

The Judge will deny Infinity's motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim because the Plaintiffs have states a claim for
damages under 42 U.S.C. Section 1395y(b)(2).  He finds that (i)
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require the level of
factual specificity that Infinity seeks; (ii) the Plaintiffs have
filed a sealed amended complaint identifying two Medicare
Advantage Organizations and one Maintenance Service Organization;
(iii) the Plaintiffs' allegation that Infinity failed to pay is
sufficient to show that the assignor Medicare Advantage
Organizations were authorized to make the payments for which the
Plaintiffs now seek reimbursement; and (iv) the Plaintiffs
expressly allege that Infinity provided car insurance to Medicare
beneficiaries who were members of Medicare Advantage
Organizations, and that the insurance policies covered medical
payments for any automobile accident-related medical expenses,
but Infinity did not pay, causing the Medicare Advantage
Organizations to make the payments instead.

Finally, Judge Bowdre agrees with Infinity that the amended
complaint is too vague to allow Infinity to reasonably prepare a
response. Infinity needs the names -- not just the initials -- of
the Medicare beneficiaries that it allegedly insured, as well as
the identities of the assignor Medicare Advantage Organizations
that allegedly paid their medical bills in Infinity's place.  But
in the meantime, he will grant the motion for a more definite
statement.

The Judge will order the Plaintiffs to file an addendum to the
amended complaint that includes at least one representative claim
per named Plaintiff and that identifies the assignor Medicare
Advantage Organization or Organizations and the Infinity-insured
Medicare beneficiary or beneficiaries.  But he will not order the
Plaintiffs to replead their amended complaint to add information
about the specific medical bills or the reasons why the Medicare
Advantage Organizations determined that Infinity had not paid or
could not reasonably be expected to pay.  Infinity does not need
that information to prepare a response to the amended complaint.
Instead, it can obtain that information through discovery.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Bowdre denied Infinity's motion
to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for
failure to state a claim.  He granted Infinity's request for a
more definite statement, and ordered the Plaintiffs to file an
addendum to the amended complaint that includes at least one
representative claim per named Plaintiff that identifies the
assignor Medicare Advantage Organization or Organizations and the
Infinity-insured Medicare beneficiary or beneficiaries.  The
Judge will enter a separate order consistent with his Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/vLyc59 from Leagle.com.

MAO-MSO RECOVERY II LLC, a Delaware entity, MSP RECOVERY, LLC, a
Florida entity & MSPA CLAIMS 1 LLC, a Florida entity, Plaintiffs,
represented by Christopher L. Coffin -- ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com --
PENDLEY BAUDIN & COFFIN LLP, Courtney L. Stidham --
cstidham@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP & Tracy
L. Turner -- tturner@pbclawfirm.com -- PENDLEY BAUDIN & COFFIN
LLP.

Infinity Property & Casualty Group, an Alabama company,
Defendant, represented by Michael R. Pennington --
mpennington@bradley.com -- BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP,
Thomas Brooks Proctor -- bproctor@bradley.com -- Bradley Arant
Boult Cummings, LLP & John Thomas Richie -- trichie@bradley.com -
- BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP.


IZEA INC: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Central California on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired IZEA, Inc. (NASDAQ:
IZEA) securities between May 25, 2015 and April 3, 2018 (the
'Class Period'). Investors have until June 4, 2018 to apply to
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On February 26 IZEA announced that in connection with the
preparation of the company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, the company's Audit
Committee of the Board of Directors (the 'Audit Committee')
determined that there was an error in accounting for revenue and
cost of sales related to the self-service Content Workflow
portion of the company's revenue, and that as a result of
additional review procedures necessitated by the accounting
adjustments, the company needs additional time to file its Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 and
plans to file a request for an extension on Form 12b-25 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Following this news, shares of IZEA fell $0.66 per share, or over
18%, on April 2, 2018, to close at $3.00 per share. The stock
price then continued to fall the following trading day, and
dropped another $0.58 per share, or over 19%, to close at $2.42
per share on April 3, 2018.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) IZEA
was misreporting revenue from the Company's Content Workflow
services as gross amounts billed to marketers instead of on a net
transaction basis; (2) the amount IZEA previously reported as
gross profit on Content Workflow should be the amount reported as
revenue; (3) IZEA lacked adequate internal controls; and (4) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

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

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


J & D TRANSPORTATION: Thomas Seeks to Certify Class of Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled BOBBY THOMAS, on behalf of
himself and those similarly situated v. J & D TRANSPORTATION, et
al., Case No. 3:17-cv-02434-PGS-DEA (D.N.J.), asks the Court to:

   1. conditionally certify Counts I and II of his complaint as a
      collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act;

   2. facilitate notice to all employees of the Defendants, who
      were, at some point during the three years preceding the
      filing of the instant action through the present, employed
      as drivers;

   3. compel the Defendants to provide, in electronic and
      importable format, the names, addresses, e-mail addresses,
      and phone numbers of each member of the class; and

   4. approve the Notice attached to the Motion as Exhibit L to
      be sent to the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=92Hv4D4o

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Class Certification Sought in "O'Boyle" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barbra O'Boyle moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit styled BARBARA O'BOYLE, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. JEFFERSON
CAPITAL SYSTEMS LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00454-WED (E.D. Wisc.), and
further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of
the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the
court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing
of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual
settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision
cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from
representing a class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing
Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App.
LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017).  The Plaintiff
asserts that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by
sending a certified check to the proposed class representative.
Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also
Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No.
15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24,
2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense
when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an
amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zT4VY0Vr

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JOHNNY WAS: Sued by Crosson for Not Having Blind-Usable Web Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARETHA CROSSON, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons v. JOHNNY WAS, LLC, Case No. 1:18-
cv-01738 (E.D.N.Y., March 21, 2018), accuses the Defendant of
failing to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site
-- http://www.johnnywas.com/-- to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.

Johnny Was, LLC, is a Delaware Foreign Limited Liability Company
with its principal place of business located in Los Angeles,
California.  The Company owns and operates Johnny Was Stores,
which provides goods and services, such as boho chic and vintage-
inspired women's apparel, and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JRC VENTURES: Smith Moves to Certify Companion Care Workers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned MERRIE SMITH and JESSICA
BROOKE RUSSELL, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. JRC VENTURES, INC., JACQUE R. COLLETT, 24-7 BRIGHT
STAR HEALTHCARE, LLC., BRIGHTSTAR GROUP HOLDINGS, INC.,
BRIGHTSTAR FRANCHISING, LLC, GRUBB & ASSOCIATES, INC., and JOSEPH
GRUBB, Case No. 1:16-cv-00499-CHS (E.D. Tenn.), move for an order
conditionally certifying a collective action and authorizing the
Plaintiffs to send nationwide notice of the right to join this
lawsuit to:

     all companion care employees who worked for Defendants
     within the geographic jurisdiction of the U.S. District
     Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee from January 1,
     2015, through January 1, 2017.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court:

   -- for a period of 90 days to distribute the Notice and file
      consent forms with the Court;

   -- to direct the Defendants to provide the names, last known
      home and work addresses, cell phone numbers, and e-mail
      addresses of potential opt-in plaintiffs no later than
      seven days after the date of the entry of the Order
      granting this Motion;

   -- to permit them to provide the Notice to potential opt-in
      Plaintiffs via text message and e-mail, as well as regular
      U.S. mail; and

   -- for permission to distribute a reminder/follow-up message
      via text message and e-mail, as well as regular U.S. mail.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SDzY8Tmt

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Frank P. Pinchak, Esq.
          Doug S. Hamill, Esq.
          H. Eric Burnette, Esq.
          BURNETTE, DOBSON & PINCHAK
          711 Cherry Street
          Chattanooga, TN 37402
          Telephone: (423) 266-2121
          Facsimile: (423) 266-3324
          E-mail: fpinchak@bdplawfirm.com
                  dhamill@bdplawfirm.com
                  eburnette@bdplawfirm.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Wagner, Esq.
          WAGNER & WEEKS PLLC
          701 Market Street, Suite 310
          Chattanooga, TN 37402
          Telephone: (423) 756-7923
          Facsimile: (423) 267-2997
          E-mail: maw@wagnerinjury.com


KELLER WILLIAMS: May 4 Date to Reply to "Finken" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN FINKEN AND KAREN FINKEN, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs,
v. KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC. Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-
00298-RFB-GWF (D. Nev.), Judge George Foley, Jr. of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada extended the due date
of the Defendant's response date to the Plaintiff's Class Action
Complaint to May 4, 2018.

The Finkens filed the Class Action Complaint on Feb. 16, 2018.
The Defendant's response date to the Plaintiff's Class Action
Complaint is currently due on April 2, 2018.

The Parties agreed to extend the due date of the Defendant's
response date to May 4, 2018.  Judge Foley approved.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Order is available
at https://goo.gl/iPsDyK from Leagle.com.

John Finken & Karen Finken, Plaintiffs, represented by Steven
Lezell Woodrow -- swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com -- Woodrow & Peluso,
LLC, pro hac vice, Patrick Harry Peluso --
ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com -- Woodrow & Peluso, LLC, pro hac vice
& Marc P. Cook, Cook and Kelesis, LTD.

Keller Williams Realty, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael
R. Ayers, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.


KRIEGER BEARD: Perry Renews Bid to Certify Class of Technicians
---------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Perry, Travis Fain and Brian Fox, Plaintiffs in the
lawsuit captioned MORGAN PERRY, et al., for himself and all
others similarly situated v. KRIEGER BEARD SERVICES LLC, et al.,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00161-TMR (S.D. Ohio), renews their motion for
conditional class certification, and Court-supervised notice to
potential opt-in plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to conditionally certify a Fair
Labor Standards Act collective action and order notice sent to
members of a class of all current and former Technicians employed
by Krieger Beard on, and after, May 8, 2014, who worked overtime
hours but were not paid overtime wages during all or part of
their employment and/or who were not paid minimum wage during all
or part of their employment.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oX2LGxLQ

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bradley L. Gibson, Esq.
          GIBSON LAW, LLC
          9200 Montgomery, Road, Suite 11A
          Cincinnati, OH 45242
          Telephone: (513) 834-8254
          Facsimile: (513) 834-8253
          E-mail: brad@gibsonemploymentlaw.com

               - and -

          Kenneth J. Ignozzi, Esq.
          Austin H. LiPuma, Esq.
          DYER, GAROFALO, MANN & SCHULTZ, LPA
          131 N. Ludlow Street, Suite 1400
          Dayton, OH 45402
          Telephone: (937)223-8888
          Facsimile: (937) 824-8630
          E-mail: kignozzi@dgmslaw.com
                  alipuma@dgmslaw.com


LA QUINTA: "Rosenblatt" Suit Seeks to Halt Wyndham Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Rosenblatt, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. La Quinta Holdings, Inc.,
Mitesh B. Shah, James R. Abrahamson, Glenn Alba, Scott O.
Bergren, Alan J. Bowers, Henry G. Cisneros, Keith A. Cline,
Giovanni Cutaia, Brian Kim and Gary M. Sumers, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-00558 (N.D. Tex., March 9, 2018), seeks to enjoin
defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of La
Quinta's management and franchise business by Wyndham Worldwide
Corporation, WHG BB Sub, Inc. and Wyndham Worldwide," rescinding
it in the event defendants consummate the merger.

The Plaintiff further seeks rescissory damages, costs of this
action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys'
and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

La Quinta's stockholders will receive $8.40 per share in cash. La
Quinta will separate and transfer its owned real estate business
and certain related assets and liabilities to CorePoint Lodging
Inc., a newly-formed subsidiary of La Quinta.

The complaint says the Defendants' proxy statement failed to
disclose La Quinta's financial projections and the financial
analyses performed by J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, namely the line
items used to calculate unlevered free cash flows, stock-based
compensation expense and a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP
metrics. The disclosure of projected financial information is
material because it provides stockholders with a basis to project
the future financial performance of a company, and allows
stockholders to better understand the financial analyses
performed by the company's financial advisor in support of its
fairness opinion, the Plaintiff adds.

La Quinta is an operator, and franchisor of select-service hotels
primarily serving the upper-midscale and midscale segments. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joe Kendall, Esq.
      Jamie J. McKey, Esq.
      KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
      McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
      Dallas, TX 75204
      Tel: (214) 744-3000
      Fax: (214) 744-3015 (fax)
      Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
             jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com

             - and -

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

             - and -

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


LENOVO US: Faces "Hassan" Suit Over Deceptive Phab Phone Speakers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TAMER HASSAN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., Case No. 5:18-cv-00105-
BO (E.D.N.C., March 22, 2018), is brought on behalf of purchasers
of the Defendant's "Phab" series of smartphones throughout the
United States.

Though the "Phab" series of smartphones is designed as if it
contains two speakers on both the left and right, these
smartphones in fact only have a single speaker, Mr. Hassan
alleges.  He contends that though the Defendant is aware that the
Phab series of phones only has one speaker, the Defendant has
intentionally designed, manufactured and marketed a product that
gives the appearance that the Phab series of phones has two
speakers, deceiving all purchasers of the Phab phones.

Lenovo is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in
North Carolina and is headquartered in Morrisville, Wake County,
North Carolina.

Lenovo is the United States subsidiary of Lenovo Group Limited, a
company which described itself in its 2016-2017 annual report as
"a US$43 billion global Fortune 500 company and a leader in
providing innovative consumer, commercial and enterprise
technology."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel R. Francis, Esq.
          CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP
          2400 Freeman Mill Road, Suite 200
          Greensboro, NC 27406
          Telephone: (336) 333-9899
          Facsimile: (336) 333-9894
          E-mail: drfrancis@crumleyroberts.com

               - and -

          Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
          CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP
          2400 Freeman Mill Road, Suite 200
          Greensboro, NC 27406
          Telephone: (336) 333-9899
          Facsimile: (336) 333-9894
          E-mail: blkinsley@crumleyroberts.com

               - and -

          G. Oliver Koppell, Esq.
          Daniel F. Schreck, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF G. OLIVER KOPPELL & ASSOCIATES
          99 Park Ave., Suite 1100
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 867-3838
          Facsimile: (212) 681-0810
          E-mail: okoppell@koppellaw.com
                  dschreck@koppellaw.com


LEXINGTON LAW: Khorloo Sues Over Unwanted SMS Ads
-------------------------------------------------
Odonchimeg Khorloo and Enkhamgalan Tsogtsaikhan, Individually and
on behalf of other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. John C.
Heath Attorney at Law, PLLC (d/b/a Lexington Law Firm), Patrick
Gibson (d/b/a 700life.net) and Unknown Named Owners of
"700life.net," Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01778 (N.D. Ill., March
12, 2018), seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief as a
result of unsolicited telemarketing text messages placed to their
cellular telephones in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Lexington Law offers credit repair services while 700life.net is
a website that solicits the public online and via text messaging
for assistance in obtaining loans, and then channels/transfers
the phone calls it receives as a result of its solicitation
efforts to Lexington Law.

Between September 20, 2017 and December 15, 2017, Defendants sent
telemarketing text messages to Plaintiffs' cellular telephone
using an automatic telephone dialing system. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lance A. Raphael, Esq.
      Craig R. Frisch, Esq.
      The Consumer Advocacy Center, P.C.
      180 West Washington Street, Suite 700
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 782-5808
      Email: lance@caclawyers.com
             craig@caclawyers.com

             - and -

      Christopher Kruger, Esq.
      KRUGER & GRUBER, LLP
      500 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 600
      Chicago, IL 60611
      Phone: (773) 663-4949
      Fax: (312) 268-7064
      Email: chris@krugerandgruber.com


LONGFIN CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it
has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Longfin Corp. (NASDAQ: LFIN) between December 13,
2017 and April 2, 2018, both dates inclusive ('Class Period').
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Longfin investors under
the federal securities laws.

To join the Longfin class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1314.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO
NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Longfin included several false statements in its SEC
filings in connection with its IPO which prompted an SEC
investigation, including wrongly representing Defendant
Meenavalli's age, location of Longfin's principal offices, and
listing Sarah Altahawi as an officer when she did not have that
position; (2) Longfin acquired Ziddu.com shortly after the IPO to
capitalize on the popularly of blockchain companies in order to
manipulate the Company's stock price; (3) Longfin's acquisition
of Ziddu.com prompted an SEC investigation; (4) Longfin knew that
it was ineligible to be listed on the Russell 2000 and 3000
indices; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis
at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market,
the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
June 4, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1314.htmlto join the class
action. You may also contact Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of
Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telelephone: 212-686-1060
         Toll Free: 866-767-3653
         Fax: 212-202-3827
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN]


LOS ANGELES, CA: Oct. 29 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES MAY CLAIM REFUNDS OF TELEPHONE TAXES
PAID TO THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES BETWEEN AUGUST 25, 2005 AND
NOVEMBER 4, 2008

Granados v. County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Superior Court
Case No. BC361470

Judge Maren E. Nelson authorized this notice.

WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT?
The lawsuit, called Granados v. County of Los Angeles, case
number BC361470, was filed by a County resident, Willy Granados,
who believed that the County improperly required telephone
service providers to collect UUT on telephone services that were
not legally taxable.  Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that
prior to November 4, 2008, the County's UUT should have been
collected only on local telephone service and long distance
service where charges for calls varied by both time and distance.
The plaintiff filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated taxpayers.  The County denied and
continues to deny that the UUT was improperly collected.

WHY WAS THIS NOTICE ISSUED?
The Court issued this notice because you have a right to know
about the proposed class action settlement that the Court has
preliminarily approved and which affects your rights under strict
deadlines.  If the Court grants final approval, and the
settlement becomes final pursuant to its terms, valuable cash
benefits will be distributed to Class Members who submit
approved Claim Forms before September 15, 2018.  Those steps may
take time.  Please be patient.

AM I A CLASS MEMBER?
The Class includes:
All persons, including corporate and non-corporate entities
wherever organized and existing, who paid telephone utility user
taxes to the County of Los Angeles on telephone service utilized
from August 25, 2005 to November 4, 2008, other than local-only
telephone services, teletypewriter exchange service, or long
distance telephone service where the charge varied by both time
and distance, and who have not already received a refund of such
tax.

WHAT IF I'M NOT SURE WHETHER I'M INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT?
The UUT was typically collected on residential and commercial
landlines if the service address of the phone number was
within the unincorporated areas of the County.  For mobile
service, the UUT was typically collected if the billing address
was located within the unincorporated areas of the County. Mobile
service with no billing address (i.e., prepaid mobile service) is
not included in this settlement.  If you are not sure whether you
or your business is included in the Class, you may call the toll
free number (833) 807-3690. You may also write with questions to
the lawyers appointed to represent the members of the
Class. DO NOT CALL THE COURT.

WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO TO RECEIVE A REFUND PAYMENT FROM THE
SETTLEMENT FUND?
The person who received the phone bill showing payment of UUT
must submit a valid claim postmarked by September 15,
2018 and the claim must be approved by the Claims Administrator.
Claims can be completed online at www.LACountyTaxRefund.com, or
by printing a Claim Form from the settlement website or by
requesting one from the Claims Administrator and submitting it
via U.S. Mail.  You can submit your claim form following any of
the options above (e.g., standard refund amount, proof of actual
UUT paid, etc.) You cannot claim an actual refund amount and a
standard refund amount for the same kind of service (e.g., you
cannot claim a standard mobile refund and also submit mobile
bills for an actual refund amount claim).  You may, however,
claim the standard refund amount for one kind of service and
claim the actual amount for another kind of service (e.g., a
standard refund claim for mobile and an actual refund claim for
landline).  For the standard refund claims, one standard refund
will be issued for each account regardless of the number of
phones affiliated with that account.

A. Standard Refund Claims: You may claim the following standard
refund amounts by checking the boxes on the claim form
for UUT you paid for each kind of service during the time period
August 2005 to November 2008.  No additional documentation is
required to claim these amounts:

   * $46.00 - Mobile Telephone Service1
   * $27.50 - Residential Landline Service
   * $46.00 - Business Landline Service

1 Please note: Prepaid mobile telephone service does not qualify
for a refund claim.

You can check more than one box if you paid for more than one
kind of telephone service (e.g., you can claim mobile and
residential landline).

B. Actual Amount Refund Claims: You may also claim a refund based
on the actual amount of UUT you paid for telephone services
between August 2005 and November 2008 by submitting copies of
telephone bills or other carrier-provided proof.

There are several options for submitting the required documentary
evidence.

   * Submit At Least 10 Phone Bills from August 2005 to November
2008 - To claim a refund for the full period under this option,
submit at least one bill (or other carrier-provided document
showing the UUT paid) from August 2005 to December 2005; at least
three bills from 2006; at least three bills from 2007; and at
least three bills from 2008;
OR
   * Submit 10 Recent Phone Bills - If you paid UUT between
August 2005 and November 2008, but you do not have copies of your
phone bills from that time period and you are unable to obtain
them from your carrier, you can submit 10 copies of recent
telephone bills (or other carrier-provided documents) showing
payment of the UUT to the County of Los Angeles. In order to
claim a refund for the full Class Period using this option you
must submit 3 bills from each of three different calendar years,
plus one bill from a fourth calendar year (e.g., three
bills from 2013, three bills from 2014, three bills from 2015,
and one bill from 2016); OR

   * Verizon and Sprint Customers - If you had phone service with
Verizon or Sprint during the August 2005-November 2008 time
period, and if you provide consent, the carriers will search for
your UUT payment data and provide it to the claims administrator.

   * T-Mobile Customers - If you had phone service with T-Mobile
during the August 2005 to November 2008 time period, T-Mobile
will search for your UUT data and provide it directly to you.
Call 1-800-XXX-XXXX.  You must submit bills or other proof of the
amount paid for telephone services between August 2005 and
November 2008 or provide consent for Verizon or Sprint to search
for your UUT payment data, or call T-Mobile to obtain your UUT
payment data, and your anticipated refund amount will be based
solely on the amount reflected on the proof submitted.  For
landline service, your anticipated refund amount will be 70% of
the amount of the UUT paid.  For mobile service, your anticipated
refund amount will be 100% of the amount of the UUT paid.

HOW MUCH CAN I GET FROM THIS SETTLEMENT?
The actual amount refunded to you will depend on the number of
claims submitted and other factors.  Please see the
Settlement Agreement available on the Settlement website,
www.LACountyTaxRefund.com, for additional information. Please
note, if you previously received a refund of UUT paid during the
Class Period, such as through the prior Oronoz class action
settlement, any amount of telephone UUT previously refunded to
you will be an offset against any refund amount you are due
here.

WHEN WILL I RECEIVE MY REFUND PAYMENT?
Payments cannot be made until the settlement is approved by the
Court, becomes final pursuant to its terms, and the claims
process and administration process is complete.  Please be
patient.  Status updates will be posted to
www.LACountyTaxRefund.com.

