CAR_Public/180430.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Monday, April 30, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 86



                            Headlines


149 STREET: "Perez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT under FLSA
572 W. 173RD STREET: Faces "Paz" Suit in S.D. New York
A.& R. LANDSCAPING: Mejia Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
AEGIS SENIOR: July 19 Hearing on "Conlin" Case Settlement
ALLIANCE RESOURCE: Faces "Leeper" Suit in S.D. Indiana

ALLIED INTERSTATE: 2nd Cir. Revives FDCPA Class Action
AMSCAFF LLC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Macias-Lopez Says
ARIZONA: Court Reverses Summary Ruling in Suit Over Surcharge
AS SOLUTION: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wage, Aguayo Says
AXA FINANCIAL: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Young Claims

BANK OF AMERICA: Kaufman Sues over Debt Collection Practices
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Lopez" Suit in N.D. California
BCHHOYNE LLC: Violates Landlord-Tenant Rules, Lee Alleges
BIG BUS: "Munoz" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
BREW DR KOMBUCHA: "Bazer" Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois

CANCER GENETICS: Faces Class Actions Over Misleading Statements
CAPELLA EDUCATION: Doctoral Degree Program Deceptive, Wright Says
CAPITAL ALLIANCE: Neumeyer Sues over Unsolicited Robocalls
CAPITAL ONE: Faces Class Action Over Excessive ATM Fees
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Seeks to Deny Ritenour Class Certification

CH EMPLOYMENT: Fails to Pay Wages, McCray Claims
CHASE BANK: Faces "Haynes" Suit in S.D. New York
CHEMOURS: Put on Notice Over Genx Air Emissions Amid Class Action
CHEVRON U.S.A.: Winkle Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
CIBA INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged "Ponzi Scheme"

CITIMED MANAGEMENT: Jimenez Seeks Overtime Wages under Labor Law
COLONY NORTHSTAR: Faces Securities Class Action
COLONY NORTHSTAR: June 5 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Four Large Pensions Funds Join Class Action
COMMUNITY PROBATION: Certification of Two Classes Sought

CORDS & CO: Website Not Accessible to Blind, "Kiler" Suit Says
DAVIS STUART: Faces Class Action Over Wage Violations
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Faces "Smith" Suit in N.D. Texas
EMBRAER SA: New York Judge Dismisses FCPA Class Action
EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Sanfilippo Sues over Plunge in Stock Price

ENAGIC USA: Class and Subclasses in "Makaon" TCPA Suit Certified
EXPERIAN INFO: Wilson and White Sue over Background Checks
EZ CHOICE: Henry Sues over Recurring Debit Practices
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Cambridge Analytica Class Action in Delaware
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Another Class Action Over Data Misuse

FALCON RECOVERY: Faces "Lord" Suit in N.D. New York
FAMOUS DAVE'S: "Broad" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
FOREVER 21: Faces "Hameed-Bolden" Suit in C.D. California
G. WELDING: Sanchez Seeks Unpaid Wages and Overtime under FLSA
GALVESTON, TX: ACLU Sues Over Discriminatory Bail Practices

GLOBAL EXECUTIVE: Levy Seeks to Certify Class
GOHEALTH LLC: Beck Seeks to Certify 4 Classes
GOODLIFE FITNESS: Settles Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
HERBALIFE INT'L: Files Motion to Dismiss RICO Class Action
HOMETOWN RESTORATION: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages

HOSTMARK HOSPITALITY: Robertson Sues over Biometric Data
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces "Brogan" Suit in C.D. California
IDENTIV INC: "Cunningham" Securities Suit Dismissal Affirmed
INTEGRITY PIZZA: Underpays Delivery Drivers, McKeon Claims
INTERSTATE NATIONAL: Faces "Gattuso" Suit in N.D. Georgia

JANI-KING INC: "Mujo" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hall Sues over Talcum Powder in Products
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Pelles Sue over Talcum Powder in Products
KRISPY KREME: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Donut Labels
LIBERTY POWER: Court Denies Summary Judgment in BLT Steak Suit

MARIO ALMANZA: Weight Loss Surgery Victims File Class Action
LONGFIN CORP: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
MDL 2826: "Designor" Suit over Data Security Breach Consolidated
MDL 2826: "Harang" Suit over Data Security Breach Consolidated
MDL 2826: "Patni" Suit over Data Security Breach Consolidated

MDL 2826: "West" Suit over Data Security Breach Consolidated
MDL 2827: "Miller" Suit over iPhone Performance Consolidated
MDL 2828: Artesia Hospital's Suit over CPU Defects Consolidated
MDL 2828: "Bahcevan" Suit over Defective CPUs Consolidated
MDL 2828: "Jones" Suit over Defective CPUs Consolidated

MDL 2828: Providence Suit over Defective CPUs Consolidated
MDL 2828: Zog Inc. Suit over Defective CPUs Consolidated
MECHEL BLUESTONE: $300K Settlement in "Ray" Has Final Approval
MEDPARTNERS INC: Rainey Seeks Minimum & OT Pay under FLSA
MERCHANTS CREDIT: Taylor Seeks Final Settlement Approval

MICHIGAN: Supreme Court to Hear Unemployment Fraud Case
MICROSEMI CORP: Rubin Balks at Merger Deal with Microchip
MYRIAD GENETICS: Kessman Sues over Misleading Disclosures
NATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces "Roth" Suit in C.D. California
NAVIENT CORP: Appeals Ruling in Student Loan Class Actions

NEW ORLEANS, LA: Cain, et al. Seek to Certify Class
NEW ORLEANS MILLWORKS: "Maldonado" Class Conditionally Certified
NEW YORK: Seubert Files Suit v. Election Board
NVR INC: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Smith, et al.
ODWALLA INC: Thompson Sues over "No Added Sugar" Label in Juices

OPHTHOTECH CORP: Court Consolidates "Micholle," "Wasson" Suits
OUTCOME HEALTH: Settles Suit Over Daily Nutrition Tip Texts
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: May 29 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
P.J. CLARKES: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
PHARMACEUTICAL SPECIALIST: Quinonez Seeks to Certify Two Classes

PHILLIPS NORTH AMERICA: Faces "Loujangamath" Wage-and-Hour Suit
POWERCOR: Class Action Over Victor Bushfires Commences
PROGRESSIVE COMMUNITY: Fails to Pay Wages, "Sanders" Suit Says
PRONAI THERAPEUTICS: Court Dismisses "Gregory" Suit
RASIER LLC: Faces "Durgin" Suit in C.D. California

RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT: Faces "Dibartolo" Suit in E.D. New York
SAGBOLT LLC: "O'Brien" Suit Brought Before New York Supreme Court
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Faces "Fife" Suit in W.D. Washington
SETERUS INC: Demurrer Ruling in "Davidson" Suit Reversed
SHORE CONSTRUCTION: Conditional Cert. of "Magana" Class Denied

ST. LOUIS RAMS: Court Certifies Class, Subclass in "McAllister"
STARKIST: AHA Defends "Heart-Check Mark" Logo After Class Action
TD ASSET: Faces Class Action Over Trailing Commissions
TENET FLORIDA: Averts Class Action Over Health Insurance Payments
TIDEWATER FINANCE: Faces "Clark" Suit in C.D. California

TIGER BRANDS: Says Not Opposed to Listeriosis Class Action
TIGER BRANDS: Files Motions in Listeriosis Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Quashes Canadian Drivers' Class Action
UFC: Expects to Settle Streaming Class Action with Refunds
UNITED STATES: Appeals Ruling in Immigrant Minors' Abortion Case

UNITED STATES: Class Action Over Male-Only Draft Can Proceed
US POSTAL: Owes Payouts to Workers After Class Action Ruling
VISIONPRO CONNECTIONS: Fails to Pay Wages, Fearon Says
VOLKSWAGEN: Slovenian Consumer Watchdog Files Dieselgate Suit
VOYA FINANCIAL: Court Denies Filing of 1st Amended "Patrico" Suit

WALMART: Block & Leviton Files RICO Class Action in California
WEBSTER INDUSTRIES: Nominee Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
XUNLEI: CEO Says No Basis for Investors' ICO Class Actions

* Lawyers Prepare Class Action in Victoria v. Construction Cos.
* New Class-Action Created in Montreal Judicial District Court



                            *********


149 STREET: "Perez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
HILDEBERTO IBARRA PEREZ (A/K/A ALBERTO IBARRA) and SANTIAGO
HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. 149 STREET FOOD CORP. (D/B/A FINE
FARE SUPERMARKET), 675 MORRIS AVE FOOD CORP. (D/B/A FINE FARE
SUPERMARKET), FRANK PIMENTEL, DAISY PIMENTEL, and RIGO DELGADO,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03560 (S.D.N.Y., April 23,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants. The Defendants
own, operate, or control two supermarkets, located at 459 East
149th Street, Bronx, New York 10451 under the name "Fine Fare
Supermarket". The Plaintiffs were employed as a stock person and
a general assistant at the two supermarkets. The Plaintiffs
worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours
that they worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to pay
Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The
Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiffs to all other
similarly situated employees. The Defendants maintained a policy
and practice of requiring Plaintiffs and other employees to work
in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage
and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and
regulations.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


572 W. 173RD STREET: Faces "Paz" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 572 W. 173rd Street
Realty, Corp. doing business as: 572 W. 173rd Street Realty,
Corp. The case is styled as Miguel Hernandez Paz, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 572
W. 173rd Street Realty, Corp. doing business as: 572 W. 173rd
Street Realty, Corp., Haav 575 Realty Corp. doing business as:
Haav 575 Realty Corp., Avraham Dishi also known as: AviDishi, Ron
Nahum and Alfredo Doe, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03377 (S.D.
N.Y., April 18, 2018).

The Defendants are engaged in the real estate business.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


A.& R. LANDSCAPING: Mejia Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE E. MEJIA and other similarly situated current and former
landscapers and manual workers, the Plaintiff, v. A.& R.
LANDSCAPING, LUIS RAZANO, ALEX RAZANO, the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-02371 (E.D.N.Y., April 23, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation and earned wages, declaratory relief,
liquidated damages, and compensatory damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The case is a civil action brought by Plaintiff and all current
and former landscapers and manual workers. The Plaintiff and the
collective class work or have worked at A.R. LANDSCAPING, a sole
proprietorship, which is owned, controlled, managed and operated
by Luis Razano and Alex Razano. The Plaintiff and the FLSA
collective also bring this action under the Wage Theft Protection
Act, for Defendants' failure to provide written notice of wage
rates in violation of said laws.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
          GOODMAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          380 North Broadway, Suite 203
          Jericho, New York 11753
          Telephone: (516) 597 5840
          Telephone: (631) 656 8180
          Facsimile: (866) 415 1019
          E-mail: ggoodman@gganylaw.com


AEGIS SENIOR: July 19 Hearing on "Conlin" Case Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JAY CONLIN, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AEGIS SENIOR
COMMUNITIES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 5:17-cv-05534-
LHK (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on July 19,
2018 for an order:

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

   2. preliminarily certifying for settlement purposes a
      Settlement Class of:

      "all persons who worked for Defendant as a non-exempt
      employee in California at any time between August 18, 2013
      and February 25, 2018";

   3. appointing the Plaintiff as representative for the
      Settlement Class;

   4. appointing Gregory N. Karasik of Karasik Law Firm and Emil
      Davtyan of Davtyan Professional Law Corporation as counsel
      for the Settlement Class;

   5. appointing Dahl Administration as the Settlement
      Administrator;

   6. directing the Settlement Administrator to provide notice to
      class members as set forth in the Settlement;

   7. establishing the deadlines for members of the Settlement
      Class to opt out of the settlement or to object to the
      Settlement; and

   8. scheduling a final approval and fairness hearing on a date
      approximately 120 days after preliminary approval of the
      Settlement to consider whether the Settlement should be
      finally approved as fair, reasonable and adequate under
      Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to
      rule on the motion for attorney's fees, costs and service
      payment to be submitted by Plaintiff.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BY1ViCCX

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Emil Davtyan, Esq.
          DAVTYAN PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          21900 Burbank Blvd., Suite 300
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 992 2935
          Facsimile: (818) 975 5525
          E-mail: emil@davtyanlaw.com


ALLIANCE RESOURCE: Faces "Leeper" Suit in S.D. Indiana
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alliance Resource
Partners, L.P. The case is styled as Carl Leeper, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Alliance Resource Partners, L.P., Hamilton County Coal, LLC and
Doe Defendants 1-20, Defendants, Guill Hulett, Jr., Interested
Party, Case No. 1:18-mc-00024-WTL-DML (S.D. Ind., April 16,
2018).