IF YOU MOVE
If your claim is approved, your payment will be sent to the
address you provide.  If you change addresses, you must contact
the Claims Administrator at (833) 807-3690 to report any change
of your address.  Failure to report a change of address may
result in you not receiving the monetary benefits of the
settlement.

EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT
The deadline to exclude yourself from this settlement is
October 15, 2018.  If you don't want a payment from this
settlement, and you want to keep the right to sue or continue to
sue the County about the taxes at issue in this lawsuit on your
own, then you must ask to be excluded by doing so online or by
sending a letter via U.S. Mail to: Granados v. County of Los
Angeles, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91348, Seattle,
WA 98111.  Be sure to include your name, address, telephone
number, and signature.  You must also verify that you are a Class
Member by providing your telephone number(s) and address(es)
during the Class Period.

THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU
The Court has appointed the following Class Counsel to represent
the Class:

         Daniel Krasner
         Rachele R. Rickert
         Marisa C. Livesay
         WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
         750 B Street, Suite 2770
         San Diego, CA 92101

         Jonathan W. Cuneo
         CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
         4725 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 200
         Washington, DC 20016

         Nicholas E. Chimicles
         Timothy N. Mathews
         CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP
         One Haverford Centre
         361 West Lancaster Avenue
         Haverford, PA 19041

         Jon Tostrud
         TOSTRUD LAW GROUP PC
         1925 Century Park East, Suite 2125
         Los Angeles, CA 90067

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND
PLAINTIFF INCENTIVE AWARD
Class Counsel will ask the Court to approve payment of
administrative expenses to be paid from the settlement amount to
cover the costs of claims processing and administration of the
settlement, as well as any notice costs.  Class Counsel will also
ask the Court to award up to $4 million for attorneys' fees and
will also request reimbursement of their expenses up to
$150,000.  Class Counsel undertook the investigation and
litigation of this action on a contingent basis.  They have
litigated this case for over ten years, including successfully
overturning a lower court decision on appeal to the California
Court of Appeal.  They have received no compensation to date, and
they have incurred significant out-of-pocket costs that have not
been reimbursed.  The named plaintiff will also ask the Court for
$10,000 to compensate him for the time and effort he devoted to
this case as a Class Representative.

OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT
You may only object if you are a Class member and you do not
exclude yourself from the settlement.  You can object on your
own or you may hire a lawyer.  You can tell the Court that you
don't agree with all or part of the settlement by sending a
letter to the Claims Administrator so that it is received on or
before September 28, 2018, saying that you object to the
settlement.  Your objection must contain all of the following:
(1) a heading referring to: Granados v. County of Los Angeles,
Case No. BC361470; (2) a statement of the legal and factual bases
for your objection; (3) your name, address, telephone number, and
email address; (4) copies of telephone bills dated during the
Class Period or other evidence of membership in the Class; and
(5) your signature and the signature of your counsel (if you are
represented by counsel).  The Court will consider your
objection.  If your objection is mailed in time, you do not have
to attend the Final Settlement Hearing described below.
Any objection to the settlement must be served by first class
mail, or email, or otherwise delivered to the Claims
Administrator so that it is received by September 28, 2018. The
address for the Claims Administrator is: Granados v. County of
Los Angeles, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91348,
Seattle, WA 98111.

THE COURT'S FINAL APPROVAL HEARING
The Court will hold a hearing at 9:00 am on October 29, 2018, at
312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles CA 90012 in
Department 17 to decide whether the proposed settlement is fair
and reasonable.  You may attend at your own expense, and
you may ask to speak, but you are not required to do so.  If the
Final Settlement Hearing is rescheduled, a notice of the new
date or time will be posted to www.LACountyTaxRefund.com.  After
the hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the
settlement.  We do not know how long the decision will take.
Please be patient.

GETTING MORE INFORMATION
This notice summarizes the proposed settlement. More details are
in the Settlement Agreement.  All court records in this
litigation, including complete copies of the Settlement
Agreement, may be examined during regular court hours at the
office of the Clerk of the Court, 600 South Commonwealth Avenue,
Los Angeles, CA 90005.  You can also get a copy of the Settlement
Agreement and other important information as well as answers to
frequently asked questions by visiting
www.LACountyTaxRefund.com or by calling the Claims Administrator
at (833) 807-3690 toll free.

DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT DIRECTLY WITH ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
SETTLEMENT


LTD FINANCIAL: Court Denies Bid to Stay "Bordeaux" FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERTA BORDEAUX, on behalf of herself and those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LTD FINANCIAL SERVICES, L.P.,
ADVANTAGE ASSETS II, INC, and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Defendants,
Civil No. 2:16-0243 (KSH) (CLW) (D. N.J.), Judge Katharine S.
Hayden of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
denies LTD Financial's cross-motion to stay the proceedings while
its Rule 23(f) petition is pending.

On Dec. 28, 2017, the Court granted class certification for
Plaintiff Bordeaux in an action alleging abusive debt collection
practices in violation of the Federal Debt Collection Practices
Act ("FDCPA").  On Jan. 12, 2018, Bordeaux moved for an order
approving the form and method of notice to the class members.  On
January 22, 2018, LTD Financial responded seeking to stay all
action pending resolution of its Rule 23(f) appeal to the Third
Circuit.

LTD Financial argues that the Court erred in two respects.
First, it argues that the Court applied the incorrect standard
for ascertainability because there is no way to know if the
recipients of the collection letter were consumer or business
debtors as defined by the FDCPA.  Second, LTD Financial argues
the Court failed to address the merits.

Judge Hayden finds that in addition to the ample evidence in the
record indicating that LTD Financial has records that identify
whether debts were consumer or business based, Bordeaux points to
the testimony of David John, the President and CEO of LTD
Financial.  John testified that he was able to search for people
in New Jersey to whom LTD Financial sent collection letters in
attempts to collect a consumer debt owed.  Based on his search,
the class number was set at 1,994.  The Judge stands by the
Court's finding of ascertainability.

She also finds that the Court did probe behind Bordeaux's
pleading in its decision, and found, as have other district court
judges in this circuit, that there is merit to the position that
the tax clause in the collection letter could be misleading to
the least sophisticated debtor.  Additionally, the Judge is
satisfied that her merits analysis was sufficient for this stage
in litigation.  Based on the foregoing, she does not find that
the probability of error in its class certification decision is
high enough to warrant a stay.

The Judge further finds that LTD Financial will not be
irreparably harmed absent a stay.  She says the litigation costs
will generally not rise to the level of irreparable harm.
Further weakening LTD Financial's argument is the fact that the
Plaintiffs bear the cost of notifying the class; indeed, the stay
request arose in response to Bordeaux's efforts to begin
notification of the class.

Based on the foregoing, when the right of potential class members
to be notified and allowing time to opt out is balanced against
the alleged financial harm to LTD Financial, the Judge is
satisfied that moving forward is the proper course.  She finds
that the balance of equities favors Bordeaux and the class.  In
addition to the public interest in prompt resolution of cases,
she finds the public interest will also be served by prompt
notification to class members of a certified class.

For these reasons, Judge Hayden denied LTD Financial's cross-
motion to stay the proceedings while its Rule 23(f) petition is
pending.  An appropriate order will follow.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/dW1eJ7 from Leagle.com.

ROBERTA BORDEAUX, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by ANDREW T. THOMASSON --
andrew@sternthomasson.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP, PHILIP D. STERN
-- philip@sternthomasson.com -- STERN THOMASSON LLP & YONGMOON
KIM -- ykim@kimlf.com -- Kim Law Firm LLC.

LTD FINANCIAL SERVICES, L.P. & ADVANTAGE ASSETS II, INC.,
Defendants, represented by RICHARD J. PERR --
rperr@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, PC &
MONICA M. LITTMAN -- mlittman@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN,
KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, PC.


M & Y CARE: "Nelson" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDI NELSON, on behalf of herself and other persons similarly
situated v. M & Y CARE, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00677 (N.D. Ohio,
March 24, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime
compensation and other benefits under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated home health care workers.

M & Y is an Ohio foreign limited liability company that does
business in the Northern District of Ohio.  M & Y is a home care
agency that provides home healthcare services, including
homemaker, custodial, and skilled and non-skilled home healthcare
services to elderly and disabled persons.

The Defendant directly employs home health aides, licensed
practical nurses, certified nursing assistants, and other home
health care workers to provide home health care services
(together, "home health care workers") to elderly and disabled
persons in their homes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Neel, Esq.
          DAVID W. NEEL, LLC
          16781 Chagrin Blvd.
          Shaker Heights, OH 44120
          Telephone: (216) 522-0011
          Telecopier: (844) 548-3570
          E-mail: dwneel@neellaw.com


MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: "Klein" Suit Challenges B. Riley Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melvyn Klein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Magicjack Vocaltec Ltd., Izhak Gross,
Tali Yaron-Eldar, Don Carlos Bell III, Alan B. Howe, Dr. Yuen Wah
Sing and Richard Harris, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-80307, (S.D.
Fla., March 9, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons
acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating,
or closing the merger between MagicJack and B. Riley Financial,
Inc., and rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding
rescissory damages in the event defendants consummate the merger.
The plaintiff further seeks costs of this action, including
reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such
other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

MagicJack will survive as a wholly owned subsidiary of B. Riley
Principal Investments, LLC. Existing MagicJack stockholders will
receive $8.71 per share in cash in exchange for each share of
magicJack common stock that they own.

Klein claims that the merger consideration is unfair and
inadequate because the intrinsic value of the Company is in
excess of the amount offered given the Company's prospects for
future growth and earnings.

MagicJack VocalTec, Ltd. is a Voice over IP (VOIP) cloud-based
communications company based out of 560 Village Blvd, Suite 120,
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Egleston, Esq.
      SCOTT EGLESTON, P.A.
      152 N.E. 167th Street, Suite 300
      Miami, FL 33162
      Telephone: (305) 892-800
      Facsimile: (305) 675-3730
      Email: scott@eglestonlegal.com

             - and -

      Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
      Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
      GAINEY, McKENNA, & EGLESTON
      440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 983-1300
      Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
      Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
             gegleston@gme-law.com


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Barrack Rodos to Lead in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PATRICIA A. SHENK, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
MALLINCKRODT PLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-cv-
00145 (DLF) (D. D.C.), Judge Dabney L. Friedrich of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia (i) granted STRS
Ohio's Motion for Consolidation, Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
and Approval of Its Selection of Counsel; (ii) denied Amalgamated
Bank's Motion for Consolidation of Related Actions, Appointment
as Lead Plaintiff, and Approval of Its Selection of Lead Counsel;
and (iii) denied Amy and Stephen Schwartz's Motion to Consolidate
Related Actions, to be Appointed Lead Plaintiffs, and to Approve
Proposed Lead Plaintiffs' Choice of Counsel.

Before the Court are the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio
("STRS Ohio")'s Motion for Consolidation, Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff, and Approval of Its Selection of Counsel; and the
Motion of Amalgamated Bank for Consolidation of Related Actions,
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and Approval of Its Selection of
Lead Counsel.  Having considered the parties' briefs and the
counsels' arguments during the motions hearing held on March 1,
2018, Judge Friedrich granted STRS Ohio's motion, appointed STRS
Ohio as the Lead Plaintiff, approved Barrack, Rodos & Bacine as
the Lead Counsel, and denied Amalgamated Bank's motion.

The Judge finds that both STRS Ohio and Amalgamated Bank filed
motions under the PSLRA seeking appointment as the Lead
Plaintiff.  He says there is little question that STRS Ohio has
the largest financial interest.  Calculated on a first-in-first-
out accounting basis, STRS Ohio's alleged financial loss is
$46,378,080, and on a last-in-first-out accounting basis, its
alleged financial loss is $45,659,928.  Not only is STRS Ohio's
financial interest substantial, it exceeds that of Amalgamated
Bank by a multiplier of more than 20.

He also finds that STRS Ohio has satisfied the typicality and
adequacy requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  Moreover, both STRS Ohio and its proposed lead
counsel, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, have extensive experience in
securities litigation.  STRS Ohio has served as a lead or co-lead
plaintiff in numerous class-action securities lawsuits, including
a prior case litigated in this district, while Barrack, Rodos &
Bacine has served as lead counsel and has secured multimillion-
to billion-dollar recoveries in numerous such suits.  As a
preliminary matter, the Judge says it also appears that STRS
Ohio's interests are aligned with the putative class, and STRS
Ohio can adequately represent the class' interests.

Based on the evidence proffered by Amalgamated Bank, the Court
cannot conclude that STRS Ohio will not fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class or is subject to a unique
defense involving pay-to-play that renders it incapable of
adequately representing the class.  Because Amalgamated Bank has
failed to meet its burden to rebut the presumption that STRS Ohio
is the most adequate Plaintiff to represent the class, Judge
Friedrich appointed STRS Ohio as the Lead Plaintiff and approved
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine as the Lead Counsel in the case.  He
denied both Amalgamated Bank's motion and Schwartzes' motion.

Accordingly, for these reasons, the Court orders the following:

   1. STRS Ohio's Motion for Consolidation, Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff and Approval of Its Selection of Counsel is granted.
STRS Ohio is appointed lead plaintiff and STRS Ohio's selection
of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine as lead counsel is approved.

   2. Amalgamated Bank's Motion for Consolidation of Related
Actions, Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and Approval of Its
Selection of Lead Counsel is denied.

   3. Amy and Stephen Schwartz's Motion to Consolidate Related
Actions, to be Appointed Lead Plaintiffs, and to Approve Proposed
Lead Plaintiffs' Choice of Counsel is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/AYXdKN from Leagle.com.

PATRICIA A. SHENK, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Geoffrey C. Jarvis
-- gjarvis@ktmc.com -- KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP, Nathan
A. Hasiuk -- nhasiuk@ktmc.com -- KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK,
LLP, pro hac vice, Naumon A. Amjed -- namjed@ktmc.com -- KESSLER,
MELTZER & CHECK LLP, pro hac vice, Ryan T. Degnan --
rdegnan@ktmc.com -- KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP, pro hac
vice & Michael Weitzner -- mweitzner@weitznerlaw.com -- MICHAEL
WEITZNER.

AMY T. SCHWARTZ & STEPHEN A. SCHWARTZ, Plaintiffs, represented by
Michael Glenn McLellan -- mmclellan@finkelsteinthompson.com --
FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP.

FULTON COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiff,
represented by Daniel S. Sommers -- dsommers@cohenmilstein.com --
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC.

JYOTINDRA PATEL, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas Ian Porritt -
- nporritt@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP.

ROBERT J. SOLOMON, Plaintiff, represented by John Bucher Isbister
-- jisbister@tydingslaw.com -- TYDINGS & ROSENBERG LLP.

MALLINCKRODT PLC, Defendant, represented by Meredith L. Boylan --
mlboylan@Venable.com -- VENABLE LLP, Moxila A. Upadhyaya --
maupadhyaya@Venable.com -- VENABLE LLP, A.J. Martinez --
AJMartinez@wlrk.com -- WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ, pro hac
vice & Rachelle Silverberg -- RSilverberg@wlrk.com -- WACHTELL,
LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ, pro hac vice.

MARK TRUDEAU, Defendant, represented by Charles Edward Davidow --
cdavidow@paulweiss.com -- PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP, Daniel J. Kramer -- dkramer@paulweiss.com -- PAUL,
WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON, & GARRISON LLP, pro hac vice & David W.
Brown -- dbrown@paulweiss.com -- PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP, pro hac vice.

KATHLEEN A. SCHAEFER, MELVIN D. BOOTH, DAVID R. CARLUCCI, J.
MARTIN CARROLL, DIANE H. GULYAS, NANCY S. LURKER, ANGUS C.
RUSSELL, VIRGIL D. THOMPSON, KNEELAND C. YOUNGBLOOD, JOSEPH A.
ZACCAGNINO & JOANN A. REED, Defendants, represented by Moxila A.
Upadhyaya, VENABLE LLP.

MICHAEL PALADINO, Movant, represented by Nicholas Ian Porritt,
Levi & Korsinsky LLP.

STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF OHIO, Movant, represented by
Mark Robert Rosen -- mrosen@barrack.com -- BARRACK, RODOS &
BACINE & Brian K. Murphy -- murphy@mmmb.com -- MURRAY MURPHY MOUL
+ BASIL.

AMALGAMATED BANK, Movant, represented by Wilson M. Meeks, III --
wmeeks@bfalaw.com -- BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD, LLP & Javier
Bleichmar -- jbleichmar@bfalaw.com -- BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD,
LLP, pro hac vice.

INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS, Movant, represented by Daniel S. Sommers
-- dsommers@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL
PLLC.

Natalie Amaya & Gregory Schmidt, Movants, represented by Michael
J. Klein -- mklein@ssbny.com -- STULL, STULL & BRODY, pro hac
vice & Steven J. Toll -- stoll@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC.


MB FINANCIAL: Boone Sues Over Excessive Overdraft Fees
------------------------------------------------------
Rhonda Boone, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MB Financial Bank, N.A., Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv-01771, (N.D. Ill., March 12, 2018), seeks redress for
breach of implied covenants in MB Financial's contract in the
assessing of overdraft fees on transactions that did not overdraw
checking account available balances; prematurely assessing
overdraft fees even prior to the time promised in the contract;
and for abuse of discretion to repeatedly, routinely, and
automatically authorize overdraft transactions. The Plaintiff
also seeks damages and restitution for breach of contract and
violations of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.

MB Financial is a national bank with its U.S. headquarters and
principal place of business located in Chicago, Illinois,
operating numerous retail banking centers throughout Illinois and
in Indiana.

Boone has had a checking account with MB Financial at a branch in
Illinois where her public benefits from Social Security is
deposited. She alleges that MB slapped cumulative fees comprising
of overdraft fees on supposed insufficient funds transactions and
its $6.50 continuous day overdraft charge which it claims to
charge when accountholders do not bring their account balance
into positive status within two full days -- but in fact charges
sooner. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Katrina Carroll, Esq.
      Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: 312.750.1265
      Email: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
             kshamberg@litedepalma.com

             - and -

      Robert R. Ahdoot, Esq.
      Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
      10728 Lindbrook Drive
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
             tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com

             - and -

      Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
      Sophia Gold, Esq.
      KALIEL PLLC
      1875 Connecticut Ave. NW 10th Floor
      Washington, DC 20009
      Tel: (202) 350-4783
      Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
             sgold@kalielpllc.com


MDL 2752: Claims in Yahoo! Data Security Breach Suit Narrowed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: YAHOO! INC. CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH
LITIGATION, Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Judge Lucy H.
Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, granted in part and denied in part
the Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("FAC").

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have a long history of
data security failures that should have put them on notice of the
need to enhance their data security.  The instant lawsuit
involves three data breaches that occurred between 2013 and 2016.
According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants represented to users
that users' accounts with them were secure.  For example, Yahoo's
website stated that protecting their systems and their users'
information is paramount to ensuring Yahoo users enjoy a secure
user experience and maintaining their users' trust and that they
deploy industry standard physical, technical, and procedural
safeguards that comply with relevant regulations to protect one's
personal information.  Similarly, Aabaco's website stated that
thay have physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that
comply with federal regulations to protect one's Personal
Information.

Nonetheless, despite these representations, the Plaintiffs allege
that the Defendants did not use appropriate safeguards to protect
users' PII and that the Plaintiffs' PII was thus exposed to
hackers who infiltrated the Defendants' systems.  Specifically,
they allege three separate data breaches: a breach that occurred
in 2013, a breach that occurred in 2014, and a forged cookie
breach that occurred in 2015 and 2016.

The FAC is brought by nine named Plaintiffs on behalf of four
putative classes and one putative subclass:

     a. Plaintiffs Kimberly Heines, Hashmatullah Essar, Paul
Dugas, Matthew Ridolfo, and Deana Ridolfo ("United States
Plaintiffs") assert claims on behalf of the putative United
States Class, which consists of all free Yahoo account holders in
the United States whose accounts were compromised in any of the
Data Breaches.  Additionally, California Plaintiffs Heines and
Dugas assert claims on behalf of the putative California
subclass, which consists of all California Yahoo account holders
whose accounts were compromised in any of the Data Breaches.

     b. Plaintiffs Yaniv Rivlin and Mali Granot ("Israel
Plaintiffs") assert claims on behalf of the putative Israel
Class, which consists of all Yahoo account holders in Israel
whose accounts were compromised in any of the Data Breaches.

     c. Plaintiff Brian Neff ("Small Business Users Plaintiff")
asserts claims on behalf of a putative Small Business Users
Class, which consists of all Yahoo or Aabaco business account
holders in the United States whose accounts were compromised in
any of the Data Breaches.

     d. Plaintiff Andrew Mortensen ("Paid Users Plaintiff")
asserts claims on behalf of a putative Paid Users Class, which
consists of all paid Yahoo account holders in the United States
and Israel whose accounts were compromised in any of the Data
Breaches.

After the 2014 Breach was announced on Sept. 22, 2016, a number
of lawsuits were filed against the Defendants.  These lawsuits
generally alleged that Yahoo failed to adequately protect its
users' accounts, failed to disclose its inadequate data security
practices, and failed to timely notify users of the data breach.

In late 2016, the Plaintiffs in several lawsuits moved to
centralize pretrial proceedings in a single judicial district.
On Dec. 7, 2016, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") issued a transfer order selecting the undersigned judge
as the transferee court for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings in the multidistrict litigation ("MDL") arising out
of the 2014 Breach.

On Dec. 14, 2016, one week after the JPML issued the transfer
order for cases arising from the 2014 Breach, Yahoo announced the
existence of the 2013 Breach.  The Plaintiffs in several lawsuits
that had been filed regarding the 2014 Data Breach then amended
their complaints to include claims regarding the 2013 Breach.
Additionally, more lawsuits were filed in the Northern District
of California regarding the 2013 Breach and the 2014 Breach.
Again, these lawsuits generally alleged that Yahoo failed to
adequately protect its users' accounts, failed to disclose its
inadequate data security practices, and failed to timely notify
users of the data breach.  These lawsuits were related or
transferred to Judge Koh.

The Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint
covering all three Data Breaches on April 12, 2017.  On May 22,
2017, the Defendants filed a first round motion to dismiss.  On
Aug. 30, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
first round motion to dismiss.

After the Court had issued its ruling on the first round motion
to dismiss, Yahoo disclosed on Oct. 3, 2017 that the 2013 data
breach had affected an additional two billion Yahoo user
accounts.  In response, the Court amended the case schedule to
allow the Plaintiffs enough time to amend their complaint and to
conduct discovery.