Alliance Resource Partners, L.P. produces and markets coal to
United States utilities and industrial users. The Company
operates its facilities in Kentucky, Illinois, and Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.

The Interested Party is represented by:

   Thomas A. Brodnik, Esq.
   DONINGER TUOHY & BAILEY LLP
   50 South Meridian, Suite 700
   Indianapolis, IN 46204-3542
   Tel: (317) 638-2400
   Fax: (317) 633-6618
   Email: tbrodnik@dtblegal.com


ALLIED INTERSTATE: 2nd Cir. Revives FDCPA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Colby Hamilton, writing for Law.com, reports that the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit again revived an attempted
class action suit that U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest of
the Southern District of New York has tried to close out twice
now, most recently by entering judgment on a Rule 68 settlement
offered by the defendants in Franco v. Allied Interstate.

On April 9, the panel of Second Circuit Judges Rosemary Pooler,
Reena Raggi and Christopher Droney, armed with two recent
decisions, vacated and remanded the suit back to Forrest via a
summary judgment.  The district judge had initially dismissed the
amended complaint in the action over alleged violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  Gilberto Franco had sued
Allied Interstate in 2013 over claims mailed to him by the
company that warned debtors of a 15 percent pay garnishment,
despite the FDCPA allowing the garnishment on disposable income.

When Mr. Franco attempted to bring a class suit, Allied
Interstate said it was willing to pay $1,501, plus reasonable
attorney fees and costs, pursuant to federal civil procedure
rules -- the most Mr. Franco was eligible for under the statute,
as he sought no actual damages.

Judge Forrest granted the dismissal -- which also signaled the
end of Mr. Franco's class certification -- but the circuit
reversed, finding that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer could not moot
a claim in the absence of judgment.  With judgment being the key,
Allied Interstate sought judgment against it under Rule 54(b) in
the case under virtually the same terms, which Forrest granted.

Armed with the U.S. Supreme Court's 2016 decision in Campbell-
Ewald v. Gomez, as well as its own elaboration on the issue in
last year's Geismann v. ZocDoc, the panel on April 9 reversed
again, as an unaccepted Rule 68 offer doesn't moot a claim even
if the court enters judgment in favor of the plaintiff at the
defendant's bidding.

The panel also took up Mr. Franco's class certification issue.
Despite Allied Interstate's arguments to the contrary, the panel
noted that the "sole ground for the denial of class certification
was vacated" by the previous decision.  Judge Forrest had noted
then that class certification was revived.  So, too, with the
revival of Franco's individual claims comes the revival of the
class issue.

Reed Smith partner Casey Laffey -- claffey@reedsmith.com --
continued to represent Allied Interstate on appeal.  He did not
respond to a request for comment.

Stern Thomasson name attorney Andrew Thomasson was counsel for
Mr. Franco.  He likewise did not respond to a request for
comment. [GN]


AMSCAFF LLC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Macias-Lopez Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN MACIAS-LOPEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMSCAFF, LLC, a Delaware
corporation; AMERICAN CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC, a California
corporation; AMERICAN SCAFFOLD, INC., a California corporation;
AMERI-FORCE CRAFT SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 37-2018-
00017800-CU-0E-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., April 10, 2018), seeks to
recover all unpaid minimum wages and overtime under the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was not paid for time
worked at the yard during the work day. For example, the
Plaintiff often was required to arrive at the yard at 5:00 a.m.
to collect and prepare the materials for the assigned project and
travel to the job worksite by 6:00 a.m., but the Defendants only
paid Plaintiff starting from the time he arrived at the job
worksite (i.e. 6:00 a.m.). Similarly, the Plaintiff was never
paid for compensable time worked traveling from the job worksite
to the yard and/or time worked at the yard when the Plaintiff was
required to return to the yard at the end of the work day.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
          Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
          LIDMAN LAW, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 322 4772
          Facsimile: (424) 322 4775
          E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
                  enguyen@lidmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com


ARIZONA: Court Reverses Summary Ruling in Suit Over Surcharge
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SABAN RENT-A CAR LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, Defendant/Appellant/Appellee/Cross-Appellee, TOURISM AND
SPORTS AUTHORITY, Defendant-in-Intervention/Appellant/Cross-
Appellee, Case No. 1 CA-TX 16-0007 (Ariz. App.), Judge Diane M.
Johnsen of the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, (i)
reversed the tax court's order granting summary judgment to the
car-rental companies under the Arizona Constitution and directed
entry of judgment in favor of the Arizona Department of Revenue
("ADOR") and Arizona Tourism and Sports Authority ("AzSTA") on
that claim; (ii) affirmed the judgment in favor of ADOR and AzSTA
under the Dormant Commerce Clause; and (iii) reversed the tax
court's refund order.

A class of car-rental companies sued to invalidate a surcharge
enacted to build sports facilities to be owned by AzSTA.  The
car-rental companies argued the surcharge is invalid both under
Article IX, Section 14 of the Arizona Constitution and under the
Dormant Commerce Clause implied by the United States
Constitution.  The tax court ruled the surcharge was invalid
under the Arizona Constitution (but not under the Dormant
Commerce Clause) and ordered a refund.

AzSTA is a corporate and political body the legislature created
in 2000.  By statute, AzSTA's boundaries are those of any county
that has a population of more than two million persons, meaning
(then and now) Maricopa County.  The legislature directed AzSTA
to build and operate a multipurpose facility -- a stadium/events
center -- that could accommodate a professional football team, a
college bowl game, and other sporting events and entertainment,
cultural, civic, meeting, trade show or convention events.  The
legislature also granted AzSTA the power to contract to host the
Super Bowl and college football national championship and playoff
games and to build Major League Baseball spring-training
facilities and youth and amateur sports and recreational
facilities.