The Plaintiffs filed the instant FAC on Dec. 15, 2017.  The FAC
asserts a total of 13 causes of action: six California statutory
claims and seven California common-law claims on behalf of the
putative classes.  Specifically, the FAC asserts the following
thirteen causes of action: (1) a claim under the unlawful prong
of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") on behalf of all
classes (Count One); (2) a claim under the unfair prong of the
UCL on behalf of all classes (Count Two); (3) a claim for deceit
by concealment on behalf of all classes (Count Three); (4) a
claim for negligence on behalf of all classes (Count Four); (5) a
claim for breach of contract on behalf of all classes (Count
Five); (6) a claim for breach of implied contract on behalf of
all classes (Count Six); (7) a claim for breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing on behalf of all classes
(Count Seven); (8) a claim for declaratory relief on behalf of
all classes (Count Eight); (9) a claim under the fraudulent prong
of the UCL on behalf of the Small Business Users Class (Count
Nine); (10) a claim for misrepresentation on behalf of the Small
Business Users Class (Count Ten); (11) a claim under the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") on behalf of the
Paid Users Class (Count Eleven); (12) a claim under Section
1798.81.5 of the California Customer Records Act ("CRA") on
behalf of the California subclass (Count Twelve); and (13) a
claim under Section 1798.82 of the CRA on behalf of the
California subclass (Count Thirteen).

On Jan. 19, 2018, the Defendants filed the instant motion to
dismiss.  The same day, the Defendants filed a request for
judicial notice in connection with their motion to dismiss.  The
Defendants move to dismiss claims that were either dismissed with
leave to amend in the First MTD Order or were newly added in the
FAC.

First, Defendants raise particular objections to eleven of
Plaintiffs' 13 causes of action -- i.e., all claims except the
claim under the fraudulent prong of the UCL on behalf of the
Small Business Users Class (Count Nine) and the claim for
misrepresentation on behalf of the Small Business Users Class
(Count Ten).  Next, they argue that the Plaintiffs may not seek
punitive damages as to any of their claims.

On Feb. 9, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
Defendants' motion to dismiss.  On Feb. 19, 2018, the Defendants
filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss.

Judge Koh granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.  Specifically, she granted with prejudice the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the UCL unlawful and unfair claims
of Plaintiffs Rivlin and Granot, but denied the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the UCL unlawful and unfair claims of Plaintiff
Mortensen.  In the First MTD Order, the Court denied the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the UCL unlawful and unfair claims
of all other Plaintiffs.  She denied the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' deceit by concealment claim, negligence
claim, claim for breach of contract, and claim for breach of
implied contract.

The Judge also granted with prejudice the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim for breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing to the extent that claim seeks
punitive damages, but otherwise denied the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim for breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing.

She denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
declaratory relief claim.  In the First MTD Order, the Court
denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the fraudulent prong of
Small Business Users Plaintiff Neff's UCL claim.

She also denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss (i) Small
Business Users Plaintiff Neff's misrepresentation claim to the
extent that claim seeks punitive damages and Plaintiff
Mortensen's CLRA claim.

Judge Koh granted with prejudice the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the California Plaintiffs' (i) CRA Section 1798.81.5
claim to the extent that claim is based on the 2013 and 2014
Breaches; (ii) CRA Section 1792.81.5 claim to the extent that
claim seeks punitive damage; (iii) CRA Section 1798.82 claim to
the extent that claim is based on the 2013 Breach.  In the First
MTD Order, the Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the
California Plaintiffs' CRA Section 1798.82 claim to the extent
that claim is based on the 2014 Breach or the Forged Cookie
Breach; and (iv) CRA Section 1798.82 claim to the extent that
claim seeks punitive damages.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/KdLDIh from Leagle.com.

Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, Plaintiff,
represented by Harlan Stuart Miller, III, Miller Legal P.C., pro
hac vice.

Ronald Schwartz, Plaintiff, represented by Joel H. Bernstein --
bernstein@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, John A. Yanchunis,
Morgan and Morgan, P.A., Michael Walter Stocker, Labaton Sucharow
LLP, Ariana J. Tadler, Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP,
Corban S. Rhodes -- crhodes@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP,
pro hac vice, Dorothy P. Antullis -- webcontact@cglaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Gayle Meryl Blatt -
- gmb@cglaw.com -- Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt &
Penfield LLP, Henry J. Kelston, Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman
LLP, Jason Henry Alperstein -- jalperstein@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Joseph Henry Bates, III, Carney Bates &
Pulliam, PLLC, Mark Dearman -- mdearman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Patrick A. Barthle, II, Morgan and
Morgan Complex Litigation Group, Paul J. Gellar  Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Ross M. Kamhi -- rkamhi@labaton.com -- Labaton
Sucharow Llp, pro hac vice, Shawn A. Williams --
shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Stuart
Andrew Davidson -- SDavidson@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP.

Edward McMahon, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Yanchunis,
Morgan and Morgan, P.A., Andrew P. Bell, Locks Law Firm, pro hac
vice, Ariana J. Tadler, Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP,
Gayle Meryl Blatt, Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt &
Penfield LLP, Henry J. Kelston, Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman
LLP, James A. Barry -- jbarry@lockslaw.com -- Locks Law Firm,
Michael Francis Ram, Robins Kaplan LLP, Patrick A. Barthle, II,
Morgan and Morgan Complex Litigation Group & Stuart Andrew
Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Maria Sventek, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Yanchunis,
Morgan and Morgan, P.A., Ariana J. Tadler, Milberg Tadler
Phillips Grossman LLP, Gayle Meryl Blatt, Casey Gerry Schenk
Francavilla Blatt & Penfield LLP, Henry J. Kelston, Milberg
Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP, Joseph Henry Bates, III, Carney
Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, Patrick A. Barthle, II, Morgan and Morgan
Complex Litigation Group & Stuart Andrew Davidson --
abell@lockslaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Jennifer J. Myers & Paul Dugas, Plaintiffs, represented by John
A. Yanchunis, Morgan and Morgan, P.A., Ariana J. Tadler, Milberg
Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP, David S. Casey, Jr., Casey Gerry
Schenk Francavilla Blatt and Penfield LLP, Deval R. Zaveri,
Zaveri Tabb, APC, Gayle Meryl Blatt, Casey Gerry Schenk
Francavilla Blatt & Penfield LLP, Henry J. Kelston ,, Milberg
Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP, James A. Tabb --
jimmy@zaveritabb.com -- Zaveri Tabb, APC, Jeremy Keith Robinson,
Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt and Penfield, Patrick A.
Barthle, II, Morgan and Morgan Complex Litigation Group, Stuart
Andrew Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Wendy M.
Behan, Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield.

Danielle Beck, Leah Cassell, Pooja Garg, Rajesh Garg, Ashish
Gupta, Jessica Jagir, Daniel Margo, Ann Marie Osborne, Susan Park
& Amar Patel, Plaintiffs, represented by John A. Yanchunis,
Morgan and Morgan, P.A., Ariana J. Tadler, Milberg Tadler
Phillips Grossman LLP, Deval R. Zaveri, Zaveri Tabb, APC, Gayle
Meryl Blatt, Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield LLP,
Henry J. Kelston, Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP, Patrick
A. Barthle, II, Morgan and Morgan Complex Litigation Group,
Stuart Andrew Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Wendy
M. Behan, Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield.

Christopher Havron & Katelyn Smith, Plaintiffs, represented by
John A. Yanchunis, Morgan and Morgan, P.A., Ann E. Callis -
acallis@ghalaw.com -- Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli PC, Ariana J.
Tadler, Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP, Gayle Meryl Blatt,
Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield LLP, Henry J.
Kelston, Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP, Kevin Paul Green -
- kevin@ghalaw.com -- Goldenberg Heller et al., Mark Chandler
Goldenberg -- mark@ghalaw.com -- Goldenberg Heller Antognoli and
Rowland, Patrick A. Barthle, II, Morgan and Morgan Complex
Litigation Group, Stuart Andrew Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP & Thomas P. Rosenfeld -- tom@ghalaw.com -- Goldenberg
Heller Antognoli and Rowland, P.C..

Michelle Greco & Jonathan Levy, Plaintiffs, represented by John
A. Yanchunis, Morgan and Morgan, P.A., Ariana J. Tadler, Milberg
Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP, Gayle Meryl Blatt, Casey Gerry
Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield LLP, Henry J. Kelston,
Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP, Patrick A. Barthle, II,
Morgan and Morgan Complex Litigation Group, Stuart Andrew
Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Michael Francis Ram,
Robins Kaplan LLP.

Barbara Stras, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Yanchunis,
Morgan and Morgan, P.A., Ariana J. Tadler, Milberg Tadler
Phillips Grossman LLP, Dorothy P. Antullis, Robbins Geller Rudman
Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Gayle Meryl Blatt, Casey Gerry Schenk
Francavilla Blatt & Penfield LLP, Henry J. Kelston, Milberg
Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP, Jason Henry Alperstein, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Mark Dearman, Robbins Geller Rudman and
Dowd LLP, Patrick A. Barthle, II, Morgan and Morgan Complex
Litigation Group & Stuart Andrew Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP.

Francisco Filares, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Yanchunis,
Morgan and Morgan, P.A., Ariana J. Tadler, Milberg Tadler
Phillips Grossman LLP, Dorothy P. Antullis, Robbins Geller Rudman
Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Gayle Meryl Blatt, Casey Gerry Schenk
Francavilla Blatt & Penfield LLP, Henry J. Kelston, Milberg
Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP, Jason Henry Alperstein, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Mark Dearman, Robbins Geller Rudman and
Dowd LLP, Patrick A. Barthle, II, Morgan and Morgan Complex
Litigation Group & Stuart Andrew Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP.

Yahoo! Inc., Defendant, represented by Ann Marie Mortimer --
amortimer@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams, Jason M. Beach --
jbeach@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams LLP, Theodore J. Boutrous,
Jr. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Attorney at Law Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, David A. Wheeler -- dwheeler@chapmanspingola.com --
Chapman Spingola, LLP, Jason Jonathan Kim -- kimj@hunton.com --
Hunton & Williams LLP, Joshua A. Jessen -- jjessen@gibsondunn.com
-- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Michael Li-Ming Wong --
mwong@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Rachel S.
Brass -- rbrass@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
Robert Andrew Chapman -- rchapman@chapmanspingola.com -- Chapman
& Spingola LLP & Shannon Therese Knight --
sknight@chapmanspingola.com -- Chapman Spingola, LLP.

Aabaco Small Business, LLC, Defendant, represented by Ann Marie
Mortimer, Hunton & Williams, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Attorney
at Law Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Joshua A. Jessen, Gibson Dunn
& Crutcher LLP, Michael Li-Ming Wong, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
& Rachel S. Brass, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.


MDW CONSULTING: Class Certification Sought in "Klabbatz" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled ANDREA KLABBATZ, et al. v.
MDW CONSULTING, INC. d/b/a OPOC.us, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-
00242-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), move for conditional certification of
a Collective Action, for expedited discovery, and for issuance of
notice.

Plaintiffs Andrea Klabbatz, Jordan Willis, Heidi Eagle, and
Kaitlyn Vorbroker bring this action on behalf of themselves and
all similarly situated individuals for alleged unpaid hours
worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act, Ohio's Semimonthly Payment Act, and common
law unjust enrichment.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pp3g4lha

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven C. Babin, Jr., Esq.
          Lance Chapin, Esq.
          CHAPIN LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          580 South High Street, Suite 330
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221-9100
          Facsimile: (614) 221-9272
          E-mail: steven.babin@chapinlegal.com
                  lance.chapin@chapinlegal.com


MEDCAH INC: "Sloatman" Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
John Sloatman III, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Medcah, Inc., and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-05936 (C.D.
Cal., March 12, 2018), seeks statutory damages and injunctive
relief resulting from violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Medcah, Inc. is a Hawaii-based collection agency that provides
accounts receivable, customer retention and debt collection
services to medical service companies. Defendant called
Plaintiffs using an automatic telephone dialing system to attempt
to collect a consumer debt allegedly incurred by Sloatman. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MENARD INC: Ct. Denies Bid to Stay "Astarita" Suit Over Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALBERT J. ASTARITA, Plaintiff, v. MENARD, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:17-06151-CV-RK (W.D. Mo.), Judge Roseann A.
Ketchmark of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, St. Joseph Division, denied the Defendant's Motion to
Stay Briefing and for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's
Motion for Conditional Certification, and denied the Plaintiff's
Motion to Stay Consideration of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss,
Pending a Ruling on Conditional Certification.

The Plaintiff brings the lawsuit as: (a) a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid
overtime wages owed to him and other similarly situated workers
employed by the Defendant; and (b) a Rule 23 class action under
Missouri state law, including the Missouri Minimum Wage Law.  The
Plaintiff brings an FLSA claim in Count I arising out of the
Defendant's alleged unlawful unpaid training policy for which he
seeks conditional certification under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

The Defendant seeks a temporary stay of briefing pending the
Court's ruling on its motion to dismiss/compel.  Then, if the
Court ultimately denies the defendant's motion to dismiss/compel,
it requests a period of 14 days after the Court's ruling to file
its suggestions in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification.

The Plaintiff, on the other hand, seeks to stay the briefing
scheduling and consideration of the Defendant's motion to
dismiss/compel pending the Court's ruling on his motion for
conditional certification.  Alternatively, if the Court denies
his request for a stay, the Plaintiff requests an extension of 21
days to respond to the Defendant's motion to dismiss/compel.

The key issue in the parties' competing motions to stay is
whether the Court should decide the Defendant's motion to
dismiss/compel before or after ruling on the Plaintiff's motion
for conditional certification.

Judge Ketchmark is not persuaded that staying the briefing for
either motion is necessary.  With respect to judicial economy, if
the motion to dismiss/compel is granted, deciding class
certification would be unnecessary, but if the motion to
dismiss/compel is denied, the Court could be faced with
individual motions to compel each time a plaintiff opts-in.  As
to any prejudice to the parties, denying both motions ensures
prompt notice to the putative class members and recognizes the
FAA's purpose to enforce valid arbitration agreements as quickly
as possible.

After considering the arguments presented by the parties, Judge
Ketchmark determines that the appropriate course is to deny both
the parties' motions to stay.  She directed the parties to create
a briefing schedule to address the Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Certification and the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss/Compel Arbitration.  After the parties confer, the
parties are directed to file a briefing schedule with the Court
within seven days of the date of this Order.

Accordingly, the Judge denied the Defendant's Motion to Stay
Briefing and for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's
Motion for Conditional Certification, and denied the Plaintiff's
Motion to Stay Consideration of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss,
Pending a Ruling on Conditional Certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/tnlCe9 from Leagle.com.

Albert J. Astarita, Plaintiff, represented by Michael James
Rahmberg -- mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com -- McClelland Law
Firm, P.C. & Ryan L. McClelland -- ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com --
McClelland Law Firm, P.C.

Menard, Inc., doing business as Menards, Defendant, represented
by Brian E. Peterson -- bpeterson@spencerfane.com -- Spencer Fane
LLP, Francis X. Neuner, Jr. -- fneuner@spencerfane.com -- Spencer
Fane LLP, James E. Davidson -- james.davidson@icemiller.com --
Ice Miller LLP, pro hac vice & Paul L. Bittner --
paul.bittner@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP, pro hac vice.


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Court Dismisses "Callaway" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM S. CALLAWAY, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 8:14-CV-02011-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal.), Judge
James V. Selna of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California dismissed with prejudice all claims
against the Defendant for the reasons set forth in the Order
Granting Motion for Final Settlement Approval, and Order Granting
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Attorneys' Fees and
Costs and Incentive Award and for Attorneys' Fees and Costs.  He
directed the Clerk is directed to enter the Judgment pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/DhzM1y from Leagle.com.

Elizabeth Callaway & William S Callaway, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Eric
F. Yuhl -- eyuhl@yuhlcarr.com -- Yuhl Carr LLP, Jason M. Frank --
jfrank@lawfss.com -- Frank Sims and Stolper LLP, Patrick
McNicholas, McNicholas and McNicholas LLP, Philip Shakhnis --
pmc@mcnicholaslaw.com -- McNicholas and McNicholas LLP, Scott
Howard Sims -- ssims@lawfss.com -- Frank Sims and Stolper LLP,
Colin Yuhl -- cayuhl@yuhlcarr.com -- Yuhl Carr LLP & Michael J.
Avenatti, Eagan Avenatti LLP.

Mercedes Benz USA LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendant, represented by Eric J. Knapp --
eric.knapp@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs LLP & Troy M.
Yoshino -- troy.yoshino@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs US
LLP.

Mission Imports, a California corporation, Defendant, represented
by Steven E. Swaney -- sswaney@schiffhardin.com - Schiff Hardin
LLP, Troy M. Yoshino, Squire Patton Boggs US LLP & Eric J. Knapp,
Squire Patton Boggs LLP.


MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Class Cert. Sought in "Martinez" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Dolores Martinez and Loralie Nolet move the Court to certify the
class described in the complaint of their lawsuit entitled
DOLORES MARTINEZ and LORALIE NOLET, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. MERCHANTS & MEDICAL CREDIT
CORPORATION, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-00485 (E.D. Wisc.), and
further ask that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant them (and the Defendant) relief from
the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and
requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of
the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the
court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing
of a class certification motion, the Plaintiffs assert, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual
settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision
cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from
representing a class, the Plaintiffs tell the Court, citing
Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App.
LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017).  The Plaintiffs
assert that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by
sending a certified check to the proposed class representative.
Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also
Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No.
15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24,
2016).

The Plaintiffs are obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiffs
contend.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense
when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an
amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs argue.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives, and to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=z8AQSNIM

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MFS GLOBAL: Schopp Files Suit Over TCPA Breach
----------------------------------------------
George Kenneth Schopp, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. MFS Global Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-00167 (E.D. Tex., March 11, 2018), seeks statutory
damages of $500 for each violation, with triple damages for any
willful or knowing violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act including attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff alleges that MFS Global called his residential phone
while his number was on the Do Not Call Registry, without
consent.

MFS Global -- www.mfsglobal.com -- is a financial services
provider based out of Las Vegas NV.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
      1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100
      Southlake, TX 76092-4322
      Tel: (817) 416-5060
      Fax: (817) 416-5062
      Email: chris@crmlawpractice.com


MICHIGAN: Recommendation to Narrow Claims in "McBride" Adopted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Mary Ann McBride et al., Plaintiffs, v. Michigan
Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-11222
(E.D. Mich.), Judge Sean F. Cox of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, overruled
the Defendants' objections and adopted the Magistrate Judge David
R. Grand's Feb. 8, 2018 Report and Recommendation ("R&R").

In this class action, named Plaintiffs McBride and Ralph Williams
represent a class of deaf or hard of hearing individuals in the
custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections who require
hearing-related accommodations for various reasons.  They have
filed suit against the MDOC and various agency administrators and
prison wardens, asserting violations of the American Disabilities
Act; the Rehabilitation Act; The Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act; and the Free Exercise and Free
Speech Clauses of the First and Fourteenth Amendment.  They seek
only declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy these alleged
violations.

The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Grand for a
report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B),
after which the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

On Feb. 8, 2018, Magistrate Judge Grand issued a R&R wherein he
recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and deny the Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment.  The Defendants timely objected to
the R&R on Feb. 22, 2018.  The Plaintiffs have not objected to
the R&R and the time for them to do so has passed.

The Defendants raise three objections to the R&R: (1) that
questions of fact exist as to whether prisoners housed within the
MDOC have been denied meaningful access to telecommunications
devices; (2) the Magistrate Judge improperly applied an optimal
accommodation standard instead of a reasonable accommodation
standard when assessing their purported denial of interpreter
services for essential programs; and (3) the Magistrate Judge
improperly recommended that a formal training be required in a
Consent Judgment.

As to the Defendants' first objection, Judge Fox agrees with
Magistrate Judge Grand's analysis and conclusion that the safety
concerns articulated by the Defendants do not preclude summary
judgment.  Indeed, even in their objections, the Defendants have
still failed to explain why the safety policies applied to
telephone conversations would not be as effective at addressing
risks associated with video transmissions.  He also agrees with
the Magistrate Judge's analysis and conclusion that the
Plaintiffs have shown that, in reality, [teletypewriters] do not
enable them to communicate effectively with persons outside of
prison, much less provide them with telecommunications access
equal to that of hearing prisoners.  Thus, he will overrule the
Defendants' first objection.

As to the Defendants' second objection, the Judge holds that
although the Magistrate Judge did not find that there has been a
systemic denial of interpreting services, he did find that the
evidence shows both that the Defendants have continued to fail to
furnish appropriate auxiliary aids by way of an interpreter and
that there is a tangible risk that this failure will continue to
occur.  This finding supported Magistrate Judge Grand's ultimate
conclusion: that the Defendants' accommodations were not
reasonable.  Judge Fox agrees with the Magistrate Judge's
analysis on this issue, which did not employ an optimal
accommodation standard.  Thus, he will overrule the Defendants'
second objection.

As to the Defendants' third objection, the Judge agrees with
Magistrate Judge Grand that including a training provision in any
consent order would be an appropriate discretionary exercise of
the Court's remedial powers.  Indeed, the R&R details the MDOC's
history of failing to adequately respond to the needs of deaf and
hard of hearing prisoners and its continuing failure to address
the issues that Plaintiffs have raised.  And because the Court
will grant the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment in part,
the MDOC will likely be faced with implementing new policies or
procedures to ensure ADA compliance.  Under the circumstances,
Judge Fox agrees with the Magistrate Judge that a reasonable
training requirement is appropriate.  Thus, he will overrule the
Defendants' third objection.

For these reasons, Judge Fox overrules the Defendants' objections
and adopted the Magistrate Judge's Feb. 8, 2018 R&R.  He granted
in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary
Judgment, and denied the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Specifically, the Judge granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment as to Counts I and II of the complaint and
denied their motion as to the remaining counts.

The Judge directed MDOC to (i) make videophones available to all
deaf and hard of hearing prisoners; (ii) provide necessary
auxiliary aids for all deaf and hard of hearing prisoners to
participate equally in prison programs and services, including
consistent access to ASL interpreters for all high-stakes
interactions and programs, see R&R at 21, including religious
services; (iii) institute mandatory training for MDOC's
correctional officers and staff on how to identify and
appropriately interact with deaf and hard of hearing prisoners;
and (iv) adopt effective and comprehensive policies and
procedures in each of the above areas, including for appropriate
compliance monitoring.

He also directed the parties to meet and confer in an attempt to
resolve any aspects of the Plaintiffs' claims not disposed of by
the Order, and to agree on an appropriate consent order
implementing the relief specified, and any other relief necessary
to bring the action to a close.  Within 60 days of the Order, the
parties will either file a proposed consent order for the Court's
review and approval or file a joint status report regarding any
outstanding issues preventing the parties from agreeing on a
consent order.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/77U7LS from Leagle.com.

Mary Ann McBride, Brian Stanley Wittman, Ralph Williams,
Plaintiffs, represented by Abraham Singer --
abraham.singer@kitch.com -- Kitch Drutchas Wagner Valitutti &
Sherbrook, Andrew D. Lazerow -- alazerow@cov.com -- Covington &
Burling LLP, Megan E. Gerking -- mgerking@cov.com -- Covington &
Burling LLP, Philip J. Levitz -- plevitz@cov.com -- Covington &
Burling LLP, Stephen Curtis Bartenstein -- sbartenstein@cov.com -
- Covington & Burling LLP & Chris E. Davis, Michigan Protection
and Advocacy Service.