Although AzSTA may charge for use of its facilities, it cannot
levy taxes or assessments to build those facilities.  Instead,
the legislature authorized Maricopa County voters to approve
taxes to fund AzSTA's construction projects.  Among the taxes the
legislature authorized voters to impose is the one challenged
here: A surcharge on the gross proceeds of car-rental businesses.

Maricopa County voters approved the car-rental surcharge
authorized by Section 5-839 in November 2000, just months after
the legislature established AzSTA.  As authorized, the surcharge
is the greater of 3.25% of the gross proceeds or gross income
from the business or $2.50 per car rental, payable by the car-
rental business, not the customer.  If a customer rents a vehicle
as a temporary replacement for another vehicle, the surcharge
charged the car-rental company is a flat $2.50.

In August 2009, Saban sought a refund of amounts it had paid
under Section 5-839, claiming the surcharge violated Article IX,
Section 14 of the Arizona Constitution and the Dormant Commerce
Clause implied by the U.S. Constitution.  After ADOR denied the
refund and that decision was upheld on administrative review,
Saban challenged the ruling in the tax court, seeking injunctive
relief and a refund on behalf of a class of all similarly
situated car-rental companies.  The court granted AzSTA leave to
intervene as a Defendant, then certified a class of all
businesses that paid the surcharge from September 2005 through
March 2008.

After discovery, the tax court ruled on cross-motions for summary
judgment that although the surcharge did not violate the Dormant
Commerce Clause, it was invalid under Article IX, Section 14 of
the Arizona Constitution.  The court ruled that ADOR would have
to refund the tax to class members but could recoup the amount of
the refund, over time, from AzSTA pursuant to A.R.S. Section 42-
5029(G) (2018).  It granted ADOR's motion for entry of judgment
pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), leaving the
amount of the refund to be determined.

Reviewing de novo the grant of a motion for summary judgment,
Judge Johnsen finds that contrary to Saban's contention, Section
14's text, context and history teach that the voters did not
intend it to encompass every tax or fee in any way "relating to"
vehicles.  Instead, she concludes Section 14 applies to a tax or
fee that is a prerequisite to, or triggered by, the legal
operation or use of a vehicle on a public thoroughfare.  By that
reasoning, she holds it does not apply to the surcharge enacted
pursuant to A.R.S. Section 5-839.

The Judge also finds that A.R.S. Section 5-839 and the resulting
car-rental surcharge are not discriminatory on their face; nor do
they cause any discriminatory effects on interstate commerce.
Finally, assuming arguendo that a state tax that is non-
discriminatory on its face and in its effect may be invalid
solely based on a discriminatory purpose, Saban has not
demonstrated that the challenged surcharge has a discriminatory
purpose that violates the Dormant Commerce Clause.

Judge Johnsen concludes that the car-rental surcharge authorized
under A.R.S. Section 5-839 is not invalid under Article IX,
Section 14 of the Arizona Constitution, and reversed the tax
court's ruling on summary judgment to the contrary, including its
award of attorney's fees and costs.  She affirmed the superior
court's ruling that the surcharge is not unconstitutional under
the Dormant Commerce Clause.  Accordingly, she vacated the
superior court's refund order, directed entry of judgment in
favor of ADOR and AzSTA and remanded for any further required
proceedings consistent with her decision.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/AZVQxO from Leagle.com.

Mandel Young, PLC, Phoenix, By Taylor C. Young --
taylor@mandelyoung.com -- Robert A. Mandel -- rob@mandelyoung.com
-- Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants Saban et
al.

Kickham, Hanley, PLLC, Royal Oak, MI By Gregory D. Hanley --
ghanley@kickhamhanley.com -- pro hac vice Co-Counsel for
Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants Saban et al.

Aiken, Schenk, Hawkins & Ricciardi, PC, Phoenix, By Shawn K.
Aiken -- ska@ashrlaw.com -- Co-Counsel for
Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants Saban et al.

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix, By Kimberly J. Cygan,
Jerry A. Fries, Co-Counsel for
Defendant/Appellant/Appellee/Cross-Appellee ADOR.

Osborn Maledon, PA, Phoenix, By Thomas L. Hudson --
thudson@omlaw.com -- Eric M. Fraser -- efraser@omlaw.com -- Co-
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant/Appellee/Cross-Appellee ADOR.

Fennemore Craig, PC, Phoenix, By Timothy J. Berg --
tberg@fclaw.com -- Theresa Dwyer -- tdwyer@fclaw.com -- Emily Ayn
Ward -- eward@fclaw.com -- Co-Counsel for Defendant-in-
Intervention/Appellant/Cross-Appellee AzSTA.

Dickinson Wright, PLLC, Phoenix, By Scot L. Claus --
sclaus@dickinsonwright.com -- Vail C. Cloar --
vcloar@dickinsonwright.com -- Co-Counsel for Defendant-in-
Intervention/Appellant/Cross-Appellee AzSTA.

Lewis, Roca, Rothgerber, Christie, LLP, Phoenix, By Robert G.
Schaffer -- bschaffer@lrrc.com -- Counsel for amici curiae
Halikowski and ADOT.

Gammage & Burnham, PLC, Phoenix, By Michael R. King --
mking@gblaw.com -- Cameron C. Artigue -- cartigue@gblaw.com --
Christopher L. Hering -- chering@gblaw.com -- Counsel for amici
curiae Convention and Visitors Bureaus.

Pima County Attorney's Office, Tucson, By Regina L. Nassen,
Counsel for amicus curiae Pima County.

Gallagher & Kennedy, PA, Phoenix, By Michael K. Kennedy --
mkk@gknet.com -- Mark C. Dangerfield --
mark.dangerfield@gknet.com -- Counsel for amicus curiae Arizona
Chamber of Commerce.

Perkins Coie, LLP, Phoenix, By Paul F. Eckstein --
PEckstein@perkinscoie.com -- Thomas D. Ryerson --
TRyerson@perkinscoie.com -- Counsel for amicus curiae City of
Phoenix.


AS SOLUTION: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wage, Aguayo Says
--------------------------------------------------------
MAYRA AGUAYO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. AS SOLUTION NORTH AMERICA, INC.; SOS
SECURITY, LLC, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. RG18901777 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 20, 2018), seeks to
recover overtime wage and minimum wage under the California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants acted intentionally
and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to their
Security Guards (aka Residential Security Agents) rights by
failing to: provide Security Guards pay for all wages earned
including regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wage (Defendants
require Class Members to work "off the clock" at the beginning
and end of their shifts); pay for "on-duty" meal periods, "on-
duty" rest breaks; failing to keep and provide accurate and
timely records of wages earned and other legally mandated
records; and failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members whose
employment has terminated (voluntarily resigned or were
terminated) a final payment of his or her wages in a prompt and
timely manner in conformity with Labor Codes.

AS Solution provides executive protection and security services
for Fortune 500 corporations.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Plaintiffs Class:

          Matthew S. Da Vega, Esq.
          Matthew Fisher, Esq.
          Ted Mechtenberg, Esq.
          DA VEGA FISHER MECHTENBERG, LLP
          232 E. Anapamu St.
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: 805 232 4471
          Facsimile: 877 535 9358
          E-mail: Mdavega@mdmtlaw.com


AXA FINANCIAL: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Young Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE YOUNG AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. AXA FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC AND AXA
EQUITABLE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-
cv-03543-PAC (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2018), seeks permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually-impaired
and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to
read website content using his computer.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website,
and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby
and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Because Defendant's websites, WWW.US.AXA.COM.COM, are not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. The Defendant allegedly failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-
impaired people.

AXA Equitable Financial Services, LLC provides insurance
services. The Company offers life insurance, annuities, mutual
funds, brokerage, and advisory services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


BANK OF AMERICA: Kaufman Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
LYNNE KAUFMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., the
Defendants, Case No. 9:18-cv-80526-RLR (S.D. Fla., April 20,
2018), seeks to recover injuries and statutory damages caused by
BANA's violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and
Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff and Class Members are Florida homeowners whose
homes have been in foreclosure. BANA is servicer of Plaintiff's
and Class Members' homeowner mortgage loans and enforces, and
regularly acts as, a debt collector of Plaintiff's and Class
Members' mortgage loans. In its servicing of mortgage loans, BANA
has routinely and systematically charged homeowners, including
Plaintiff and Class Members, "estimated" fees via standardized
statements it has sent them that list the amounts it requires for
them to pay off their loans. In Payoff Statements, BANA readily
concedes that their "Total Amount[s] Due may include estimated
fees, costs, additional payments and/or escrow disbursements that
will become due" but had yet to be incurred.

In its servicing of mortgage loans, through Payoff Statements
BANA has also routinely and systematically charged homeowners,
including Plaintiff and Class Members, "Other Amounts Due,"
including an array of fees, including "vacant property
registration" fees. These fees and the manner BANA discloses them
are unlawful. The mortgage instruments of Plaintiff and Class
Members only authorize charges for fees actually incurred for
services actually performed. Years ago, in a widely publicized
decision, the Eleventh Circuit held "estimated" fees violated the
FDCPA and FCCPA. Further, BANA has entered a government consent
decree to that same effect. Moreover, the "vacant property
registration" fees BANA charged were marked-up by additional fees
for which BANA rendered no services and whose rates are set by
local governments. Also, the FDCPA requires debt collections to
represent debt information in a non-misleading manner and not to
misrepresent amounts owed. Defendant's Payoff Statements violate
both these proscriptions.

Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational
financial services company headquartered in Charlotte, North
Carolina. It is ranked 2nd on the list of largest banks in the
United States by assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan A. Shaw, Esq.
          Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Slaven, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP
          110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 989 6333
          Facsimile: (954) 989 7781
          E-mail: jshaw@zpllp.com
                  mperez@zpllp.com
                  mfistos@zpllp.com
                  kslaven@zpllp.com

               - and -

          J. Dennis Card Jr., Esq.
          Darren R. Newhart, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
          721 US Highway 1, Suite 201
          North Palm Beach, FL 33408
          Telephone: (561) 692 6013
          Facsimile: (305) 574 0132
          E-mail: DCard@cloorg.com
                  Darren@cloorg.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Lopez" Suit in N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bank of America,
N.A. The case is styled as Laura Lopez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bank of
America, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-02346 (N.D. Cal.,
April 18, 2018).

Bank of America National Association operates as a bank. The Bank
accepts deposits, makes loans, and provides other financial and
investment services for the public. Bank of America serves
individual and institutional customers throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


BCHHOYNE LLC: Violates Landlord-Tenant Rules, Lee Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
DAROLYN LEE, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, v. BCHHOYNE, LLC, an Illinois Limited
Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH05154 (Ill. Cir.
Ct. Cook Cty., April 20, 2018), seeks to recover compensation and
injunctive relief for dozens of current, former and future
tenants in a 196 units in several contiguous residential
apartment buildings owned or managed by the Defendant who failed
to disclose the name and address of the financial institution
holding those tenants' security deposits in the leases signed by
the tenants as required by Municipal Code of Chicago, Ch. 5, Sec.
12- 080(a)(3) ("RLTO") and who also failed to provide current,
legally conforming Summaries of the Chicago Residential Landlord
and Tenant Ordinance at the commencement of, or during the course
of their tenancies as required under Section 5-12-170, of the
RLTO.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Morris, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID S. MORRIS
          333 South Wabash Ave., Suite 2700
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 986 3200
          E-mail: davidsmorris@ameritech.net


BIG BUS: "Munoz" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------
VICTOR MUNOZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BIG BUS TOURS LIMITED; OPEN TOP
SIGHTSEEING SAN FRANCISCO, LLC; and DOES 1-200, the Defendant,
Case No. CGC-18-565969 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 20, 2018), seeks
to recover damages resulting from Defendants' failure to pay for
all compensable overtime worked, declaratory and injunctive
relief, compensation for all uncompensated work, liquidated
and/or other damages, penalties, interest, and attorneys' fees
and costs under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was formerly employed as a bus operator by the
Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have
engaged in an unlawful pattern and practice of failing to pay
operators for all compensable overtime, in violation of the FLSA,
and California Labor Code.