Michigan Department of Corrections, Daniel H Heyns, Thomas Finco,
Randall Treacher, Anthony Stewart, Jeffrey Woods, Cathleen
Stoddard, Defendants, represented by Allan J. Soros, Michigan
Department of Attorney General, Gary L. Grant, Michigan Attorney
General's Office, James E. Long, Michigan Department of Attorney
General, Jeanmarie Miller, State of Michigan & Robert J. Jenkins,
Michigan Department of Attorney General.

Edward Burley, Interested Party, Pro Se.


MIDLAND COLLEGE: Seeks Final Approval of "Telles" Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit entitled KIANI TELLES, ELIZABETH
CHASTAIN, and CRYSTINE KISTNER v. MIDLAND COLLEGE, Case No. 7:17-
cv-00083-DC (W.D. Tex.), jointly ask the Court to preliminarily
approve their settlement, preliminarily certify the Settlement
Class, order that Notice be issued, and schedule a final approval
hearing.

The proposed "Settlement Class" includes:

     (1) all current members of the Midland College Softball
     Team, (2) all future members of the Midland College softball
     team, and (3) former members of the Midland College softball
     team who would still be able to bring suit under the statute
     of limitations, i.e., those who played during the previous
     two years.

Tommy Ramos was the longtime softball coach at Midland College.
Ramos filed this lawsuit on April 27, 2017.  The Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss challenging Ramos' standing to bring the
Title IX claim, and it was eventually granted.  In the meantime,
Ramos had filed an amended complaint adding three students: Kiani
Telles, Elizabeth Chastain, and Crystine Kistner, students and
softball players at Midland College.

The Complaint alleges that MC violated Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972, and the regulations and policies promulgated
thereunder.  As a recipient of federal funds, the complaint
states that the Defendant violates its Title IX obligations due
to its alleged discrimination on the basis of sex as it relates
to the softball and baseball teams.  The Complaint asserts a
variety of disparities are present between the softball and
baseball teams, including: game day facilities, practice
facilities, locker rooms, travel amenities, budgeting, and
support staff.

In the Settlement, the College agrees to take certain steps to
improve the facilities and benefits afforded to members of its
softball team.  Among other things, the College agrees that by
March 1, 2018, it will provide a temporary, portable building for
the women's softball team to use as a locker room, which building
will remain in place until the permanent locker room is
completed.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John S. Klassen, Esq.
          KLASSEN LAW FIRM PLLC
          1407 W. Kansas Avenue
          Midland, TX 79701
          Telephone: (432) 684-1111
          E-mail: john@klassenlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jennifer A. Powell, Esq.
          Holly B. Wardell, Esq.
          Marlene E. Wyatt, Esq.
          EICHELBAUM WARDELL HANSEN POWELL & MEHL, P.C.
          4201 W. Parmer Lane, Suite A100
          Austin, TX 78727
          Telephone: (512) 476-9944
          Facsimile: (512) 472-2599
          E-mail: jpowell@edlaw.com
                  hwardell@edlaw.com
                  mwyatt@edlaw.com


MURRAY GOULBURN: Slater and Gordon Seeks Investors for Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Simone Smith and Peter Hemphill, writing for The Weekly Times,
reports that a second class action is planned to be launched
against Murray Goulburn.

Law firm Slater and Gordon is seeking investors to register for a
class action against MG and its subsidiary MG Responsible Entity
Limited.

Slater and Gordon said the claim was open to all current and
former investors who acquired units in MG's listed entity MG Unit
Trust between May 29, 2015, and April 26, 2016, including through
the initial public offering in 2015.

This proposal of a second class action comes a day after MG
shareholders voted overwhelmingly in support of selling the co-
operative's operating assets and liabilities to Canadian dairy
giant Saputo at an extraordinary general meeting in Melbourne.

In May 2016, Elliott Legal filed a class action in the Federal
Court on behalf of lead plaintiff John Webster, as trustee for
the Elcar Pty Ltd Super Trust Fund, for undisclosed compensation
and costs.

That case is well progressed.

Mr Webster's barrister, Norman O'Bryan SC, told The Weekly Times
he was in the court and was about to enter the discovery process,
seeking access to MG's documents.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission had already
begun misconduct proceedings against MG in the Federal Court.

Mr O'Bryan said he was hoping for a trial on Mr Webster's class
action later this year or early next year after the ACCC court
case had been completed.

MG will withhold about $230 million of proceeds from the sale of
its business to Saputo to cover ongoing costs, including $195
million for any potential litigation payouts.

The other money would be used for operational costs including
winding-up costs of MG.

Slater and Gordon senior associate Andrew Paull said
registrations for unit holders would remain open until May 18,
with formal proceedings expected to be filed soon after that date
subject to sufficient interest.

'Thorough analysis of the recent ACCC and ASIC (Australian
Securities and Investments Commission) inquiries into Murray
Goulburn have strengthened our initial findings that suggest the
company misled the market by forecasting profits it could never
have achieved in the 2016 financial year,' Mr Paull said.

'We have identified significant inconsistencies between Murray
Goulburn's statements to the market regarding its likely revenue
and profits that year and the information available to the
company's management internally.

'As a result, we now have increased confidence the 27 April 2016
profit downgrade was the result of an overly optimistic forecast,
rather than any factors beyond its control.'

The proposed claim will allege that:

THE Murray Goulburn entities misled investors by issuing the
2015-16 profit forecast in the Product Disclosure Statement
and/or the revised forecast in February 2016, without a
reasonable basis; and

THE Murray Goulburn entities are responsible for breaches of
continuous disclosure obligations under the Australian Securities
Exchange listing rules and the Corporations Act 2001 by failing
to announce the 2015-16 downgrade, or any part of it, prior to
April 27, 2016.

Murray Goulburn Co-operative Co. Limited (MG) notes announcements
by Slater and Gordon and IMF Bentham regarding a proposed
securities class action against MG and MG Responsible Entity
Limited (MGRE). MG notes that no claim has been commenced.[GN]


NATIONAL GROCERY: Accused by "Hernandez" of Not Paying Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
CINDY JOCELYN HERNANDEZ and MARIA GUTIERREZ CAJINA, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. NATIONAL GROCERY CO
INC. (D/B/A CTOWN SUPERMARKETS) and RADI HAMDAN, Case No. 1:18-
cv-01774 (E.D.N.Y., March 22, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiffs
worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours
that they worked.

National Grocery Co Inc. is a domestic corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the state of New York.  Radi Hamdan
serves or served as owner, manager, principal, or agent of
Defendant Corporation and, through this corporate entity,
operates or operated the Supermarket as a joint or unified
enterprise.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a supermarket, located at
237 Avenue U, in Brooklyn, New York, under the name "C-Town
Supermarkets."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Narrows Claims in "Long" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY D. LONG, Plaintiff, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE
LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-01202 (S.D. W.Va.),
Judge Thomas E. Johnson of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Virginia, Charleston Division, (i) granted
in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion for partial
summary judgment; (ii) denied the Plaintiff's motion for partial
summary judgment; and (iii) denied the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.

The action arises from a dispute between Long) and his loan
servicer, Nationstar, regarding allegations of illegal debt
collection.  In 2007, Long purchased a home and financed it with
a loan from Flagstar Bank.  On Oct. 1, 2009, Flagstar Bank
transferred the servicing of Long's mortgage to Nationstar.  In
December of 2009, because Long was struggling to make his
payments, Nationstar agreed to a loan modification that would
reduce the interest rate on Long's loan.  The Loan Modification
Agreement was executed on Jan. 5, 2010.

After the loan modification, Long continued to struggle to make
regular mortgage payments and his home was scheduled for
foreclosure on at least four separate occasions between 2011 and
2014.  Long alleges that on several occasions during this time
period, Nationstar refused to accept Long's payments to reinstate
the loan and attempted to collect attorneys' fees from him.

On Feb. 15, 2011, David Triplett filed an action on behalf of
himself and a class of similarly situated individuals against
Nationstar alleging that Nationstar charged excessive late fees,
failed and refused to credit loan payments, and collected or
threatened to collect improper expenses, including attorneys'
fees.  Triplett sought to certify five subclasses of West
Virginia citizens whose loans were serviced by Nationstar
sometime after Feb. 15, 2010, including citizens whom Nationstar
had charged attorneys' fees.

Before certification of any class, Triplett and Nationstar
reached a class-wide settlement.  The Settlement Agreement sought
to certify a class that included individuals who were sent form
debt collection letters seeking payment for the expenses of
collection and individuals who had made partial loan payments
that were returned prior to the acceleration of their loan.  This
class included Long.  United States District Judge Robert C.
Chambers conditionally certified the settlement class and
preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Nationstar sent a Notice of
Proposed Class Settlement to all the members of the settlement
class, including Long.  The Effective Date was defined as 31 days
after entry of the Final Approval Order.  The Notice directed the
class members to the Settlement Agreement for more information.

The Notice was sent by first class mail to Long's address.  Long
was not among the 10 class members who had "known bad addresses"
nor did the class administrator receive a notification that the
Notice sent to Long was not delivered or received.  None of the
class members, including Long, opted out of the class.

On Oct. 16, 2012, the Court entered the Final Approval Order.  On
Dec. 14, 2012, the class administrator remitted payment of
$704.69 to Long.  Long cashed the payout check a month later.
Thus, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Long
released all claims against Nationstar that are relating to late
fees, returned payments, and default-related fees, including
attorneys' fees, arising on or before Nov. 16, 2012.

Following the class settlement, Long continued to struggle to
make payments on his mortgage and Nationstar once again brought
foreclosure proceedings.  Long alleges that in the time period
following the settlement, Nationstar continued to demand legal
fees and returned payments that Long submitted to cure the
default on his mortgage.  Long's home was most recently scheduled
for a foreclosure sale on Oct. 7, 2014.  Before this date, Long
attempted to make payments to cure the default, but Nationstar
remitted these payments stating that they were insufficient.
However, the foreclosure sale was halted after Long appeared at
the sale and paid the trustee.

On Dec. 10, 2014, Long filed the present action against
Nationstar in the Circuit Court of Nicholas County, West
Virginia, alleging multiple claims of illegal debt collection and
violations of law through the servicing of his mortgage.  On Jan.
28, 2015, Nationstar timely removed the action to the Court.
Long subsequently moved the Court to amend his Complaint to
convert one of his claims into three class claims.  The Court
granted the motion and Long's Amended Complaint was filed on May
7, 2015.

The Amended Complaint alleges three class claims and seven
individual claims for relief.  The class claims are premised on
the allegation that Nationstar routinely assesses and collects
illegal fees from West Virginia borrowers in violation of the
West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act ("WVCCPA").  The
seven individual claims allege violations of the WVCCPA (claims
one through three); breach of contract (claim four); a violation
of West Virginia Code Section 38-1-15 (claim five); fraudulent
inducement (claim six); and inducement by unconscionable conduct
in violation of the WVCCPA (claim seven).

On May 28, 2015, Nationstar filed a partial motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint.  The Court granted in part and denied in part
Nationstar's motion.  Specifically, the Court dismissed Long's
fifth claim in its entirety and dismissed Long's sixth and
seventh claims in part to the extent that they were premised on
the alleged illegality of Nationstar's capitalization of past-due
interest as part of Long's loan modification.

Nationstar filed the present motion for partial summary judgment
on Oct. 19, 2017, as to Long's first, third, fourth, sixth, and
seventh individual claims, and, in part, on Long's second
individual claim insofar as they are the based on allegations
that were the subject of the class settlement.  It also requests
summary judgment on Long's class claims, contending that Long
cannot represent a class of individuals who were charged
attorneys' fees because Long was never charged attorneys' fees.
Long subsequently filed a partial motion for summary judgment as
to his class claims.  Timely responses and replies were filed in
both motions.

On Oct.27, 2017, Long filed a motion for class certification
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2)-(b)(3)
seeking to certify a class composed of individuals who suffered
the injuries alleged in his class claims.  Nationstar filed a
timely response in opposition to Long's motion, and Long filed a
timely reply.

Judge Johnson (i) granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment; (ii) denied the
Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment; and (iii) denied
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

As to Nationstar's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment, the Judge
finds, among other things, that the Triplett settlement is a
final judgment on the merits.  Thus, Long released all claims as
defined in the settlement agreement that took place on or before
Nov. 16, 2012.  Accordingly, he granted in part summary judgment
on Long's first, sixth, and seventh individual claims as they are
based on allegations that Nationstar unlawfully contracted for
excess charges during Long's loan modification, which occurred in
October 2009.  He granted in part summary judgment on Long's
second, third, and fourth individual claims insofar as they
allege that Nationstar unlawfully charged fees or refused
payments before Nov. 16, 2012.

As to Long's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment, Long contends
that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all three
of his class claims.  The Judge declined to certify Long's
proposed class and dismissed Long's class claims.

Finally, with respect to Long's Motion for Class Certification,
Judge Johnson finds that Long has not met the commonality,
typicality, or adequacy of counsel requirements for class
certification.  He finds that it is not necessary to address the
other Rule 23(a) or 23(b) elements.

The action will proceed against Nationstar on Long's second
individual claim, insofar as it is related to phone calls
allegedly made after the Effective Date, and Long's fourth
individual claim insofar as it is related to the request or
charging for attorneys' fees after the Effective Date.  The Judge
directed the Clerk to send a copy of the Order to the counsel of
record and any unrepresented party.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/MUGxW9 from Leagle.com.

Anthony D. Long, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gary M. Smith, MOUNTAIN STATE
JUSTICE, INC., Loree Beth Stark, MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, INC. &
Sarah K. Brown, MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, INC.

Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Defendant, represented by Dennis Kyle
Deak -- kyle.deak@troutmansanders.com -- Jason E. Manning --
jason.manning@troutmansanders.com -- John C. Lynch --
john.lynch@troutmansanders.com -- Jonathan M. Kenney --
jon.kenney@troutmansanders.com -- at TROUTMAN SANDERS.


NEW YORK: OKs to New Oversight, Requirements in Ongoing Mold Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Colby Hamilton, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
New York City's embattled public housing authority has agreed to
a more stringent consent decree in a running, multiyear battle
over mold in New York City Housing Authority residents'
apartments.

The latest chapter in the suit, Baez v. NYCHA, comes after the
plaintiffs claim NYCHA has continued to not be in compliance with
the consent decree, first issued in 2014. The agreement submitted
to U.S. District Judge William Pauley III of the Southern
District of New York on April 6 substantially bolsters the
requirements and the oversight of the public housing authority.

"NYCHA has continued to breach the original consent decree, with
an average time to complete certain repairs exceeding 25 days and
a reoccurrence rate of more than 46 percent, so we threatened to
take them to court and seek injunctive relief," Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan of counsel Steven Edwards, Esq. --
stevenedwards@quinnemanuel.com -- lead counsel for the
plaintiffs, said in a statement. "I am glad we have been able to
achieve something that should provide real relief for hundreds of
thousands of NYCHA residents who have been suffering as a result
of NYCHA's failure to effectively remediate mold."

The most significant new imposition placed on NYCHA will be an
ombudsperson empowered to take action on behalf of residents
should the housing authority fall out of compliance. This is on
top of a special master that's been in place since February 2016.

NYCHA's compliance will also be more rigid. One of the many
concerns faced by the plaintiffs was the coming sun-setting of
the earlier consent decree. Now, NYCHA's compliance with
remediation provisions will determine the end point of the
agreement. Whereas a wait-out-the-clock approach could have
afforded the housing authority an out, now the plaintiffs are
hoping that only the end of the mold issues in public housing
will provide one.

Under the new agreement, the housing authority is required to get
the 46 percent reoccurrence rate down to zero, with firm repair
time frames put in place. New policies and procedures are also
required to fix problems going forward.

The NYCHA must also submit reports to the court, under penalty of
perjury. The provision is in response to earlier concerns that
the authority was submitting reports that were less than fully
truthful.

The agreement announced on April 6 is the latest in a recent
flurry of activity over the state of public housing in the city.
The city council has held hearings over residents' issues. Gov.
Andrew Cuomo recently announced the state would impose its own
monitor over the housing authority, in an ongoing battle with
Mayor Bill de Blasio. Federal officials, from the Manhattan U.S.
Attorney's Office to the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, have been scrutinizing NYCHA over various issues as
well.

In its own press release on April 6 agreement, NYCHA
characterized the move in optimistic terms, noting that the
agreement includes the roll out of authority-wide of a pilot
program developed under the special master that will improve
training for staff. The authority pointed to aging and
deteriorating infrastructure at NYCHA facilities as the
underlying mold culprit.

"This is a positive step for NYCHA and our residents. We
appreciate the parties coming together to agree on real goals and
science-based solutions that will help public housing residents,"
NYCHA general manager Vito Mustaciuolo said in a statement. "Mold
is a serious issue, and we are committed to resolving it, not
only on the surface but also by uncovering and resolving root
causes and educating tenants on how to work with us to prevent
mold."

The plaintiffs are also represented by counsel at the Natural
Resources Defense Council, the National Center for Law and
Economic Justice Inc. and Proskauer Rose.  [GN]


NEXEN CORP: "Kuta" Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kuta on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. Nexen Corporation
(d/b/a Nexen Logistics), Stephen Kirka and Janel Lynn Kirka,
jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-10797 (E.D.
Mich., March 9, 2018), seeks redress for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Michigan Minimum Wage Law of 1964,
for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime wages and for breach
of contract including but limited to compensatory damages,
liquidated damages, punitive damages, costs, attorneys' fees,
prejudgment interest and other damages.

Nexen Corp. is engaged in the business of delivering packages for
Amazon.com. Kuta worked from Defendants warehouse and dispatch
center located at 1400 E.10 Mile Road, Hazel Park, Michigan. He
claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per work week without
being paid overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Philo, Esq.
      Tony Paris, Esq.
      MAURICE & JANE SUGAR LAW CENTER
      FOR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
      4605 Cass Avenue, Second Floor
      Detroit, MI 48201
      Phone: (313) 993-4505
      Fax: (313) 887-8470
      Email: jphilo@sugarlaw.org
             tparis@sugarlaw.org


NONGSHIM CO: Wins Bid to Seal Mangum Info in Ramen Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William H. Orrick III grants the Defendants'
administrative motion to seal certain information and documents
submitted in connection with their reply in support of motion to
strike the surrebuttal declarations of Dr. Daniel A. Ackerberg
and Dr. Russell W. Mangum III in the consolidated lawsuit titled
In re Korean Ramen Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:13-cv-04115-
WHO (N.D. Cal.).

After considering the briefing presented by the Defendants and
any additional evidence submitted by the Designating Parties, the
Court grants Defendants' Administrative Motion to Seal this
portion of the exhibit to the Defendants' Reply in support of
Motion to Strike the Untimely and Unwarranted Surrebuttal
Declarations of Dr. Daniel A. Ackerberg and Dr. Russell W. Mangum
III:

   Exhibit     Material
   -------     --------
      1        Excerpts of the Deposition of Dr. Russell W.
               Mangum III, PhD, taken on July 12, 2016

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JjB32ysm

Defendants OTTOGI CO., LTD., and OTTOGI AMERICA, INC., are
represented by:

          Scott A. Edelman, Esq.
          Rachel S. Brass, Esq.
          Minae Yu, Esq.
          Julian W. Kleinbrodt, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
          Telephone: (415) 393-8200
          Facsimile: (415) 393-8306
          E-mail: sedelman@gibsondunn.com
                  rbrass@gibsondunn.com
                  myu@gibsondunn.com
                  jkleinbrodt@gibsondunn.com

Defendants NONGSHIM CO., LTD., and NONGSHIM AMERICA, INC., are
represented by:

          Mark C. Dosker, Esq.
          Joseph P. Grasser, Esq.
          Maria A. Nugent, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
          275 Battery Street, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 954-0200
          Facsimile: (415) 393-9887
          E-mail: mark.dosker@squirepb.com
                  joseph.grasser@squirepb.com
                  maria.nugent@squirepb.com


NORMAN BARWIN: Faces Class Action Suit Filed by Patients
--------------------------------------------------------
Global News reports that a law firm pursuing a class-action suit
against a former Ottawa fertility doctor says it has evidence
indicating he fathered 11 children by impregnating patients with
his own sperm.

Two years ago, an Ottawa family filed a proposed class-action
lawsuit against Dr. Norman Barwin, alleging he is the biological
father of their daughter, now an adult.

In a statement, law firm Nelligan O'Brien Payne says DNA
investigation now shows Barwin is the biological father in 11
cases where the intention was to use the sperm of the male of the
couple or, in other cases, a specific anonymous sperm donor.

The firm says it has also become aware of at least another 16
individuals conceived through Barwin's practice who are not a
biological match to the intended father.

None of the allegations against Barwin has been proven in court.

Karen Hamway, Esq. -- karen.hamway@gowlingwlg.com -- a lawyer for
Barwin, had no comment on the latest accusation. [GN]


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: "Infante" Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
GUISEPPE INFANTE, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. NORTHSTAR LOCATION SERVICES, LLC AND NAVIENT
SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 505540/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty.,
March 20, 2018), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act and the New York General Business
Law.

Northstar Location Services, LLC, is a collection agency
regularly engaging in the business of collecting debts in New
York with its principal place of business located in Cheektowaga,
New York.

Navient Solutions, LLC, is a foreign limited liability company
with its principal place of business located in Reston, Virginia.
Northstar is a "debt collector."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Simon Goldenberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SIMON GOLDENBERG PLLC
          818 East 16th Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11230
          Telephone: (347) 640-4357
          Facsimile: (347) 472-0347


OHIO: Judge Grants Class-Action Lawsuit in Disability Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
US News reports that a federal judge has granted class action
status to a lawsuit brought on behalf of Ohioans with
intellectual and developmental disabilities.

The lawsuit alleges such individuals experience segregation when
forced to receive services from institutions due to fewer
community- or home-based options.

The ruling expands the lawsuit to potentially thousands of
individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Disability Rights Ohio sued Ohio in 2016 on behalf of six people
the group says are, or are at risk of being, 'needlessly
institutionalized' because of barriers to more integrated
residential, employment or day services.

The director of Ohio's Department of Developmental Disabilities
says it's fighting the lawsuit and is pleased the court has let
other voices get involved, including the Ohio Association of
County Boards and guardians of people with disabilities. [GN]


OHIO MULCH: Smyers Moves to Certify Class of Workers Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Smyers, one of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled Smyers,
et al., On behalf of herself and other members of the general
public similarly situated v. Ohio Mulch Supply, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01110-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, asks the Court to:

   (1) conditionally certify the proposed collective FLSA class,
       consisting of two subclasses defined as:

        (i) All current and former Ohio hourly, non-exempt
            employees of Defendants who since December 18, 2014
            worked over 40 hours in any workweek but were not
            properly compensated for all of their overtime hours
            worked under the FLSA because of Defendants'
            automatic meal deduction policy (the "Automatic
            Deduction Subclass"); and

       (ii) All current and former Ohio Retail Managers of
            Defendants who since December 18, 2014 worked over 40
            hours in any workweek but were not properly
            compensated for all of their overtime hours worked
            because of Defendants' policy of not compensating
            them for any time spent working if they were not
            physically at one of Defendants' OMS stores (the
            "Retail Manager Subclass") (Collectively, the
            Automatic Deduction Subclass and Retail Manager
            Subclass will be referred to as the "216(b) Class
            Members");

   (2) implement a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
       FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail) to the
       class;

   (3) approve a Reminder Email to be sent to Putative Class
       Members halfway through the 60-day notice period; and

   (4) require the Defendants to, within 14 days of this Court's
       order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by
       providing a list in electronic and importable format, of
       the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all
       potential opt-in plaintiffs, who worked for Defendants at
       any time from three years preceding the filing of this
       Motion through the present.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Peter A. Contreras, Esq.
          CONTRERAS LAW, LLC
          PO Box 215
          Amlin, OH 43002
          Telephone: (614) 787-4878
          Facsimile: (614) 923-7369
          E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com


OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Store Employees File Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Kane, Candi Amuso and Keisha Edwards, Individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-
03475 (D. N.J., March 12, 2018) seeks all available relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Plaintiffs were employed by Ollie's Bargain Outlet from in or
around September 2015 to July 2016 as a Co-Team Leader at Ollie's
stores located in Hamilton New Jersey and Bristol, Pennsylvania.
Plaintiffs worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, without
receiving wages for all hours worked, as well as overtime
compensation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PNC FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of "McCoy" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., filed a motion to dismiss the
case captioned Damian McCoy, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. PNC Financial
Services Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00299 (W.D. Pa.,
March 9, 2018).

McCoy submitted an online application to PNC for the position of
IT Business Analyst and received a conditional offer of
employment contingent upon completion of a drug test and criminal
background check. PNC received criminal background check results
stating that McCoy had been arrested on June 5, 2011, but that
all felony and misdemeanor charges against him had been
withdrawn. Despite this, PNC revoked his offer of employment
based on this criminal arrest information, which is the primary
reason why he filed this case, notes the Plaintiff.

PNC claims that the Federal Deposit Insurance Act authorizes them
to consider an applicant's criminal history short of conviction
and prohibits, with limited exceptions, a federally-insured bank
from hiring any person who has "agreed to enter into a pretrial
diversion or similar program in connection with a prosecution for
[an] offense" involving "dishonesty or a breach of trust or money
laundering." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James M. Pietz, Esq.
      Ruairi McDonnell, Esq.
      FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
      429 Fourth Avenue
      Law and Finance Building, Suite 1300
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Email: jpietz@fdpklaw.com
             rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com

PNC Financial is represented by:

      Catherine S. Ryan, Esq.
      Kim M. Watterson, Esq.
      Christopher Bouriat, Esq.
      REED SMITH LLP
      Reed Smith Centre
      225 Fifth Ave.
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Tel: (412) 288-4226/7996
      Fax: (412) 288-3063
      Email: cryan@reedsmith.com
             kwatterson@reedsmith.com
             cbouriat@reedsmith.com


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Consumers Seek Class-Action Status Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dee DePass, writing for Star Tribune, reports that customers from
three states sued Polaris Industries March 5, seeking class-
action status and claiming the Medina-based ATV maker knowingly
made defective vehicles for years that could catch fire but
failed to fix the problem or notify consumers quickly.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis, seeks
to represent roughly 300,000 consumers who own Polaris vehicle
models spanning 2011 to 2018. The case has been assigned to U.S.
District Judge Wilhelmina Wright.

Officials at Polaris -- one of the largest players in the
recreational vehicle industry -- said they had not yet seen the
lawsuit and so could not comment on April 5.

The company has recalled hundreds of thousands of vehicles in the
past few years, many because of a risk of fire. The lawsuit comes
just days after the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
issued a record $27.25 million civil penalty against Polaris for
failing to report in a timely manner overheating problems and
fires caused by its Ranger and RZR all-terrain vehicles. Polaris
agreed to the settlement but did admit or deny guilt.

On April 5 lawsuit referenced the CPSC's ruling but went further,
claiming that Polaris' overheating and fire risks 'caused more
than 250 fires, in excess of 30 severe injuries and at least
three deaths.'

'Polaris has continued selling Ranger and RZR off-road vehicles
with ProStar engines, despite knowing that they suffer from an
acute risk of catching fire,' said Chicago lawyer Adam
Levitt,Esq., who is representing the plaintiffs, in a phone
interview on April 5. 'Our lawsuit hopes to force Polaris to
seriously confront this issue and to start putting its customers'
safety above corporate profits.'

The defective-product lawsuit was filed April 5 by three Polaris
vehicle owners: James Bruner of Tallassee, Ala.; Michael Zeeck of
Rushville, Ill.; and Ed Beattie of Chappell, Neb. They have asked
for a jury trial and unspecified punitive damages.

The lawsuit claims that none of Polaris' recalls addressed the
root problem of the fire risk in the vehicles. It alleges that
problem lay in an engine redesign that Polaris began
incorporating in its vehicle models as early as 2011.

Various Polaris RZR, Ranger and General vehicle models ranging
from 2011 to 2018 'all suffer from a [common] design defect that
creates a significant and unreasonable risk of the vehicles
overheating and catching fire,' the lawsuit said.

'The class vehicles are equipped with an unusually high-powered
ProStar engine that is tucked directly behind the occupant
compartment. The ProStar engine produces more power than the
engines in competing vehicles and accordingly more heat,' the
lawsuit said.

The plaintiffs further alleged that a Polaris engine redesign
made in 2011 in both RZRs and Rangers used a more powerful 88-
horsepower engine and also rerouted the exhaust gas pipes so they
traveled toward the occupants, and then turned 180 degrees in a U
shape before exiting from the rear.

'The piping lacks proper ventilation and heat shielding and is
positioned within inches of combustible plastic body panels [and]
within inches of the occupants,' the lawsuit said. The plaintiffs
claim Polaris rushed its engine design and designed it 'in-house
rather than outsourcing' in an effort to save money.

While Polaris has been sued before over its vehicles, most
involved plaintiffs or plaintiffs' family members who were
burned, hurt or killed while riding a Polaris four-wheeler. None
of the three plaintiffs who sued on April 5 suffered injuries or
fires from their vehicles. Levitt said the men suffered
economically because they would not have bought the vehicles had
they known about design problems in advance.

During the past two years, Polaris enhanced and centralized its
product safety program, created a new product-design process,
hired 200 additional quality and engineering experts, enhanced
post-sales surveillance and data analysis and invested in new
tools and processes -- all in an effort to improve safety.

It has agreed to work with the federal consumer protection agency
to further improve its processes.

In announcing the settlement, the Consumer Product Safety
Commission said Polaris knew that some of its RZR models from
2013 to 2016 could catch fire and that the company had in fact
received reports of 150 fires.

One of the RZR fires resulted in the death of a 15-year-old
passenger. The company also knew of 11 reports of RZR burn
injuries and a fire that consumed 10 acres of land, the agency
said.

Separately, there were 46 reports of fires involving 2014 and
2015 Ranger vehicles, the agency said. [GN]


PROGRESSIVE PRODUCE: Denied Employees Rest Breaks, Ramirez Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL RAMIREZ, an individual; and RAYMOND RIVERA, an individual;
ALL INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER
SIMILARLY SITUATED NON-EXEMPT CURRENT AND FORMER EMPLOYEES v.
PROGRESSIVE PRODUCE, LLC, a Delaware Company; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. BC698912 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., March 20, 2018), alleges that while the Plaintiffs and the
class were employed as non-exempt employees, they routinely
worked periods of four hours or more, twice per work day, without
receiving two full, uninterrupted, 10-minute rest break per every
four hours worked, in violation of the California Industrial
Commission's Order 1-2001, 13-2001, and 14-2001.

Progressive Produce, LLC, is a Company in the state of
California, and is authorized and doing business in the County of
Los Angeles and various other locations throughout the United
States.  The Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names of the Doe
Defendants.

The Defendants produce, manufacture, package, and ship various
food products for use in commercial, retail, and private sectors.
Defendants also provide food marketing services for in-store
merchandising, food category management, and product
development.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Grant Joseph Savoy, Esq.
          SOLOUKI SAVOY, LLP
          316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (213) 814-4940
          Facsimile: (213) 814-2550
          E-mail: grant@soloukisavoy.com


RANBAXY PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Certification Sought in "Fenwick"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled FRANCIS FENWICK, EDWARD
SAFRAN, STEVE HARDING, MARY WARDRETT, and LINDA YOUNG,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
RANBAXY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., RANBAXY LABORATORIES, LTD.,
RANBAXY LABORATORIES, INC., RANBAXY, INC., RANBAXY USA, OHM,
LABORATORIES, ABC CORPORATIONS 1-10, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No.
3:12-cv-07354-PGS-DEA (D.N.J.), moves for class certification
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Any answering papers in opposition to the Motion must be served
and filed no later than May 4, 2018, in accordance with the Order
of Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Arpert entered on January 29,
2018.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Barry J. Gainey, Esq.
          GAINEY MCKENNA & EGLESTON
          95 Route 17 South, Suite 310
          Paramus, NJ 07652
          Telephone: (201) 225-9001
          E-mail: bgainey@gme-law.com

Defendants Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ranbaxy Laboratories,
Ltd., Ranbaxy Laboratories, Inc., Ranbaxy, Inc. Ranbaxy USA, and
Ohm Laboratories are represented by:

          Dmitriy Tishyevich, Esq.
          Devora Allon, Esq.
          Richard Nicholson, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-4970
          E-mail: dmitriy.tishyevich@kirkland.com
                  devora.allon@kirkland.com
                  richard.nicholson@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Patunas, Esq.
          PATUNAS LAW LLC
          24 Commerce Street, Suite 606
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 396-8740
          E-mail: mpatunas@patunaslaw.com


RIZNO INC: Brite Bite May Re-File Class Cert. Bid on May 18
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on March 22, 2018, in the case
titled Brite Bite Dental, PC v. Rizno, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-
05747 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Sara L. Ellis.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class is denied without
      prejudice to re-filing at the close of fact discovery on
      May 18, 2018; and

   -- the Defendant may not pick off named Plaintiff by offering
      a full settlement between the entry of this order and the
      re-filing of the motion to certify the class.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9O8hoFRA


ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL: May 1 "Singh" Deal Prelim Approval Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JABIR SINGH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ROADRUNNER
INTERMODAL SERVICES, LLC; CENTRAL CAL TRANSPORTATION, LLC; and
MORGAN SOUTHERN, INC., Defendants. NICHOLAS E. RICH, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL SERVICES, LLC;
CENTRAL CAL TRANSPORTATION, LLC; MORGAN SOUTHERN, INC.; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. LATRINA PHILLIPS, Plaintiff,
v. ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL SERVICES, LLC; and MORGAN SOUTHERN,
INC., Defendants, Lead Case No. 1:15-cv-01497-DAD-BAM, Case No.
1:16-cv-01900-DAD-BAM., 1:17-cv-00164-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Barbara S. McAuliffe of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California ordered that (i) the Motion for
Preliminary Approval will be filed on or before April 13, 2018;
(ii) the Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to Motion for
Preliminary Approval will be filed on or before April 20, 2018;
and (iii) the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement Hearing will be held on May 1, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.in
Courtroom 5 (DAD) before District Judge Dale A. Drozd.

On March 1, 2018, the Parties attended a Case Management
Conference during which the Court set a scheduling order setting
a deadline to file the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement and associated dates.  The
Parties continue to meet and confer over the final terms of the
formal settlement agreement.

The formal settlement agreement contemplated by the Parties is
not finalized.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are not in a position
to file a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement by the current March 30, 2018 filing deadline, as the
Parties are still exchanging drafts of the Settlement Agreement.

The Parties jointly request to move the Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement and associated deadline two
weeks. They jointly stipulated to ask the Court to modify the
dates set forth in Dkt. No. 108 as follows: (i) the Motion for
Preliminary Approval will be filed on or before April 13, 2018;
(ii) the Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to Motion for
Preliminary Approval will be filed on or before April 20, 2018;
and (iii) the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement Hearing will be held on May 1, 2018 at 9:30 .a.m. in
Court room 5 (DAD before District Judge Dale A. Drozd.

Judge McAuliffe approved.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Order is available
at https://goo.gl/kre9qL from Leagle.com.

Jabir Singh, Bany Lopez, Julio Vidrio, James Sliger, Derrick
Lewis, Jerry Leininger, Kristopher Spring & Jerry Wood,
Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew Butler Jones, Esq., Wagner,
Jones, Kopfman, & Artenia LLP, Brian S. Kabateck --
bsk@kbklawyers.com -- Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP, Cheryl Ann
Kenner, Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP, Daniel Myers Kopfman, Wagner,
Jones, Kopfman, & Artenian LLP, Shant Arthur Karnikian --
sk@kbklawyers.com -- Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP, Angela Elizabeth
Martinez, Wagner, Jones, Kopfman & Artenian LLP, Lawrence Mark
Artenian, Wagner, Jones, Kopfman & Artenian LLP & Nicholas John
Paul Wagner, Wagner, Jones, Kopfman, & Artenia LLP.

Nicholas E Rich, an individual on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew
Butler Jones, Esq., Wagner, Jones, Kopfman, & Artenia LLP, Brian
S. Kabateck, Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP, Daniel Myers Kopfman,
Wagner, Jones, Kopfman, & Artenian LLP, Joshua H. Haffner,
Haffner Law, PC, Kevin Shawn Conlogue, Law Offices of Kevin S.
Conlogue, Shant Arthur Karnikian, Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP,
Cheryl Ann Kenner, Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP & Nicholas John
Paul Wagner, Wagner, Jones, Kopfman, & Artenia LLP.

Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC, Central Cal Transportation,
LLC & Morgan Southern, Inc., Defendants, represented by A. Jack
Finklea -- JFINKLEA@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis Garvin Light
Hanson & Feary, P.C., pro hac vice, Adam C. Smedstad --
asmedstad@scopelitis.com -- Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson &
Feary, Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr. -- CMCNATT@SCOPELITIS.COM --
Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary, LLP, James H. Hanson --
JHANSON@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary,
P.C., pro hac vice, Megan E. Ross, Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson
& Feary & Alaina Cathrine Hawley -- AHAWLEY@SCOPELITIS.COM --
Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary, P.C.

Latrina Phillips, Defendant, represented by Andrew Butler Jones,
Esq., Wagner, Jones, Kopfman, & Artenia LLP, Brian S. Kabateck,
Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP, Daniel Myers Kopfman, Wagner, Jones,
Kopfman, & Artenian LLP, Joshua H. Haffner, Haffner Law, PC,
Kevin Shawn Conlogue, Law Offices of Kevin S. Conlogue, Shant
Arthur Karnikian, Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP, Cheryl Ann Kenner,
Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP & Nicholas John Paul Wagner, Wagner,
Jones, Kopfman, & Artenia LLP.


ROUSE PROPERTIES: Court Dismisses Fiduciary Suit
------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph R. Slights, III, of the Court of Chancery of
Delaware granted the Individual Defendants' and the Brookfield
Defendants' motions to dismiss the case, IN RE ROUSE PROPERTIES,
INC. FIDUCIARY LITIGATION, Consolidated C.A. No. 12194-VCS (Del.
Ch.).

The Plaintiffs, two stockholders of non-party Rouse, seek to
recover damages on behalf of a putative class of Rouse
stockholders for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Rouse's
directors and its 33.5% shareholder, a collective of companies
affiliated with Brookfield Asset Management, Inc., arising out of
Rouse's merger with Brookfield.

In January 2016, Brookfield made an offer to acquire all of
Rouse's non-Brookfield shares for $17 per share cash.  In
response, Rouse formed a special committee of non-Brookfield
directors to negotiate with Brookfield and consider other
strategic alternatives.  The special committee hired legal and
financial advisors and negotiated with Brookfield for several
weeks.  The parties eventually arrived at a price of $18.25 per
share and thereafter signed a merger agreement on Feb. 25, 2016.
Both the special committee and the board voted to approve the
offer and the Company presented the proposed transaction to the
Rouse shareholders for approval.

The Plaintiffs filed their original complaint prior to the
stockholder vote along with motions to expedite and preliminarily
to enjoin the transaction.  The Court declined to grant the
motion to expedite because the Plaintiffs failed to identify any
prospect of a superior proposal or any basis to infer that the
stockholder vote on the Merger would be uninformed or coerced.
On June 23, 2016, 82.44% of Rouse's unaffiliated shares voted in
favor of the Merger and the transaction closed days later.

The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint for post-closing damages
alleges that the Merger is a product of breaches of fiduciary
duties by Rouse's special committee and Rouse's controlling
stockholder, Brookfield.  Alternatively, as to Brookfield, the
Plaintiffs allege that it aided and abetted the special
committee's breaches.

n their post-closing Complaint, the Plaintiffs plead three
counts: Count I alleges that the Brookfield Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties as controlling stockholders; Count II
alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties as members of the Committee; and Count III alleges that
the Brookfield Defendants aided and abetted the Individual
Defendants in their breaches of fiduciary duties.

Both the Brookfield Defendants and the Individual Defendants have
moved for dismissal pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6).
The Brookfield Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have failed
adequately to plead either that Brookfield was a controller that
owed fiduciary duties to the minority stockholders (Count I) or
that Brookfield aided and abetted the Individual Defendants in
breaching their fiduciary duties (Count III).  All the Defendants
argue that Count II must be dismissed under Corwin v. KKR Fin.
Hldgs., LLC, since the Merger was approved by a majority of the
unaffiliated Rouse stockholders in a fully-informed, uncoerced
vote.

In this post-Corwin, post-MFW5 world, a pattern has emerged in
post-closing challenges to corporate acquisitions (whether by
merger or tender offer) where a less-than-majority blockholder
sits on either side of the transaction, but the corporation in
which the blockholder owns shares does not recognize him as a
controlling stockholder and does not, therefore, attempt to
neutralize his presumptively coercive influence.  The pattern, in
its simplest form, consists of two elements: (1) the stockholder
plaintiff pleads facts in hopes of supporting a reasonable
inference that the minority blockholder is actually a controlling
stockholder such that the MFW paradigm is implicated and the
Corwin paradigm is not6; and (2) failing that, the plaintiff
pleads facts in hopes of supporting a reasonable inference that
the stockholder vote was uninformed or coerced such that Corwin
does not apply.  Under the settled law, these are two cleared
pathways to avoid pleading-stage business judgment deference and
to secure post-closing discovery in the wake of a stockholder
vote approving a transaction.

The Plaintiffs' Complaint seeks to traverse both paths.  It
alleges that, notwithstanding its less-than-majority position,
Brookfield is Rouse's controlling stockholder owing fiduciary
duties of care and loyalty to the minority stockholders.
According to them, since the Defendants do not dispute that the
Rouse board of directors failed to follow the dual MFW procedural
imperatives, its members cannot claim business judgment
protection at the pleading stage in connection with this
conflicted controller transaction.  Alternatively, the Complaint
alleges that the Company's proxy statement relating to the Merger
was inadequate.  Consequently, according to the Plaintiffs, the
stockholder vote approving the Merger was coerced and uninformed
such that the Defendants cannot avail themselves of Corwin
"cleansing."

For their part, the Defendants maintain that the Complaint must
be dismissed because it does not plead facts that support the
rare reasonable inference that a stockholder with less than 50%
ownership is nevertheless a controlling stockholder.  Nor does
the Complaint allow a reasonable inference that the overwhelming
stockholder vote approving the Merger was uninformed or coerced.

Because Plaintiffs seek to avoid Corwin's cleansing effect by
arguing that Brookfield was Rouse's controlling stockholder,
Judge Slights takes up that issue first.  He finds that the
Plaintiffs have not pled facts that allow a reasonable inference
that Brookfield was a controller.  Thus, the breach of fiduciary
duty claim against Brookfield must be dismissed.  Given that
finding, he says Corwin applies.

After an appropriately deferential review of the operative
Complaint, the Judge is satisfied the Plaintiffs have failed to
well-plead that the stockholder vote approving the Merger was
uninformed or coerced.  Accordingly, he reviews the Complaint's
allegations with respect to the Merger under the business
judgment rule.  Because there is no pled claim for waste, he
dismisses the fiduciary duty claims against the individual
Defendants as well.  Finally, in the absence of viable breach of
fiduciary duty claims, the aiding and abetting claim against
Brookfield must also be dismissed.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Slights granted the Individual
Defendants' and the Brookfield Defendants' motions to dismiss.
He dismissed with prejudice the Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/0R9dKR from Leagle.com.

Stuart M. Grant, Esquire, Cynthia A. Calder, Esq. --
ccalder@gelaw.com -- Nathan A. Cook, Esq. -- cook@gelaw.com --
and Michael T. Manuel, Esquire -- mmanuel@gelaw.com -- of Grant &
Eisenhofer P.A., Wilmington, Delaware and Jason M. Leviton
Esquire -- jason@blockesq.com -- and Bradley Vettraino Esquire --
bradley@blockesq.com -- of Block & Leviton LLP, Boston,
Massachusetts, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Stephen C. Norman, Esquire -- snorman@potteranderson.com -- Kevin
R. Shannon Esquire -- kshannon@potteranderson.com -- and Jaclyn
C. Levy Esquire -- jlevy@potteranderson.com -- of Potter Anderson
& Corroon LLP, Wilmington, Delaware and Andrew W. Stern Esquire -
- ASTERN@SIDLEY.COM -- Jon W. Muenz Esquire -- JMUENZ@SIDLEY.COM
-- and Leah R. Milbauer Esquire -- LMILBAUER@SIDLEY.COM -- of
Sidley Austin LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys for Individual
Defendants.

Kevin G. Abrams, Esquire -- abrams@AbramsBayliss.com -- Daniel R.
Ciarrocki Esquire, and Matthew L. Miller Esquire --
Miller@AbramsBayliss.com -- of Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington,
Delaware and John A. Neuwirth, Esquire -- john.neuwirth@weil.com
-- Seth Goodchild, Esquire -- seth.goodchild@weil.com -- Evert J.
Christensen Jr., Esquire -- evert.christensen@weil.com -- and
Matthew S. Connors Esquire -- matthew.connors@weil.com -- of
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys for
Brookfield Defendants.


S-L DISTRIBUTION: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, "Mode" Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JARED MODE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. S-L DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, LLC, S-L DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY, INC., and S-L ROUTES, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00150
(W.D.N.C., March 22, 2018), accuses the Defendants of violating
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour
Act by not paying overtime premium compensation for hours worked
over 40 per week.