Big Bus Tours, is an operator of open top bus sightseeing tours
founded in London in 1991. The company operates in 20 cities of
11 countries with more than 150 buses around the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven G. Tidrick, Esq.
          Joel B. Young, Esq.
          THE TIDRICK LAW FIRM
          1300 Clay Street, Suite 600
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 788 5100
          Facsimile: (510) 291 3226
          E-mail: sgt@tidricklaw.com
                  jby@tidricklaw.com


BREW DR KOMBUCHA: "Bazer" Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Vladislav Bazer, individually and
on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, v. Brew Dr. Kombucha, LLC, an Oregon limited liability
company, the Defendant, Case No. 18CH02943, was removed from the
Circuit Court of Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois - (Chicago) on April 10, 2018. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-02560 to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Jorge L. Alonso.

Brew Dr. provides non-alcoholic beverages. The Company offers
organic tea blends without adding any juices and flavors after
fermentation. Brew Dr Kombucha provides ginger, tumeric, herbal,
and mint lemonade blends. Brew Dr Kombucha serves customers in
the State Oregon.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Louis Gerbie, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker, 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893 7002
          E-mail: dgerbie@mcgpc.com

               - and -

          David M Schultz, Esq.
          Todd Philip Stelter, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          222 North LaSalle Street, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60601-1081
          Telephone: (312) 704 3445
          E-mail: dschultz@hinshawlaw.com
                  tstelter@hinshawlaw.com


CANCER GENETICS: Faces Class Actions Over Misleading Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
GenomeWeb reports that at least two class action lawsuits have
been filed against Cancer Genetics alleging the company made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
information pertinent to investors.

One lawsuit was filed by Gainey McKenna & Egleston with the US
District Court District of New Jersey, following Cancer Genetics'
announcement of its fourth quarter financial results on April 2.
At that time the company said that after a comprehensive review
of its strategy and organization subsequent to the departure of
its former CEO Panna Sharma, it recorded a bad debt expense of
$4.4 million and wrote off $1.8 million of its accounts
receivables for its fourth quarter. A significant portion of the
collection issues with accounts receivables were recorded after
2015, following Cancer Genetics' $14 million acquisition of
Response Genetics.

Additionally, Cancer Genetics said that on Dec. 31, 2017, its
"cash position and history of losses required management to
assess [its] ability to continue operating as a going concern,"
the law firm said in a statement.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of investors who acquired Cancer
Genetics' stock or other securities between March 23, 2017
through April 2, 2018.

A second lawsuit was announced on April 9 by the law firm
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, which also alleged that Cancer
Genetics made misleading statements and failed to disclose that
it "had ineffective disclosure controls and internal controls
over financial reporting."

Through a spokesperson, Cancer Genetics declined to comment. [GN]


CAPELLA EDUCATION: Doctoral Degree Program Deceptive, Wright Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CAROLYN WRIGHT and DEBBRA KENNEDY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. CAPELLA
EDUCATION COMPANY, and CAPELLA UNIVERSITY, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 0:18-cv-01062 (D. Minn., April 20, 2018), seeks redress
for Plaintiffs and potentially thousands of similarly situated
doctoral students who were harmed by Capella's deceptive doctoral
degree process -- a process intended to ensure that it would be
difficult, if not impossible, for students to timely complete, or
complete at all, their doctoral programs.

According to the complaint, Capella essentially operated a "bait
and switch" program. The bait was displayed when Capella's
marketing materials and recruiters misled prospective and current
students making misleading statements about the time to
completion and cost of their mostly student-loan financed
doctoral degrees: Ms. Wright was told her Doctor of Nursing
Practice degree would take two years and cost approximately
$35,000, and Ms. Kennedy was told that PhDs in Education or
Doctoral Degrees in Education would cost approximately $45,000-
$55,000 and take three to three-and-a-half years to complete.

Capella's marketing materials, recruiters, and student handbooks
also reassured prospective students that after their doctoral
course work, colloquium, and/or field hours were completed, they
would be awarded a doctoral degree. Capella doctoral students
signed up for the program and completed their classes,
colloquium, and/or field hours. Once the doctoral students were
committed, having invested significant amounts of time and money
in the program completing their coursework, problems began.

Instead of completing the promised doctoral degree program
requirements and being awarded a doctoral degree in the
advertised time, Capella employed the "switch." Capella created
an endless routine of hurdles and benefitted from additional
tuition payments. Students who believed they were getting ever
closer to obtaining their doctoral degree were in fact stuck with
decreasing resources, faculty turnover, disorganization and a
lack of oversight, all of which increased the length of the
doctoral students' enrollments at Capella.

Frustrated, the Plaintiffs, and upon information and belief
thousands of other doctoral students, realized that contrary to
Capella's promises, they did not have control over the time it
would take to complete their doctoral degree program; they were
at the mercy of Capella advisors who can and did ensure that
doctoral students would be misled, confused, and ultimately
cheated out of their money to the benefit of Capella.

Capella Education Company is an education services holding
company which owns for-profit, online Capella University and
other assets.  It was founded in 1991 by Stephen Shank, former
CEO of Tonka Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
          Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          E-1250 First National Bank Building
          332 Minnesota Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
          E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
                  r.yard@rwblawfirm.com

               - and -

          Paul Lesko, Esq.
          PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE
          818 Lafayette Avenue, Second Floor
          St. Louis, MO 63010
          Telephone: (314) 833 4826
          E-mail: plesko@prwlegal.com


CAPITAL ALLIANCE: Neumeyer Sues over Unsolicited Robocalls
----------------------------------------------------------
LANCE NEUMEYER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ALLIANCE GROUP; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendant,
the Plaintiff, Case No. 3:18-cv-00759-BAS-KSC (S.D. Cal., April
23, 2018), seeks to recover damages and any other available legal
or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendant), in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully
contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiffs cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby
invading Plaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, beginning in or around November of
2017, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number ending in -6104, in an attempt to solicit
Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's services. The Defendant used an
"automatic telephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C.
section 227(a)(1) to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to
solicit its services. The Defendant contacted or attempted to
contact Plaintiff from telephone number (248) 621-5851 confirmed
to be Defendant's number. The Defendant's calls constituted calls
that were not for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C.
section 227(b)(1)(A). The Defendant's calls were placed to
telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service for
which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls pursuant to 47
U.S.C. section 227(b)(1).