S-L Distribution Company, LLC, and S-L Distribution Company,
Inc., are corporate entities that, according to the North
Carolina Secretary of State database, maintain their principal
office in Charlotte, North Carolina.  S-L Routes, LLC, is a
corporate entity that, according to the North Carolina Secretary
of State database, maintains a principal office in Hanover,
Pennsylvania.

The Defendants collectively manufacture and distribute snack
foods to retail stores in North Carolina and other states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Keith Coates, Esq.
          Chad Hatmaker, Esq.
          WOOLF, MCCLANE, BRIGHT, ALLEN & CARPENTER, PLLC
          Post Office Box 900
          Knoxville, TN 37901
          Telephone: (865) 215-1000
          E-mail: kcoates@wmbac.com
                  chatmaker@woolfmcclane.com

               - and -

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com


SANCHEZ & SANCHEZ: "Navarrete" Action to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Horacio Navarrete on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sanchez & Sanchez, LLC, Alejandro Sanchez
and Vanesa Sanchez, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00370 (N.D. Ala.,
March 9, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime,
lost wages, liquidated damages, front pay, attorney's fees,
interest and punitive damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Defendants own and operate a restaurant La Cocina Modern Cuisine
where Navarette worked as a chef. Plaintiff claims to have worked
in excess of 40 hours per work week without being paid overtime.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Vicenta Bonet-Smith, Esq.
      BONET & SMITH, PC
      3499 Independence Drive
      Birmingham, AL 35209
      Telephone: (205) 870-2222
      Fax: (205) 870-3331


SCI DIRECT: Wins Summary Judgment in "Romano" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Otis D. Wright, II, entered an order in the lawsuit
captioned NICOLE ROMANO and JONATHAN BONO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SCI DIRECT, INC.; and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-03537-ODW-JEM (C.D. Cal.):

   -- granting in part the Defendant's motion for summary
      judgment;

   -- denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
      class certification; and

   -- denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Plaintiffs Nicole Romano and Jonathan Bono allege that the
Defendant SCI Direct misclassified the Plaintiffs, and the
national class they seek to represent, as independent contractors
rather than employees.  As a result of this misclassification,
the Plaintiffs allege they are entitled to damages under the
California Labor Code, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the
Private Attorney General Act, and damages and injunctive relief
under California's Unfair Competition Law.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of: "All persons who
worked for Defendant[] in California, as an [ISR], who were, at
any time within four years of the filing of the Complaint,
classified as an independent contractor."

In his Order, Judge Wright granted in part the Defendant's Motion
for Summary Judgment and finds that the Defendant has established
that even if the Plaintiffs were employees, and not independent
contractors, they would qualify under the "outside sales"
exemption of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Accordingly, the Court dismisses with prejudice the Plaintiffs'
claims for minimum wage, overtime, regular wage, meal period,
rest period, and waiting time penalties under the California
Labor Code, and Plaintiffs' overtime claim under the FLSA.  The
Court also dismisses the Plaintiffs' corresponding claims under
the UCL and PAGA for these alleged violations.

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


SEALIFT INC: Bid to Up $33MM Security in "Dziennik" Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, SYLVESTER DZIENNIK; MIECZYSLAW KIERSZTYN; FERDYNAND
KOBIEROSKI, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. SEALIFT, INC.; SEALIFT HOLDINGS, INC.;
FORTUNE MARITIME, INC.; SAGAMORE SHIPPING, INC.; VICTORY
MARITIME, INC., Defendants. JOSEF FELSKOWSKI, Plaintiff, v.
SEALIFT, INC.; SAGAMORE SHIPPING, INC., Defendants, Case Nos. 05-
CV-4659 (DLI)(JO), 04-CV-1244 (DLI)(JO)(E.D. N.Y.), Judge Dora L.
Irizarry of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York denied (i) the Plaintiffs' motion for an order
increasing the $33 million security and liens against various
vessels and an escrow account owned by the Defendants, as set by
an Order dated May 10, 2013; and (ii) the Defendants' cross-
motion to decrease the security and liens.

On May 11, 2017, the Class Plaintiffs, moved for an order
increasing the $33 million security and liens against various
vessels and an escrow account owned by the Defendants, as set by
an Order dated May 10, 2013.  The Defendants oppose Class the
Plaintiffs' motion, and have cross-moved to decrease the security
and liens.

Judge Irizarry is not persuaded that either the May 4th Order or
the September 30th Order indicates that the Plaintiffs' claims
may entitle them to liens significantly less than, or
significantly more than $33 million.  The Judge says the May 4th
Order simply permitted the transfer of a lien against an
inadvertently sold vessel to a new vessel in the Defendants'
fleet, an action that the Court has routinely permitted.  The
Order did not change in any way the value of the Class
Plaintiffs' claims.  While the September 30th Order determined
which period applied for the defense of laches, the Court held
that genuine issues of material fact remain as to the defense of
laches, and did not determine whether the parties met their
respective burdens under the doctrine of laches.  Accordingly,
absent a decision on whether the doctrine of laches applies, the
Judge cannot conclude that the Class Plaintiffs' claims entitle
them to significantly more or less than $33 million.

The Judge is equally unpersuaded by the Class Plaintiffs'
contention that the security and liens should be increased
because of accumulated prejudgment interest.  As the Class
Plaintiffs acknowledge, awarding prejudgment interest is
ultimately within the discretion of the court.  The Court has not
issued any "Order, Decision or Ruling" determining the
applicability of prejudgment interest or the applicable rate of
any prejudgment interest.

Finally, the Judge is not convinced that the Defendants are
entitled to transfer the liens against the escrow account to the
Defendants' vessels, the SSG EDWARD A. CARTER JR. and the LTC
JOHN U.D. PAGE.  Notably, the Court denied the Defendants'
previous request for this relief in its May 10th Order, and the
Defendants have offered no additional justification for
revisiting that decision at this juncture.  Accordingly, the
Judge finds no reason to adjust the security and liens as
currently in place.  The Class Plaintiffs' motion to increase the
security and liens, and the Defendants' cross-motion to decrease
the security and liens, or transfer the liens against the escrow
account to other vessels, are both denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Summary Order is
available at https://goo.gl/YcqeYU from Leagle.com.

Josef Felskowski, Plaintiff, represented by Ralph J. Mellusi,
Tabak Mellusi & Shisha & Richard J. Dodson --
jerry@dodsonhooks.com -- Dodson, Hooks & Frederick, APLC.

Sealift, Inc. & Sagamore Shipping, Inc., Defendants, represented
by Gordon S. Arnott -- garnott@hillbetts.com -- Hill, Betts &
Nash LLP & Gregory W. O'Neill -- goneill@hillbetts.com -- Hill,
Betts, & Nash, LLP.


SHELBY COUNTY, TN: "Powell" and "Ingram" Class Suits Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ISSACCA POWELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BILL OLDHAM,
et al., Defendants MELVIN INGRAM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BILL
OLDHAM, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-2907-SHM-tmp,
Consolidated With No. 2:17-cv-2015-SHM-dkv (W.D. Tenn.), Judge
Samuel H. Mays, Jr. of the U.S. District Court, for the Western
District of Tennessee, Western Division; granted the Defendants'
Motion for Consolidation, denied Powell Plaintiffs' motion to
dismiss without prejudice or, in the alternative, to stay; and
deferred Powell Plaintiffs' motion to appoint interim class
counsel.

The Powell Plaintiffs and the Ingram Plaintiffs have brought
separate class actions against the Defendants for unlawful
detention after the installation, integration, and implementation
of a new computer tracking system at the Shelby County Jail.
That system included Tyler's Odyssey software.  The Powell
Plaintiffs and the Ingram Plaintiffs bring claims against Shelby
County Defendants under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for violations of
their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.  They bring
negligence claims against Tyler.

On Nov. 17, 2016, Plaintiff Powell, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
against Defendant Oldham in his individual capacity and in his
official capacity as Shelby County Sheriff.  On Feb. 22, 2017,
the Court entered a Scheduling Order, establishing the deadlines
for class certification.

On March 9, 2017, Shelby County Defendants filed a consent motion
to consolidate Powell with Brown, et al. v. Oldham, et al., 2:17-
cv-2015-SHM-dkv (W.D. Tenn.), brought against Defendants by
Plaintiffs Cortez D. Brown, Scott Turnage, Deontae Tate, Jeremy
S. Melton, Keith Burgess, Travis Boyd, and Terrence Drain, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.  The
Court granted the consent motion on March 13, 2017, and directed
Powell Plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint.

Powell Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint for the consolidated
class action on March 24, 2017.  They filed a Second Amended
Complaint on May 4, 2017.  The Shelby County Defendants filed a
Motion for Judgment on the Pleading and an Answer on May 25,
2017.  Tyler filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a
Claim on May 26, 2017.  The Powell Plaintiffs timely responded to
the Defendants' motions.

On Aug. 7, 2017, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to
extend deadlines for class certification, extending the discovery
deadline to Jan. 16, 2018, and related deadlines thereafter.  On
Oct. 31, 2017, the Ingram Plaintiffs filed their complaint.  On
Nov. 21, 2017, the Powell Plaintiffs filed a Rule 23(g)(3) Motion
for Appointment of Interim Class Counsel and to Dismiss Without
Prejudice or Alternatively, to Stay the Recently Filed Ingram
Class Action Complaint.

The Court held a status conference on Dec. 19, 2017, to discuss
the pending motion to dismiss or stay and the appropriateness of
consolidation.  It ordered the Defendants to file motions for
consolidation in both the Powell Class Action and the Ingram
Class Action by Dec. 29, 2017.

The Defendants filed their Motion to Consolidate on Dec. 29,
2017.  They seek to consolidate the Powell Class Action and the
Ingram Class Action.  The Powell Plaintiffs contend that the
Ingram Class Action is a "copycat class action" and that judicial
efficiency favors dismissal or stay rather than consolidation.

Judge Mays finds that the Powell Class Action and the Ingram
Class Action are before the same judge, against the same the
Defendants, define the same class, and allege nearly identical
injuries.  Hence, the first-to-file rule does not apply.  The
Powell Plaintiffs do not contend that consolidation will create
confusion or prejudice.  The parties concede that the legal
theories and the underlying facts are the same in both suits.
The class definitions in both actions are also identical.

The Judge also finds that the Powell Plaintiffs and the Ingram
Plaintiffs have not yet completed class certification discovery
or moved for class certification.  The actions are at an early
stage of litigation, and no trial date has been set.  If the
cases are not consolidated, there will be duplicate effort and
added expense.  The proceedings should be consolidated to reduce
that effort and expense.  Balancing the factors of economy,
delay, expense, confusion, and prejudice weighs in favor of
consolidation.

For these reasons, Judge Mays granted the Defendants' Motion for
Consolidation.  The consolidated action will proceed in the Court
under Case No. 2:16-cv-2907 and be styled Powell, et al. v,
Oldham, et al.  The Judge denied the Powell Plaintiffs' motion to
dismiss without prejudice or, in the alternative, to stay denied;
and deferred their motion to appoint interim class counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/gSQrFE from Leagle.com.

Issacca Powell, Plaintiff, represented by Brice Moffatt Timmons,
BLACK MCLAREN JONES RYLAND & GRIFFEE, P.C., John C. Ryland --
jryland@blackmclaw.com -- BLACK MCLAREN JONES & RYLAND, Michael
G. McLaren -- mmclaren@blackmclaw.com -- BLACK MCLAREN JONES &
RYLAND, Warren Patrick Campbell -- wcampbell@blackmclaw.com --
BLACK MCLAREN JONES RYLAND & GRIFFEE, William E. Cochran, Jr. --
wcochran@blackmclaw.com -- BLACK MCLAREN JONES & RYLAND,
Claiborne Hambrick Ferguson, THE CLAIBORNE FERGUSON LAW FIRM,
P.A. & Frank L. Watson, III -- fwatson@watsonburns.com -- WATSON
BURNS, LLC.

Scott Turnage, Plaintiff, represented by Brice Moffatt Timmons,
BLACK MCLAREN JONES RYLAND & GRIFFEE, P.C., Claiborne Hambrick
Ferguson, THE CLAIBORNE FERGUSON LAW FIRM, P.A., Frank L. Watson,
III, WATSON BURNS, LLC, Joseph S. Ozment, THE LAW OFFICE OF
JOSEPH S. OZMENT, PLLC, Michael G. McLaren, BLACK MCLAREN JONES &
RYLAND, William F. Burns -- bburns@watsonburns.com -- WATSON
BURNS, LLC & William E. Cochran, Jr., BLACK MCLAREN JONES &
RYLAND.

Keith Burgess, Travis Boyd & Terrence Drain, Plaintiffs,
represented by Michael G. McLaren, BLACK MCLAREN JONES & RYLAND &
Frank L. Watson, III, WATSON BURNS, LLC.

Cortez D. Brown, Deontae Tate & Jeremy S. Melton, Consol
Plaintiffs, represented by Frank L. Watson, III, WATSON BURNS,
LLC, Joseph S. Ozment, THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH S. OZMENT, PLLC &
William E. Routt, III, WATSON BURNS, PLLC.

Shelby County Sherif Bill Oldham, Sheriff of Shelby County,
Individually and in his official capacity, Defendant, represented
by Robert E. Craddock, Jr. -- rcraddock@wyattfirm.com -- WYATT
TARRANT & COMBS P.O., Amber D. Floyd -- afloyd@wyattfirm.com --
WYATT TARRANT & COMBS, LLP, Emmett Lee Whitwell --
Emmett.Whitwell@shelbycountytn.gov -- Shelby County Attorney's
Office & Odell Horton, Jr. -- ohorton@wyattfirm.com -- WYATT
TARRANT & COMBS.

Shelby County Sherif Bill Oldham, in his individual capacity and
in his official capacity as Sheriff of Shelby County, TN, Robert
Moore, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as
the Jail Director of Shelby County, TN, Charlene McGhee, in her
individual capacity and in her official capacity as the Assistant
Chief Jail Security of Shelby County, TN, Debra Hammons, in her
individual capacity and in her official capacity as the Assistant
Chief of Jail Programs of Shelby County, TN & Shelby County
Tennessee, a Tennessee municipality, Consol Defendants,
represented by Robert E. Craddock, Jr., WYATT TARRANT & COMBS
P.O., Amber D. Floyd, WYATT TARRANT & COMBS, LLP, Emmett Lee
Whitwell, Shelby County Attorney's Office & Odell Horton, Jr,
WYATT TARRANT & COMBS.

Tyler Technologies, Inc, a foreign corporation, Consol Defendant,
represented by Beth Bivans Petronio -- beth.petronio@klgates.com
-- K&L GATES LLP, pro hac vice & Bradley E. Trammell --
btrammell@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL &
BERKOWITZ.


SK BEAUTY SUPPLY: Cashiers Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyeong Ho Jeon and Jin Rang Jeon, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs. v. SK Beauty Supply (a/k/a
Sassy Beuaty Mart) and Son Chon, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-
02020, (N.D. Ga., March 9, 2018), seeks to recover overtime
wages, liquidated damages, interest, and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs were employed by SK as cashiers, whose primary duties
included greeting customers, ringing up purchases, handling
returns, and answering questions about products. Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiffs one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for each hour worked over forty hours in a week, says
the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian G. Kim, Esq.
      LEON & KIM LLC
      1815 Satellite Blvd. #303
      Duluth, GA 30097
      Telephone: (678) 878-4200
      Facsimile: (404) 878-4208
      E-Mail: brian@leonandkim.com


SPORTS CITY CAFE: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Metcalf Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Metcalf, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. Sports City Cafe, Inc. d/b/a Sneaky Pete's
Texas USA and d/b/a Nick's Sports Bar & Grill, Case No. 4:18-cv-
00202 (E.D. Tex., March 22, 2018), alleges violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Sports City Cafe, Inc., does business as Sneaky Pete's Texas USA
and Nick's Sports Bar & Grill.  The Company operates
restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jenny DeFrancisco, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW LLC
          43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653-2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
          E-mail: jdefrancisco@lemberglaw.com


STAFFMARK HOLDINGS: Fronda Seeks Final OK of $5.6-Mil. Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Earl Fronda moves the Court for an order granting final approval
of the Stipulation and Agreement to Settle Class Action and
Limited Release he reached with the Defendants in his lawsuit
entitled EARL FRONDA on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public v. STAFFMARK HOLDINGS, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; CEVA LOGISTICS, U.S., INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 3:15-cv-02315-MEJ
(N.D. Cal.).

The Parties reached a proposed class action settlement valued at
$5,600,000 for approximately 4,407 putative class members, and
the Court preliminarily approved that settlement on November 27,
2017.  The Parties believe the Settlement to be fair and
reasonable, to adequately reflect the potential liability, and
the result of a thorough factual and legal analyses and arms-
length negotiations.

Hence, Mr. Fronda asks the Court to:

   1. grant approval of the terms of the Agreement as fair,
      reasonable and adequate under Rule 23(e) of the Federal
      Rules of Civil Procedure, including the amount of the
      settlement; the amount of distributions to class members;
      and the amounts allocated to the enhancement payments and
      attorney's fees and costs;

   2. certify for settlement purposes the settlement class
      described in the Agreement as follows: any and all
      individuals employed by CBS Defendants at CEVA Freight,
      LLC, CEVA Logistics U.S., Inc. and/or any other location of
      CEVA, CEVA's parents or any CEVA-related entity operating
      in California during the Class Period (April 17, 2011
      through the date of preliminary approval of this Settlement
      by the Court, November 27, 2017).  Expressly excluded from
      the definition of "Class" or "Class Member" are any
      individuals directly hired by any CEVA-related entity,
      including CEVA Freight, LLC and CEVA Logistics U.S., Inc.
      for the period of time that the individuals were employed
      directly by any CEVA related entity, including CEVA
      Freight, LLC and CEVA Logistics U.S., Inc. ("Settlement
      Class".);

   3. appoint Plaintiff as representative for the Settlement
      Class;

   4. appoint Setareh Law Group as counsel for the Settlement
      Class;

   5. enter judgment on the terms specified in the Stipulation
      and approved by the Court.

The Court will commence a hearing on May 31, 2018, at 10:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OsKIij66

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SURETEMPS LLC: Agrees to Hoppers Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit titled TERRY CATHERINE AND JAMIL LEE
v. SURETEMPS, LLC, FULL FORCE STAFF, LLC, AND METRO SERVICE
GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-07561-SM-JVM (E.D. La.), file with
the Court their agreed stipulation regarding conditional
certification and notice to the putative class members.

The Parties agree to conditional certification of the Putative
Class of "All persons employed by Defendants as hoppers since
March 2015 who were paid on a daily flat rate of basis but were
not paid at a rate equal to or higher than the federal minimum
wage rate and/or who were not paid at an overtime rate of one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for each hour worked in
excess of 40 per week."

The Defendants will provide the names, addresses, and e-mail
addresses (if known) for the Putative Class Members no later than
14 days following the Court's granting of the Order for
Conditional Certification.  The Plaintiffs' counsel will have 14
days from receipt of the Putative Class Members' contact
information to distribute the Notice and Consent forms to the
Putative Class Members.

The Plaintiffs' counsel will send the Putative Class Members an
initial Notice and Consent form by (a) regular First Class Mail
and (b) e-mail.  In the event that more than 25% of the Notices
are returned as Undeliverable via First Class Mail within 30 days
of the beginning of the Notice Period, Defendants agree to
provide telephone numbers for the Putative Class Members whose
Notices were returned Undeliverable within seven days of being
provided with the names of Putative Class Members whose Notices
were returned Undeliverable.

The Putative Class Members will have 90 days from the initial
mailing of the Notice and Consent form to file the Consent form
with this Court to opt-in to the lawsuit (the "opt-in period").
Defendants SureTemps and Full Force Staffing will post a copy of
the Notice in a place readily visible to all employees when they
pick up their paychecks during this 90-day period.

The Stipulation also provides, among other things, that the
Plaintiffs' counsel must not use the e-mail addresses for any
purpose other than to send an electronic copy of the Court-
approved Notice and Consent Form to the Putative Class Members.

A copy of the Stipulation is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PDHqhck6

The Plaintiff and Putative Class Members are represented by:

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

Defendant Metro Service Group, Inc., is represented by:

          Jennifer F. Kogos, Esq.
          David K. Theard, Esq.
          JONES WALKER LLP
          201 St. Charles Avenue, 47th Floor
          New Orleans, LA 70170-5100
          Telephone: (504) 582-8154
          Facsimile: (504) 589-8402
          E-mail: jkogos@joneswalker.com
                  dtheard@joneswalker.com

Defendants SureTemps, LLC and Full Force Staffing, LLC, are
represented by:

          Ike Spears, Esq.
          Diedre Pierce Kelly, Esq.
          909 Poydras Street, Suite 1825
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 593-9500
          Telecopier: (504) 523-7766


SYNACOR INC: June 4 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, and KSF partner, former Attorney General
of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they
have until June 4, 2018 to file lead plaintiff applications in a
securities class action lawsuit against Synacor, Inc.
(Nasdaq:SYNC), if they purchased the Company's securities between
May 4, 2016 and March 15, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").
This action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities of Synacor and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your
right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis
Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email
(lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgm-sync/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by June 4, 2018.

About the Lawsuit

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

On March 15, 2018, during an investor conference call to discuss
Synacor's 4Q financial results, CEO Himesh Bhise addressed
difficulties with the Company's contract with AT&T and the effect
on earnings, stating "in the last three quarters of 2017, we
generated approximately $25 million in revenue from AT&T . . .
this forecast is below the $100 million annual revenue target
that AT&T and Synacor announced when we first discussed the
portal contract and was a critical element of Synacor's $300
million 2019 target."

On this news, the price of Synacor's shares plummeted.

              About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

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

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


TARGET CORP: Agrees to Settle Lawsuit Alleging Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charisse Jones, writing for USA TODAY, reports that Target has
agreed to a $3.7 million settlement of a lawsuit that alleged the
company's  criminal background check process was biased against
thousands of Latinos and African Americans seeking jobs with the
retailer.

If the settlement receives court approval, Target will prioritize
hiring black and Latino applicants who were previously denied
jobs because they failed to clear a background check. The
complaint claims job seekers were often discounted because of
offenses that were not relevant to the positions they were
applying for, or had occurred years before.

'Target's background check policy was out of step with best
practices and harmful to many qualified applicants who deserved a
fair shot at a good job,' Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP
Legal Defense and Education Fund, which brought the complaint
with the law firm Outten & Golden, said in a statement. 'Overly
broad background screenings unfairly limit opportunities for
black and Latino applicants due to widespread discrimination at
every stage in the criminal justice system.'

The class action complaint, filed on April 5 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, was brought on
behalf of job applicants who've been denied positions since May
11, 2006. Attorneys are now seeking preliminary approval of the
settlement which was also offered by Target on April 5.