During all relevant times, the Defendant did not possess
Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an
automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C.
section 227(b)(1)(A). Further, Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number ending in -6104 was added to the National Do-Not-Call
Registry on or about February 8, 2012. The Defendant placed
multiple calls soliciting its business to Plaintiff on his
cellular telephone ending in -6104 in or around November 2017.
The Defendant continued to call Plaintiff in an attempt to
solicit its services and in violation of the National Do-Not-Call
provisions of the TCPA.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


CAPITAL ONE: Faces Class Action Over Excessive ATM Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
Sean Forbes, writing for Law360, reports that customers have
slapped Capital One NA with a proposed class action in California
federal court, accusing the bank of charging fees on its own ATMs
that are supposed to be fee-free and charging excessive fees on
other out-of-network ATMs.

The suit filed on April 6 claims that Capital One has both
deceived its customers and breached its contract with account
holders by imposing fees when customers make balance inquiries on
the bank's own ATMs.

The case is Figueroa v. Capital One, N.A. et al, Case No. 3:18-
cv-00692 (S.D.N.Y.).  The case is assigned to Judge Jeffrey T.
Miller.  The case was filed April 6, 2018. [GN]


CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Seeks to Deny Ritenour Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CANDICE RITENOUR, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated;
CHERYL WEISER, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, an unknown business entity;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 8:16-cv-02011-CJC-DFM
(C.D. Cal.), the Defendant will move the Court on May 21, 2017,
for an order denying a class certification of Plaintiffs' claims
and striking Plaintiffs' class allegations.

The Plaintiffs allege claims on behalf of a class and subclass
defined as:

   Class:

   "all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees
   who worked for any of the Defendants within the State of
    California at any time from September 30, 2012 to final
   judgment"; and

   Subclass A:

   "[Members of Class] who earned commission/nondiscretionary
   bonuses/non-discretionary performance pay which was not used
   to calculate the regular rate of pay used to calculate the
   overtime rate for the payment of overtime."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=it9FEKck

Attorneys for Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC:

          Terry E. Sanchez, Esq.
          Margaret G. Maraschino, Esq.
          Sara A. Mcdermott, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, Fiftieth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 683 9100
          Facsimile: (213) 683 4015
          E-mail: terry.sanchez@mto.com
                  margaret.maraschino@mto.com
                  sara.mcdermott@mto.com


CH EMPLOYMENT: Fails to Pay Wages, McCray Claims
------------------------------------------------
MAY A MCCRAY, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. CH EMPLOYMENT
SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; CRESCENT
HEIGHTS, INC., a Florida corporation; CRESCENT HEIGHTS OF
AMERICA, INC., a Florida corporation; LANSING DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. CGC-18-565953 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 20,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages earned for all hour worked
under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable to her and other
similarly situated current and former California-based hourly
workers, including but not limited to concierges, for unpaid
wages and other related relief. These claims are based on
Defendants' alleged failures to provide all meal and rest periods
in compliance with California law, pay all wages earned for all
hours worked, provide accurate wage statements, timely pay final
wages upon termination of employment, and fairly compete.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          Sehyung (Logan) Park, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 312
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone (818) 582 3086
          Facsimile (818) 582 2561
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
                  logan@spivaklaw.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          5500 Bolsa Ave, Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (562) 256 1047
          Facsimile: (562) 256 1006
          E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com


CHASE BANK: Faces "Haynes" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chase Bank U.S.A.,
N.A. The case is styled as Rusty Haynes, Debtor and Plaintiff on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Chase Bank U.S.A., N.A., Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-03307-NSR
(S.D. N.Y., April 16, 2018).

Chase Bank USA, N.A. provides financial services, which includes
consumer and commercial banking.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam Reese Shaw, Esq.
   Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (Albany)
   30 South Pearl Street
   Albany, NY 12207
   Tel: (518) 694-4227
   Fax: (518) 434-0665
   Email: ashaw@bsfllp.com

      - and -

   Charles Wayne Juntikka, Esq.
   Charles Juntikka & Associates, LLP
   1250 Broadway
   24th Flr.
   New York, NY 10001
   Tel: (212) 315-3755
   Fax: (212) 315-9032
   Email: CHARLES@CJALAW.COM

      - and -

   George F. Carpinello, Esq.
   Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (FL)
   401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (518) 434-0600
   Fax: (518) 434-0665
   Email: gcarpinello@bsfllp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

   Alan Schoenfeld, Esq.
   Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP (NYC)
   7 World Trade Center
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 937-7294
   Fax: (212) 230-8888
   Email: alan.schoenfeld@wilmerhale.com

      - and -

   Noah Adam Levine, Esq.
   Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (NYC)
   7 World Trade Center
   250 Greenwich St.
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 230-8875
   Fax: (212) 230-8888
   Email: noah.levine@wilmerhale.com


CHEMOURS: Put on Notice Over Genx Air Emissions Amid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Henderson, writing for Triangle Business Journal,
reports that amid continued concern over GenX and its presence in
the Cape Fear River -- the main drinking water source for
Wilmington and surrounding areas -- North Carolina has put
Chemours (NYSE: CC) on notice over air emissions of the chemical.

On April 6, the N.C. Division of Air Quality submitted a 60-day
notice to Chemours outlining NCDAQ's intention to modify the air
permit for Chemours' Fayetteville Works facility.

"Based on our investigation, DAQ has concluded that the
conditions under which the current version of the permit was
issued on December 14, 2016 have changed," it states in a letter
to Chemours.

"At that time, DAQ had no knowledge that Chemours was emitting
GenX compounds at the current rates reported by Chemours, that
GenX compounds emitted from the Chemours facility in such
quantities that were transmitted and deposited on the land
surface by rainfall several miles away from the facility, or that
such deposition caused or contributed to widespread contamination
of groundwater in violation of the state's groundwater
standards," NCDAQ further states.

By April 27, Chemours must show that GenX air emissions from the
facility do not violate groundwater standards, or they will be
prohibited.