Jenna Reck, a Target spokeswoman, said in a statement that the
retailer began conducting criminal history checks more than a
decade ago and has revised the process since, deleting for
instance, a question about whether an applicant has a criminal
record from the initial job application. It now seeks such
information at the end of the hiring process.

'We still believe it is important to consider an individual's
criminal conviction history as part of the overall hiring
process.'' Reck said. However, job seekers are given the chance
to explain their criminal background and the company designs its
'process to treat all applicants fairly while maintaining a safe
and secure working and shopping environment for team members and
guests. We're glad to resolve this and move forward.''

The complaint centered on two plaintiffs, Carnella Times and
Erving Smith, who'd been conditionally offered jobs but were then
not hired after the company learned that Times had two ten-year-
old misdemeanor convictions, and Smith had a felony conviction
for a drug charge ten years earlier.

Their attorneys claimed that the screening practice violated
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars practices
that have an unjustified and disproportionate impact on people
because of their race or national origin.

Under the settlement, rejected job applicants  can choose to take
a payout or apply for an open position at a Target store. If they
are qualified for that particular job, they will receive
prioritized consideration when it comes to filling it.

Target has also agreed to  consult with experts to review and
possibly modify its background check process to ensure the
company only disqualifies job seekers whose criminal histories
are recent or problematic for the role they are seeking.
Additionally, Target will donate $600,000 to groups that help
those who have had run-ins with the law find employment.  [GN]


TEAGUE ENTERPRISES: "Roots" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Roots, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
Plaintiff, v. Teague Enterprises, Inc. (d/b/a Larry Green Tire
and Exhaust), Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00162, (E.V. Va., March
9, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

Teague runs a chain of automobile repair shops, including Larry
Green Tire and Exhaust located in Richmond, Virginia. Roots
worked as a mechanic for the Defendants, performing oil changes,
performing state inspections, changing tires and picking up
supplies and parts. Roots generally worked 45 hours per week but
was not paid overtime for working over 40 hours per week, says
the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
      Philip Justus Dean, Esq.
      CURWOOD LAW FIRM, PLC
      530 E. Main Street, Suite 710
      Richmond, VA 23219
      Telephone: (804) 788-0808
      Fax: (804) 767-6777
      Email: ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com
             pdean@curwoodlaw.com


TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET ERICSSON: Labaton Sucharow Files Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP disclosed that on April 5, 2018, it filed a
securities class action lawsuit on behalf of its client Bristol
County Retirement System ("Bristol County") against
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson ("Ericsson" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:ERIC), and certain of its senior executives
(collectively, "Defendants").  The action, which is captioned
Bristol Cty. Ret. Sys. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, No.
18-cv-03021 (S.D.N.Y.), asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act"), and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Ericsson American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs") between April 8, 2013 and July 17,
2017, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Ericsson provides computer networking hardware, software, and
related services to telecommunications companies around the
world.  Services provided by the Company include systems
integration, network rollouts, and consulting projects that are
often structured as multiyear contracts.  In 2015, revenue from
services accounted for more than half of the Company's total
revenues.

During the Class Period, Ericsson claimed that its financial
statements were prepared in accordance with International
Financial Reporting Standards ("IFRS").  However, Defendants
violated IFRS by materially overstating service revenues and
improperly delaying the recognition of at least $1 billion in
expenses on its long-term service projects.

The Company's improper accounting on the long-term service
project contracts and/or the associated material impact on
Ericsson's financial performance was revealed through a series of
disappointing financial results, culminating on July 18, 2017,
when the Company revealed that it had identified 42 long-term
service contracts to date with total annual sales of almost $1
billion that Ericsson would exit, renegotiate, or transform.  On
this news, Ericsson ADS price fell $1.21 per share, or 16.62
percent, to close at $6.07 per share on July 18, 2017.

If you purchased or acquired Ericsson ADSs during the Class
Period, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek
appointment as Lead Plaintiff.  Lead Plaintiff motion papers must
be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York no later than June 5, 2018.  The Lead Plaintiff is a
court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class.
You do not need to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to share in
any Class recovery in this action.  If you are a Class member and
there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery
as an absent Class member.  You may retain counsel of your choice
to represent you in this action.

If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have
any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Francis P.
McConville, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via
email at fmcconville@labaton.com. You can view a copy of the
complaint online at, http://www.labaton.com/en/cases/Bristol-
County-Retirement-System-v-Telefonaktiebolaget-LM-Ericsson.cfm.

         Francis P. McConville, Esq.
         Labaton Sucharow
         Telephone: (800) 321-0476
         E-mail: fmcconville@labaton.com. GN]


TRS RECOVERY: Court Stays Further Actions in Ross' Bid to Certify
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William E. Duffin granted the Plaintiff's motion to stay
further proceedings in the motion for class certification in the
lawsuit styled BILL ROSS v. TRS RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., ET AL.,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00166-WED (E.D. Wisc.).

On January 30, 2018, the plaintiff filed a class action
complaint.  At the same time, the Plaintiff filed what the Court
commonly refers to as a "protective" motion for class
certification.  In this Motion, the Plaintiff moved to certify
the class described in the complaint but also moved the Court to
stay further proceedings on that Motion.

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint."  "The
pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts
to buy off the named plaintiffs."  However, because parties are
generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class
certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court
suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its
ruling to provide time for additional discovery or
investigation," according to the order.

Accordingly, Judge Duffin granted the Plaintiff's motion to stay
further proceedings.  The parties are relieved from the automatic
briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c).

Moreover, for administrative purposes, Judge Duffin notes, it is
necessary that the Clerk terminate the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.  However, this Motion will be regarded as
pending to serve its protective purpose under Damasco.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WiDpkTr4


TRUECAR INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of TrueCar, Inc. (NASDAQ:TRUE) from February 16, 2017
through November 6, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for TrueCar investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the TrueCar class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1316.html or call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO
NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the largest source of TrueCar's revenue, the
United States Automobile Association ("USAA"), had been planning
significant changes to its website that would have a material
adverse effect on the volume of purchases generated by USAA; (2)
USAA made significant changes to its website that would have a
material adverse effect on the volume of purchases generated by
USAA; (3) the changes to USAA's website maintained by TrueCar
caused a material adverse effect on the volume of purchases
generated by USAA; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements
about TrueCar's business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
June 1, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to join the litigation, go to

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: 212-686-1060
         Toll Free: 866-767-3653
         Fax: 212-202-3827
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN]


UNITED AIRLINES: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in "Pumputyte" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NERINGA PUMPUTYTE, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 16 C 4868 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Gary Feinerman
of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, granted United's motion for summary judgment,
denied as moot United's motion to strike portions of Pumputyte's
affidavit, and denied Pumputyte's motion for class certification.

Lilija Pumputiena brought the suit on behalf of herself, her
then-minor child Neringa Pumputyte, and four putative classes
against Deutsche Lufthansa and United Airlines, alleging breach
of contract and violation of the Convention for the Unification
of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air ("Montreal
Convention") in connection with a June 2015 flight on United from
Chicago, Illinois to Brussels, Belgium, and ensuing travel on
Lufthansa from Brussels to Vilnius, Lithuania.

On June 7, 2015, Pumputyte was a passenger on United Airlines
Flight 972 from O'Hare International Airport in Chicago, Illinois
to Brussels Airport in Brussels, Belgium.  Her ultimate
destination was Vilnius, Lithuania.  UA 972 was scheduled to
depart Chicago at 6:25 p.m. and to arrive in Brussels at 9:35
a.m.  The flight left the gate at 6:33 p.m., eight minutes behind
schedule.

Although UA 972 was scheduled to fly from Chicago to Brussels in
458 minutes, it made the journey in 441 minutes, making up 17
minutes of the on-the-ground delay at O'Hare.  Upon arriving in
Brussels, UA 972 was scheduled to taxi for five minutes, but it
actually taxied for 10 minutes.  As with the taxi delay in
Chicago, this five-minute delay was attributable to directives
from air traffic control.

Pumputyte's connecting flight to Vilnius was scheduled to depart
at 10:45 a.m.  Had her flight from Chicago arrived in Brussels at
the scheduled arrival time of 9:35 a.m., she would have had 70
minutes to make the connection.  But UA 972 arrived in Brussels
at 10:31 a.m., 56 minutes late, giving her only 14 minutes to
make the connection.  Anticipating this delay, and consistent
with company policy, United rerouted Pumputyte on the next
available flight to Vilnius, a Lufthansa flight making a
connection in Frankfurt, Germany.

As it turned out, Pumputyte's originally scheduled flight from
Brussels to Vilnius was delayed by 40 minutes, giving her time to
make the connection despite her late arrival from Chicago.  When
Pumputyte arrived at the gate, Lufthansa employees refused to let
her board.  Because Pumputyte's deposition testimony clearly
contradicts her affidavit on this point, and because she does not
even attempt to explain the discrepancy, the fact is deemed
admitted.

Due to further delays unconnected with UA 972, Pumputyte
ultimately spent several additional hours in the Brussels airport
before flying to and arriving in Vilnius on June 8, 2015.  During
the delay in Brussels, she incurred expenses buying snacks,
water, and medicine, and calling her parents.  Pumputyte checked
one bag on UA 972.  The bag was delivered in damaged condition to
her grandparents' home in Vilnius the day after she arrived.

The Court dismissed all claims against Lufthansa and some claims
against United.  Pumputiena filed an amended complaint, and after
United argued that the amendment contravened the dismissal order,
Pumputyte, no longer a minor and proceeding in her own name,
filed a second amended complaint.  United then filed a motion to
dismiss and to strike parts of the second amended complaint,
which the Court granted in part and denied in part.

As a result of the Court's dismissal orders, two claims remain.
Count I of the operative complaint is an individual and class
claim under Article 19 of the Montreal Convention for damages
caused by the delay of UA 972. Count III is an individual claim
for loss and delay of checked baggage under Article 17 (the
claim's heading says "Article 19," but the substance places it
within Article 17) and Article 22(2) of the Montreal Convention.

United now moves for summary judgment on the remaining claims.
While that motion was pending, Pumputyte moved for class
certification on one of those claims.

Judge Feinerman granted United's summary judgment motion, and
denied as moot its motion to strike portions of Pumputyte's
affidavit.  Because her claims have been dismissed, the Judge
denied Pumputyte's class certification motion, which pertains
only to her Article 17 claim.

The Judge explains that it is true that a decision that the claim
of the named plaintiff lacks merit does not invariably
.disqualify the named plaintiff as proper class representative.
Here, however, the basis for dismissing Pumputyte's Article 17
claim almost certainly would apply equally to any other member of
the class.  Because that claim can quickly be shown to be
groundless, it makes sense to skip certification and proceed
directly to the merits.

In any event, he finds Pumputyte does not contend that she would
be prejudiced by the Court's deciding the merits of her Article
17 claim before resolving her class certification motion, thereby
forfeiting any such contention.  Judgment will be entered in
favor of United and against Pumputyte.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/4Bumzc from Leagle.com.

Neringa Pumputyte, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated members of proposed putative Class of
passengers, Plaintiff, represented by Michael R. Kuzel, Michael
R. Kuzel, LTD. & Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky --
gorlawoffice@yahoo.com -- Law Offices of Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky.

United Airlines, Inc., a domestic corporation, Defendant,
represented by Anthony U. Battista -- abattista@condonlaw.com --
Condon & Forsyth Llp, Brian T. Maye -- bmaye@amm-law.com --
Adler, Murphy, & McQuillen LLP, Michael Gerard McQuillen --
mmcquillen@amm-law.com -- Adler, Murphy & McQuillen & Paula
LoMonaco Wegman -- egman@amm-law.com -- Adler, Murphy & McQuillen
LLP.


UNITED STATES: Immigration Detentions Draw Fire From ACLU
---------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Ottaway, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
The American Civil Liberties Union brought national firepower on
April 5 to the case of a man with schizophrenia who has been
denied a bond hearing while he faces deportation to Haiti for
subway-turnstile mischief.

Kept in a cell at the Hudson County Correctional Facility since
September 2017, 60-year-old Augustin Sajous 'faces the prospect
of indefinite detention in a jail while he contests the
government's misguided efforts to deport him,' according to the
ACLU's filing.

The ACLU took up the case, recasting it as a class action, just
over a month after it was originally filed by a public defender
with Brooklyn Defender Services.

When the original case was filed on March 19, Sajous had been
scheduled to get his bond hearing that same day after six months
in detention.

The ACLU notes that this bond hearing for Sajous had been
scheduled initially in light of the 2015 decision by the Second
Circuit in the case Lora v. Shanahan.

In addition to holding that section 1226(c) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act required bond hearings after six months, Lora
'expressly endorsed the position that the due-process clause also
requires such hearings,' according to the ACLU's filing.

Because of a Feb. 27, 2018, shake-up by the U.S. Supreme Court,
however, an immigration judge presiding over the Sajous case
opted on March 19 to cancel his hearing.

The ACLU says the Second Circuit's due-process analysis should be
considered in full effect even though the Supreme Court vacated
Lora on March 5, a week after ruling in Jennings v. Rodriguez
that Section 1226(c) does not entitle immigrants to bond
hearings.

Meanwhile 'scores of other immigrants' who pose no public-safety
or flight risk to languish in jail because of the government's
new bond practices, April 5 class action alleges.

'Preventive civil detention is rare in the United States legal
system and in free societies,' the 16-page petition states. 'The
mandatory detention of an entire class of people without
determining whether each individual's imprisonment serves a
strong government interest is even more anomalous. When such
detention becomes prolonged, it presents a constitutional
crisis.' (Emphasis in original.)

Representatives from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
declined to comment on the case.

In a press release on the case, Donna Lieberman, executive
director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, called out the
predicament as the latest fallout from the 'anti-immigrant
agenda' of President Donald Trump.

'Immigrants are entitled to due process, and bond hearings are a
vital safeguard against the unjustified and prolonged
imprisonment that the Trump regime seeks to impose on all
immigrants,' Lieberman added.

Brooklyn Defender Services joins the ACLU and the NYCLU as co-
counsel.

The attorneys deny that lead plaintiff Sajous could be found to
have committed a crime involving moral turpitude based on two
2015 convictions for bending New York City MetroCards such that
they could be swiped through a subway turnstile, even with a zero
balance.

Sajous served 30 days in jail for each misdemeanor conviction and
was taken into custody by Homeland Security agents this past
September. The arrest occurred outside a Brooklyn court where
Sajous had faced a hearing on other charges, 'all of which have
since been adjourned in contemplation of dismissal,' the new
petition states.

A legal permanent resident of the United States, Sajous
immigrated when he was 14 and has not left the country in 46
years.

The ACLU notes that he worked steadily for years but has recently
experienced periods of homelessness. His symptoms of
schizophrenia have recurred in immigration detention, which is
described in the petition as 'identical to those of county jail
inmates serving criminal sentences.'

When Sajous is brought to immigration court for hearings, the
petition notes, he is made to wear a jail jumpsuit and his hands
are kept in shackles. [GN]


UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Clark Files Suit Over Embryo Storage Mishap
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laurel Clark and Dustin Clark, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated Plaintiff, v. University Hospitals
Health System, Inc., University Hospitals Ahuja Medical Center,
Inc., University Hospitals Medical Group, Inc. and University
Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Defendants, Case No. CV-18-
894339 (Ohio Comm. Pleas, March 12, 2018), seeks compensatory and
property damages, emotional damages, attorney's fees, costs of
suit, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such further
relief resulting from breach of contract and negligence.

Plaintiffs Laurel and Dustin Clark trusted the University
Hospitals Fertility Center to safeguard their embryos in the hope
of having children and starting a family. In March 2018, the
storage bank suffered a significant temperature fluctuation and
700 frozen eggs were damaged. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lydia M. Floyd, Esq.
      James P. Booker, Esq.
      PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE
      1422 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1610
      Cleveland, OH 44115
      Telephone: (216) 589-9280
      Facsimile: (888) 411-0038
      E-mail: lfloyd@prwlegal.com

              - and -

      Adam B. Wolf, Esq.
      PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE
      9696 Culver Blvd., Suite 301
      Culver City, CA 90232
      Telephone: (415) 766-3545
      Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
      E-mail: awolf@prwlegal.com


US GEOTHERMAL: Riche Files Suit v. Board Over Sale to Ormat Tech
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Riche, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. James C. Pappas, John H. Walker, Douglas
J. Glaspey, Paul Larkin, Leland "Roy" Mink, Randolph J. Hill and
Ali G. Hedayat, Defendants, Case No. 2018-0177 (D. Del., March
12, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in
concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing
the acquisition of U.S. Geothermal by Ormat Technologies, Inc.,
Ormat Nevada Inc., Ormat Technologies and OGP Holding Corp.,
rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger.
Riche further seeks rescissory damages, costs of this action,
including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

U.S. Geothermal stockholders will receive only $5.45 in cash for
each share of U.S. Geothermal common stock that they own.

The complaint says the Defendants' proxy statement failed to
disclose the financial compensation and potential conflicts
interest of U.S. Geothermal's financial advisor, ROTH Capital
Partners, LLC, certain nondisclosure agreements executed during
the sales process and the details surrounding conflicts of
interest faced by Director Pappas, who was one of the primary
negotiators of the Proposed Buyout.

U.S. Geothermal is a renewable energy company focused on the
development, production, and sale of electricity from geothermal
energy. James C. Pappas has served as a director of the company
since October 2016.

Ormat Technologies designs, develops, builds, owns, and operates
geothermal and recovered energy-based power plants. Its
manufacturing operations are located in Israel and its common
stock trades on the NYSE and Israeli stock exchange. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
      The Empire State Building
      350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
      New York, NY 10118
      Tel: (212) 971-1341
      Fax: (212) 202-7880
      Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com

            - and -

      Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
      COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
      The Brandywine Building
      1000 West Street, 10th Floor
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 984-3800
      Email: bbennett@coochtaylor.com

              - and -

      Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
      KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
      206 Covington Street
      Madisonville, LA 70447
      Tel: (504) 455-1400
      Fax: (504) 455-1498
      Email: michael.palestina@ksfcounsel.com


US GEOTHERMAL: Beard Challenges Proposed Sale to Ormat
------------------------------------------------------
JASON BEARD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. U.S. GEOTHERMAL INC., JOHN H. WALKER, PAUL LARKIN,
LELAND MINK, JAMES C. PAPPAS, RANDOLPH J. HILL, ALI HEDAYAT, and
DOUGLAS J. GLASPEY, Case No. 1:18-cv-00131-DCN (D. Idaho, March
21, 2018), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which
U.S. Geothermal will be acquired by Ormat Technologies Inc.
through its subsidiary Ormat Nevada Inc. ("Parent") and Parent's
wholly owned subsidiary, OGP Holding Corp. ("Merger Sub").

On January 24, 2018, U.S. Geothermal's Board of Directors caused
the Company to enter into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with
Parent and Merger Sub.  Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, Parent will purchase each issued and outstanding share
of U.S. Geothermal common stock for $5.45 in cash.  Upon
completion of the Merger, Merger Sub will merge with and into
U.S. Geothermal, with U.S. Geothermal surviving the merger as a
wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.

U.S. Geothermal is a Delaware corporation, with its principal
executive offices located in Boise, Idaho.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Incorporated in 2000 as a Delaware corporation, U.S. Geothermal,
a "green" energy company, is in the business of constructing,
managing, and operating power plants utilizing geothermal
resources to produce electricity.  The Company's operations are
primarily focused in the Western United States and in
Guatemala.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric B. Swartz, Esq.
          JONES & SWARTZ PLLC
          LANDMARK LEGAL GROUP(TM)
          623 West Hays Street
          Boise, ID 83702
          Telephone: (208) 489-8989
          Facsimile: (208) 489-8988
          E-mail: eric@jonesandswartzlaw.com

               - and -

          Carl L. Stine, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 759-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
          E-mail: cstine@wolfpopper.com


UTAH: Court Tosses "Remick" Class Suit for Lack of Standing
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. David Nuffer granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss
the putative class action lawsuit captioned COLTON GUY REMICK, an
individual; SKYLAR W. GARNER, an individual; BRYCE TUCKER LLOYD,
an individual; ANTHONY MURDZAK, an individual; COLTER RICKS, an
individual; BRANDON TIMMS, an individual; and JOHN DOES 1-100 v.
STATE OF UTAH; and SEAN D. REYES, in his capacity as Attorney
General of the State of Utah, Case No. 2:16-cv-00789-DN-DBP (D.
Utah).

Judge Nuffer also ruled that:

   (1) Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is moot;

   (2) Movant Roger Bryner's Motion to Intervene is moot; and

   (3) Plaintiffs' Motion to Lift Stay and for Entry of
       Scheduling Order Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
       Certification is moot.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, initiated this case to remedy the State of Utah's
alleged failure to provide constitutionally adequate legal
representation to indigent adults accused of crimes in the
State's district and justice courts.  The Defendants moved to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, arguing that the
Plaintiffs lack standing, have not named the proper defendants,
and fail to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be
granted.

"Because Plaintiffs fail to allege sufficient facts to establish
their standing to sue or to state a claim, Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss is GRANTED," Judge Nuffer ruled.  Judge Nuffer noted that
the Amended Complaint is rife with generalized and conclusory
allegations, and legal argument and opinions, which are
insufficient to establish the Plaintiffs' right to sue or state a
claim.  But because standing is a threshold jurisdictional issue,
the Amended Complaint will be analyzed and dismissed under
principles of standing.  However, for the same reasons, the
Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, Judge Nuffer concluded.

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


VILLA BERULIA: Nacipucha Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL NACIPUCHA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. VILLA BERULIA INC. (D/B/A VILLA BERULIA), JOHN
(A.K.A. JOHNNY) BERULIA, IVAN IVANAC, JOHN IVANAC, MARIJA (A.K.A
MARIA) IVANAC, and ALEXSANDRA (A.K.A ALEXANDRA) IVANAC, Case No.
1:18-cv-02620 (S.D.N.Y., March 23, 2018), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Villa Berulia Inc. is a domestic corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the state of New York.  The Individual
Defendants serve or served as owners, managers, principals or
agents of the Defendant Corporation and, through this corporate
entity, operate or operated the restaurant as a joint or unified
enterprise.

The Defendants own, operate, or control an Italian Restaurant,
located at 107 East 34th Street, in New York City under the name
"Villa Berulia."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VIZION ONE: Richardson Moves for Class Certification Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled Tameca Richardson, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals
v. Vizion One Inc, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00838-MHW-CMV (S.D.
Ohio), moves for conditional certification and court-supervised
notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Temeca Richardson, Stacey Sutherland, Stephanie Ayers, Angela
Camara, and Lois Johnson allege that Defendants Vizion One Inc,
Vizion One Inc., Addallah Kitwara, and Venesia Kitwara failed to
pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals
overtime compensation at a rate of at least one and one-half
their regular rates for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
workweeks throughout their employment with the Defendants, says
the complaint.

The proposed FLSA collective is defined as;

   (1) All Ohio current and former hourly, non-exempt home health
       employees of Defendants, including home health aides,
       providing companionship services, domestic services, home
       care, and other in-home services who worked over 40 hours
       in any workweek but were not properly paid time and a half
       for the hours they worked over 40, from January 1, 2015
       through the date of final disposition of this case (the
       "216(b) Home Health Subclass"); and


   (2) All Ohio current and former hourly, non-exempt employees
       of Defendants that did not provide companionship services,
       domestic services, home care, and other in-home services
       who worked over 40 hours in any workweek but were not
       properly paid time and a half for the hours they worked
       over 40 for the three years preceding the filing of this
       case through its date of final disposition (the "216(b)
       Hourly Employee Subclass").

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to implement a procedure
whereby Court-approved Notice of Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent
(via U.S. Mail and e-mail) to class members, and to require the
Defendants to provide a list of the names, addresses, and e-mail
addresses of all potential opt-in plaintiffs, who worked for the
Defendants at any time from three years preceding the filing of
this Motion through the present.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vihPky6v

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Peter Contreras, Esq.
          CONTRERAS LAW, LLC
          PO Box 215
          Amlin, OH 43002
          Telephone: (614) 787-4878
          Facsimile: (614) 923-7369
          E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com


VROOM INC: Wins Summary Judgment; "Edelsberg" Class Suit Closed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Darrin P. Gayles grants the Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment in the lawsuit styled MARK EDELSBERG,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
VROOM, INC., Case No. 0:16-cv-62734-DPG (S.D. Fla.).

The action is closed and all other pending motions are denied as
moot, rules the Court.

Mark Edelsberg brought this putative class action against Vroom
for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
He alleges that Vroom violated the TCPA by using an Automatic
Telephone Dialing System to send him an automated telemarketing
text message.

The Court concludes that Vroom's text message to Mr. Edelsberg
was plainly not telemarketing.  The Court further finds that the
text message did not constitute a "dual purpose" message as
contemplated by the Federal Communications Commission.

Judge Gayles opines that by including his cell phone number in
his advertisement with instructions to contact him for more
information, Mr. Edelsberg provided express consent for Vroom to
contact him for that purpose.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ymPUFf9P


WAGEWORKS INC: May 8 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors that they have until May 8, 2018 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against
Wageworks, Inc. (NYSE: WAGE), if they purchased the Company's
securities between May 6, 2016 and March 1, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  This action is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

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

About the Lawsuit

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

On March 1, 2018, the Company announced that it was delaying
filing its 10-K for FYE December 31, 2017 due to material
weaknesses in its systems of internal controls and that its
practices and controls relating to its accounting and preparation
of earnings disclosures were ineffective.

On this news, the price of WageWorks' shares fell $9.75, or
18.58%, to close at $42.70 per share on March 1, 2018. [GN]


WALGREEN CO: Court Narrows Claims in "Forth" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Judge Jon Z. Lee of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part and
denied in part Walgreens' motion to dismiss the case, DOROTHY
FORTH, TROY TERMINE, CYNTHIA RUSSO, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 38 HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, LISA
BULLARD, AND RICARDO GONZALES, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WALGREEN CO.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-2246 (N.D. Ill.).

The Consumer Plaintiffs, and Plaintiff International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers Local 38 Health and Welfare Fund ("IBEW"),
filed the putative class action against Walgreens.  The Consumer
Plaintiffs are individuals, who purchased generic versions of
prescription medications at Walgreens either through private
health insurance plans or through federal health insurance such
as Medicare, in the states of Texas, Louisiana, Florida,
Massachusetts, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and South Carolina.

IBEW is an employee-benefit plan and a non-profit trust,
administered by a board of trustees and established through
collective bargaining by employers and labor unions.  It provides
healthcare benefits to participants employed under various
collective-bargaining agreements and their dependents.  While
IBEW is based in Ohio, its beneficiaries are located in Arizona,
California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas,
Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio,
South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin.

Since 2007, Walgreens has operated a discount generic-drug
program called the "Prescription Savings Club" ("PSC").  The PSC
allows customers that pay directly for prescriptions, whether by
cash, check, or credit, to purchase more than 500 widely
prescribed generic drugs for $5, $10, and $15 for 30-day
prescriptions, and $10, $20, and $30 for 90-day prescriptions,
depending on the drug's tier classification.  To take advantage
of the PSC's prices, customers must pay a yearly membership fee
of $20 per individual or $30 per family.  All pharmacy patrons
other than Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries are eligible to
participate in the PSC, and a majority of Walgreens' direct-pay4
customers pay the PSC prices.

The Plaintiffs claim that Walgreens, the largest retail pharmacy
in the United States, engaged in fraudulent pricing practices
through its Prescription Savings Club, a discount generic drug
program offered to customers paying without insurance.  According
to them, these fraudulent pricing practices sought to
artificially inflate the usual and customary prices reported to
health-insurance companies and related third-party payors and
resulted in the Plaintiffs overpaying for generic drugs.

The complaint alleges that, at the same time it offered low
prices through the PSC to direct-pay customers, Walgreens charged
higher prices to customers purchasing those same drugs through
private insurance or through Medicare or Medicaid.  According to
the Plaintiffs, pharmacies cannot charge such consumers -- or
report to insurance companies or other third-party providers
(such as Medicare and Medicaid) -- a higher price for
prescription drugs than what is known as the "usual and
customary" ("U&C") price.

The Plaintiffs allege that the U&C price is known, throughout the
pharmaceutical industry, as the price that the pharmacy charges
the direct-pay public.  They contend that Walgreens' PSC prices
qualified as the pharmacy's U&C prices, and that by reporting
higher-than-PSC prices as its U&C prices on claims for
reimbursement submitted to insurance companies and other third-
party providers, Walgreens operated an undisclosed, dual-pricing
scheme for generic PSC-listed drugs.

The Plaintiffs allege significant damages due to Walgreens' dual-
pricing scheme.  Because the reported U&C price is used to
calculate the amount of copayments, coinsurance or deductible
amounts, Plaintiffs claim that Walgreens overcharged the
Plaintiffs and other consumers when it collected from them
inflated copayments, coinsurance and deductibles.  All Consumer
Plaintiffs anticipate filling future prescriptions for PSC-
covered drugs at a Walgreens pharmacy to maintain continuity of
medical care.  Finally, IBEW asserts that because it reimburses
or pays for its beneficiaries' purchases of prescription drugs,
it was harmed by paying more for PSC-listed generic drugs than it
would have if Walgreens had accurately reported its U&C prices.

In the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert claims of fraud
(Count I), negligent misrepresentation (Count II), unjust
enrichment (Count III), and violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Count IV), and
request injunctive and declaratory relief (Count XXIX).
Plaintiffs Gonzales, Bullard, and Forth, each assert claims for,
respectively, violations of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act
(Count XXII), the New York GBL Section 349 (Count XXIII), and the
Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Count XXVII).

IBEW asserts claims for violations of the following state
statutes: the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (Count V); the
California Unfair Competition Law (Counts VI-VIII); the Colorado
Consumer Protection Act (Count X); the Florida Deceptive Trade
Practices Act (Count XI); the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act and the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act (Counts
XII-XVIII); the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Protection
Law (Count XV); the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act (Count
XVI); the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, the
Minnesota Unlawful Trade Practices Act, and the Minnesota
Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Counts XVII-XIX); the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act (Count XX); the Nevada Deceptive
Trade Practices Act (Count XXI); the North Carolina Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Count XXIV); the Ohio Deceptive
Trade Practices Act (Count XXV); the South Carolina Unfair Trade
Practices Act (Count XXVI); the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act (Count XXVII); and the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices
Act (Count XXVIII).

Walgreens moves to dismiss all claims but the unjust enrichment
claim.

Judge Lee granted in part and denied in part Walgreens' motion to
dismiss.  He granted Walgreens' motions to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' claims for negligent misrepresentation (Count II) and
violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (Count XX).
He also finds that Plaintiffs Termine and Gonzales lack standing
to pursue injunctive relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act
(Count XXIX).  In all other respects, the Judge denied Walgreens'
motion to dismiss.

Judge Lee finds that IBEW did not purchase prescription drugs for
its own use, hence the MMPA claim on that basis is dismissed.
MMPA permits suit only for a person who purchases or leases
merchandise primarily for personal, family or household purposes,
and IBEW does not allege that it purchased prescriptions for its
own personal, family or household purposes.  Several courts have
held that health plans or other third-party payors do not have a
private right of action under the MMPA for purchases the entity
made for beneficiaries.

In the context of a negligent misrepresentation claim, the Judge
explains that the Illinois Supreme Court only recognizes a duty
to communicate accurate information where necessary to avoid
negligently conveying false information that results in physical
injury to a person or harm to property, or to avoid negligently
conveying false information where one is in the business of
supplying information for the guidance of others in their
business transactions.  The former does not apply, and the
Plaintiffs do not plausibly allege that Walgreens is in the
business of supplying information for the guidance of others in
their business transactions.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/Cx8SPh from Leagle.com.

Dorothy Forth & Troy Termine, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel
K. Bryson -- Dan@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson & Mason Llp, pro
hac vice, Donald A. Broggi, Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP,
pro hac vice, Erin Green Comite -- ecomite@scott.com --
Scott+scott, Attorneys At Law, Llp, pro hac vice, Jeremy R.
Williams -- Jeremy@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP,
pro hac vice, Joseph P. Guglielmo -- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -
- Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, Melissa S. Weiner, Halunen
Law, pro hac vice, Susan M. Coler -- coler@halunenlaw.com --
Halunen Law, Andrew A. Lemmon -- andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com --
Lemmon Law Firm, LLC, pro hac vice, Carey Alexander, ScottScott,
Attorneys at Law, LLP, Joseph Seth Tusa --
joseph.tusapc@gmail.com -- Tusa P.C., pro hac vice & Michael Alan
Johnson, Michael A. Johnson & Associates.

Cynthia Russo, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel K. Bryson,
Whitfield Bryson & Mason Llp, pro hac vice, Donald A. Broggi,
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, pro hac vice, Erin Green
Comite, Scott+scott, Attorneys At Law, Llp, pro hac vice, Jeremy
R. Williams, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph
P. Guglielmo, Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, Melissa S.
Weiner, Halunen Law, pro hac vice, Susan M. Coler, Halunen Law,
Carey Alexander, ScottScott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, Joseph Seth
Tusa, Tusa P.C., pro hac vice & Michael Alan Johnson, Michael A.
Johnson & Associates.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 38 Health
and Welfare Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel K. Bryson,
Whitfield Bryson & Mason Llp, pro hac vice, Donald A. Broggi,
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, pro hac vice, Erin Green
Comite, Scott+scott, Attorneys At Law, Llp, pro hac vice, Jeremy
R. Williams, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph
P. Guglielmo, Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, Melissa S.
Weiner, Halunen Law, pro hac vice, Susan M. Coler, Halunen Law,
Carey Alexander, ScottScott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, Joseph Seth
Tusa, Tusa P.C., pro hac vice & Michael Alan Johnson, Michael A.
Johnson & Associates.

Lisa Bullard & Ricardo Gonzales, Plaintiffs, represented by Erin
Green Comite, Scott+scott, Attorneys At Law, Llp, pro hac vice.

Walgreen Co., Defendant, represented by Frederick Robinson --
rick.robinson@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP, Megan Fanale Engel -- megan.engel@nortonrosefulbright.com --
Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, pro hac vice, Selina Coleman,
Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, pro hac vice, Candace Gaston
Turner, A&G Law LLC, Marc B. Collier --
marc.collier@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP, pro hac vice & Robert M. Andalman, A & G Law LLC.


WAL-MART STORES: "Mays" Suit Moved from N.D. Cal. to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit styled LERNA MAYS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WAL-MART
STORES, INC., a Delaware Corporation and DOE ONE through and
including DOE ONE-HUNDRED, Case No. 5:17-cv-07174, was
transferred on March 21, 2018, from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los
Angeles).

The Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-02318-
MWF-AFM to the proceeding.

In her complaint, Ms. Mays alleges that the Defendant has had a
consistent policy and/or practice of: (1) failing to pay timely
its Aggrieved Employees with all wages due upon termination; (2)
knowingly and intentionally failing to furnish timely the proper
itemized wage statements to Aggrieved Employees; and (3) failing
to pay reporting-time pay.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., is a Delaware corporation doing business
within the state of California and having a principal place of
business within California.  Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s corporate
headquarters are located in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan Harris, Esq.
          Priya Mohan, Esq.
          Min Ji Gal, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          655 N. Central Ave., 17th Floor
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (323) 962-3777
          Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
          E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com
                  pmohan@harrisandruble.com
                  mgal@harrisandruble.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Cheryl Lynn Johnson-Hartwell, Esq.
          Mitchell Aaron Wrosch, Esq.
          Paloma P. Peracchio, Esq.
          Susan Eileen Coleman, Esq.
          BURKE, WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN, LLP
          444 S. Flower St., 24th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 236-0600
          Facsimile: (213) 236-2700
          E-mail: cjohnson-hartwell@bwslaw.com
                  mwrosch@bwslaw.com
                  pperacchio@bwslaw.com
                  scoleman@bwslaw.com


WIRED ELECTRICAL: "Losoya" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Losoya, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. Wired Electrical Services, Inc. and
Nathanael McCollum, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00756 (S.D. Tex.,
March 9, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime as well as other
damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this
action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Wired Electrical Services operates a company primarily engaged in
business of providing residential and commercial electrical
services where Losoya worked as an electrician. The complaints
says Wired Electrical failed to compensate Plaintiff a rate not
less the then-current minimum wage for all hours worked and at
least one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for each
hour worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
      Daniel B. Ross, Esq.
      ROSS LAW GROUP
      1104 San Antonio Street
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 474-7677
      Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
      Email: Charles@RossLawGroup.com


WR GRACE: AMH Appeal from Class Certification Denial Junked
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re W.R. GRACE & CO., et al., Chapter 11, Debtors,
ANDERSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Appellant, v. In re W.R. GRACE & CO.,
et al., Appellees, Civ. No. 16-799-LPS (D. Del.),  Judge Leonard
P. Stark of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
granted the Appellees' Motion to Dismiss the Appellant's appeal
of the Bankruptcy Court's: (a) May 29, 2008 order denying the
Appellant's motion for class certification; and (b) Aug. 25, 2016
order denying the Appellant's motion to alter or amend the 2008
Order denying class certification.

AMH is a South Carolina hospital.  Grace manufactures chemicals
and construction materials.  In 1992, AMH filed a nationwide
class action lawsuit against Grace in South Carolina state court.
The lawsuit alleged that the Appellant and other putative class
members had suffered asbestos-related property damage arising
from the Appellees' asbestos-containing building materials.

In 2001, while the state court litigation was ongoing, Grace
filed for Chapter 11 protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware.  In the course of the bankruptcy, AMH
filed three proofs of claim against Grace: (1) a worldwide
putative class claim, (2) a statewide putative class claim, and
(3) an individual claim.

AMH eventually moved for class certification.  In the 2008 Order,
the Bankruptcy Court denied the motion.  AMH's request for leave
to appeal the 2008 Order was denied by this Court and its effort
to appeal this Court's decision was dismissed by the Court of
Appeals for lack of jurisdiction.

Grace later filed a proposed Plan of Reorganization, which
included procedures for the treatment of property damage claims,
including AMH's claims.  The Appellant challenged the Plan on
several grounds but not on the grounds it seeks to press on
appeal now (i.e., that the Plan places AMH's class action claims
on "inactive" status until after AMH proceeds with its individual
claim against Grace).  The Bankruptcy Court, the Court and the
Third Circuit rejected all of those challenges.  The Appellees
exited bankruptcy on Feb. 3, 2014, when the Plan became
effective.

Rather than pursue its individual property damage claim according
to the procedures outlined in the Plan, AMH filed a motion to
alter or amend the 2008 Order denying class certification.  The
Bankruptcy Court issued the 2016 Order denying the motion.  AMH
then noticed its appeal to the Court, which Grace has moved to
dismiss.

Judge Stark agrees with Grace that it must dismiss the appeal
because it is an interlocutory appeal and AMH has neither sought
-- nor could meet its burden to obtain -- permissive review of
the Bankruptcy Court's interlocutory order.  Orders granting or
denying class certification are inherently interlocutory, and not
immediately reviewable under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, which
provides for appeals from final decisions.

The Judge says the 2008 Order is plainly interlocutory, as the
Court already held in denying the Appellant's earlier attempt to
appeal it.  The 2016 Order, labeled by AMH as a "motion to alter
or amend," cannot have transformed an inherently interlocutory
order into a final order -- otherwise, any interlocutory order
could be so (easily) transformed, entirely undermining the final
order rule. action certification).  The Judge also finds that AMH
has not met its burden to show that interlocutory appeal is
warranted, for reasons including the absence of a controlling
question of law and of any exceptional circumstances.

The Judge further agrees with Grace that a separate, independent
ground for dismissing the appeal is that it is barred by the
confirmed Plan.  The Plan requires AMH to litigate its individual
claim to final judgment before it can appeal the denial of class
certification.  AMH has not yet litigated its individual claim.
Therefore, its appeal of the denial of class certification is
premature -- and an improper collateral attack on the Plan -- and
must, for this reason as well, be denied.

Accordingly, Judge Stark dismissed AMH's appeal.  The Clerk of
Court is directed to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Memorandum Order
is available at https://goo.gl/jyHxqP from Leagle.com.

W.R. Grace & Co et al., Debtor, represented by James E. O'Neill,
III -- joneill@pszjlaw.com -- Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl & Jones,
LLP.

Anderson Memorial Hospital, Appellant, represented by Theodore J.
Tacconelli -- ttacconelli@ferryjoseph.com -- Ferry Joseph, P.A.

W.R. Grace & Co., Appellee, represented by Laura Davis Jones --
ljones@pszjlaw.com -- Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl & Jones, LLP &
James E. O'Neill, III, Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl & Jones, LLP.


ZAIS GROUP: Kunkel Challenges Sale of Minority Shares to Zugel
--------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY KUNKEL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ZAIS GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., CHRISTIAN M. ZUGEL, DANIEL
CURRY, PAUL B. GUENTHER, JAMES M. ZINN, AND JOHN BURKE, Case No.
3:18-cv-04018 (D.N.J., March 22, 2018), stems from a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which the minority shares of Class A
common stock of ZAIS will be acquired by its majority
stockholder, Chairman, and Chief Investment Officer, Christian
Zugel, through his affiliated entities, Z Acquisition LLC and ZGH
Merger Sub, Inc. (the "Buyers").

On January 11, 2018, ZAIS's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with the Buyers.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, each share of
Class A common stock of the Company, other than shares that are
beneficially owned by Zugel, affiliates of Zugel, and certain
other shareholders, will be converted into the right to receive
$4.10 in cash.

ZAIS is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Red Bank, New Jersey.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

ZAIS is a publicly traded holding company that conducts
substantially all of its operations through its principal
operating subsidiary ZAIS Group, LLC, an investment advisory and
asset management firm focused on specialized credit.  ZAIS Group
is a wholly-owned consolidated subsidiary of ZAIS Group Parent,
LLC, which is ZAIS's majority-owned consolidated subsidiary.

Non-party Z Acquisition LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company and a party to the Merger Agreement.  Zugel, Zugel's
spouse, Curry, and the Zugel Family Trust are the members of Z
Acquisition LLC, and Zugel is the sole managing member of Z
Acquisition LLC.  Non-party ZGH Merger Sub, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of ZAIS, and a party to
the Merger Agreement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
          E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          E-mail: bdl@rigrodskylong.com

               - and -

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


* Accounting Securities Class Action Filings Hit Record High
------------------------------------------------------------
Securities class action filings containing accounting allegations
rose to unprecedented levels in 2017, according to Accounting
Class Action Filings and Settlements - 2017 Review and Analysis,
a new report by Cornerstone Research.  There were a record 165
accounting filings during 2017, nearly twice the 88 filed in
2016.

According to the annual report, the number of accounting-related
settlements rose from 46 to 49, the highest number since 2010.
Total accounting settlement value, however, declined
substantially in 2017, from $4.9 billion in 2016 to $861.6
million.

The overall increase in accounting case filings was driven by 107
"nontraditional" filings that related to mergers and
acquisitions.  All of these nontraditional filings contained
accounting disclosure allegations.  The number of "traditional"
(or non-M&A) filings dipped from 64 in 2016 to 58 in 2017 but
involved larger defendant firms.

"Relatively larger defendant issuers have been the subject of
traditional accounting class action filings in each of the past
four years," noted Elaine Harwood, a Cornerstone Research vice
president and head of the firm's accounting practice.  "We have
not seen class action filings against firms of this size since
2008."

"While event-driven litigation has gained recent attention, we
find that accounting-related claims continue to be prevalent
allegations and are a significant determinant of settlement
outcomes," said Laura Simmons, a Cornerstone Research senior
advisor and a report co-author.

Highlights

    * Industrial sector spiked: The Industrial sector saw 22
percent of traditional accounting case filings in 2017, double
the historical average. The Disclosure Dollar Loss (DDL) for
accounting case filings in this sector was the largest among all
sectors for the first time in the last 10 years.

    * Restatements declined: For the third consecutive year, the
number of traditional accounting case filings involving
restatements declined. The number of 2017 restatement cases was
35 percent lower than the historical average; restatement case
DDL was 49 percent lower than the historical average."

    * No auditor defendants named: There were no auditor
defendants named in traditional accounting case filings during
2017 -- the first year that has happened since enactment of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA).
    * Total settlement value declined: The total settlement value
attributable to accounting cases was the lowest since 1999, with
only two accounting-related settlements reaching $100 million or
more.

    * Larger defendant firms observed as settlement size shrinks:
Despite smaller settlement sizes, issuer defendants involved in
accounting settlements were the largest observed over the past
five years.

    * Restatement cases garnered higher settlements: Cases
involving financial statement restatements settled for
substantially higher amounts than non-accounting cases.

About Accounting Cases

Cases are considered "accounting cases" if they involve
allegations related to violations of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP), auditing violations, or weaknesses
in internal control over financial reporting.

"Traditional" accounting cases are filings that include alleged
violations of Rule 10b-5, Section 11, and/or Section 12(a)(2).
"Nontraditional" accounting cases do not include these
allegations and are specifically related to M&A accounting cases.

                  About Cornerstone Research

Cornerstone Research provides economic and financial consulting
and expert testimony in all phases of complex litigation and
regulatory proceedings.  The firm works with an extensive network
of prominent faculty and industry practitioners to identify the
best-qualified expert for each assignment.  Cornerstone Research
has earned a reputation for consistent high quality and
effectiveness by delivering rigorous, state-of-the-art analysis
for over 25 years.  The firm has 700 staff and offices in Boston,
Chicago, London, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Silicon
Valley, and Washington.





                            *********


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  * * *