"DAQ tested rainwater for GenX compounds during rain events Feb.
28-March 2 and found GenX levels between 45 parts per trillion
and 810 parts per trillion at 13 locations within seven miles of
the facility," NCDAQ states.  "The state's provisional health
goal of 140 parts per trillion for drinking water should not be
compared to rainwater concentrations as the latter is not
intended for direct consumption."

"With the added measurements of direct emissions, NCDAQ estimates
Chemours' annual GenX emissions to be more than 2,700 pounds, or
approximately 40 times higher than originally reported in early
2017 and four times higher than their revised estimate submitted
to DAQ in October 2017," NCDAQ adds.

NCDAQ's notice to Chemours comes at a time when residents of
Wilmington and surrounding areas are involved in a class-action
lawsuit that alleges DuPont and former wholly-owned subsidiary
Chemours disregarded tests and illegally dumped GenX.

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and Susman Godfrey are serving as
co-lead counsel for the class.  Aside from the traditional means
of water contamination, Cohen Milstein noted recently that
independent research suggests that GenX may be airborne as well.

Chemours did not immediately respond to a request for comment on
NCDAQ's notice. [GN]


CHEVRON U.S.A.: Winkle Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JACK VAN WINKLE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHEVRON U.S.A., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00372-GJF-KRS (D.N.M., April 20,
2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation and all other
available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. was formerly the employer of the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as a safety advisor and paid
a salary for each week worked, regardless of the number of hours
worked in each day or each week. The Defendant paid Plaintiff
(and other similarly situated employees) a salary in order to
avoid paying overtime. During his time with Defendant, the
Plaintiff typically worked 100 hours per week. Yet Plaintiff (and
other similarly situated employees) did not receive any
additional compensation for the hours worked above forty in a
week, and thus Defendant denied their workers overtime pay in
violation of federal law.

Chevron is a major oil and gas production company. The Plaintiff
worked as a safety advisor of Defendant from approximately
January of 2014 until April of 2016. Because Plaintiff and the
other Chevron employees are paid a weekly salary, regardless of
the number of hours worked in a given week (even those above
forty), they are denied overtime pay in violation of the FLSA.
The Defendant failed to make a good faith effort to comply with
the FLSA and/or the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. Instead,
Defendant knowingly, willfully or with reckless disregard carried
out its illegal pattern or practice regarding overtime
compensation. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated are
entitled to liquidated damages for such conduct.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Borsellino, Esq.
          BORSELLINO, P.C.
          1020 Macon St., Suite 15
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 908 9861
          Facsimile: (817) 394 2412
          E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com


CIBA INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged "Ponzi Scheme"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Land, writing for Law.com, reports that a putative class
action filed on April 4 in federal court in San Francisco accuses
California-based CIBA Insurance of operating as an illegal "ponzi
scheme" in collaboration with a number of insurance company
partners, including co-defendant Great Lakes Insurance SE.

According to the complaint, CIBA -- which operates in 48 states
-- rakes in tens of millions of dollars in premiums annually
while circumventing insurance laws in California and nationally.

CIBA and its insurance company partners have issued coverage for
more than $50 billion in property, but only have $1 billion
available in coverage per occurrence for the entire pool of
insureds, the complaint said.

By working with companies that are legally registered insurers,
but conceal CIBA's role in covering the first million dollars of
smaller claims, the lawsuit claims CIBA can "illegally engage in
the business of insurance in California (and across the country)
while avoiding compliance with statutory requirements for
insurance carriers and evading scrutiny from state insurance
regulators."

A "single catastrophic occurrence could deplete the entire shared
limit of available coverage, i.e., property owners could be stuck
for footing the bill for repairs and replacements despite paying
thousands of dollars for insurance coverage," the complaint said.

The arrangements not only jeopardizes those carrying CIBA
policies, but also impact the way claims are handled, according
to the complaint.  Plaintiff Sage Apts LLC, a Wyoming apartment
complex, canceled the CIBA program policy it purchased through
Great Lakes "due to poor claims handling" after paying "tens of
thousands of dollars in premiums and property assessments for
property and liability insurance."

Great Lakes is based in Munich, Germany.

The complaint was filed in California's Northern District by a
group of lawyers including William Levin, Laurel Simes and Rachel
Abrams of San Francisco's Levin Simes; William Merlin and Michael
Poli of Los Angeles' Merlin Law Group; Adam Moskowitz, Howard
Bushman and Adam Schwartzbaum of Coral Gables, Florida's
Moskowitz Law Firm; and Andrew Friedman of Phoenix, Arizona's
Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint.

"Our team has been investigating these Ponzi scheme claims for
over a year with some of the best experts in the country," said
Mr. Moskowitz, and "will all continue to meet with consumers that
have policies with CIBA, especially those in California where
CIBA is based."

The complaint said CIBA has been providing commercial property
insurance since 1993, but has expanded rapidly over the past 10
years.

"The reason this is scary is because they're not being regulated
as an insurance company, and the result are these precarious
policies," said Mr. Moskowitz.

Asked how CIBA has avoided scrutiny all these years,
Mr. Moskowitz said "they've been able to skirt the insurance
regulators, so there are no regulators checking their books every
month.  If they were following the law someone would have picked
this up."

There was no immediate reply from a CIBA communications official
on April 6, and Great Lakes could not be reached for comment.

A response statement from CIBA attorney Michael Kennick of
Fullerton, Calif.'s Kennick & Associates said the complaint's
allegations are "completely without merit.  The lawsuit is being
spearheaded by an attorney who has been making similar
allegations against CIBA for many years without success."

Mr. Kennick said a similar suit in DeKalb County, Ga. was thrown
out last year when the court "summarily dismissed with prejudice
all claims against CIBA (and its carriers) stating that the
allegations were void of any legal merit."

"The lawsuit falsely states that exhaustion of the $1 billion
limit of coverage can occur by a single natural disaster thereby
exposing CIBA and its member for all amounts above that limit,"
Mr. Kennick said.  "As a fact, the CIBA program provides a
dedicated limit of coverage above $1 billion that is not subject
to a group aggregate and applies up to the limits stated on the
Declaration Page of a member's policy, up to $150 million for
each insured."

CIBA's " business structure is reviewed by various insurance
experts, including a former Department of Insurance director, who
have consistently concluded that CIBA complies with applicable
insurance regulations and standards," Mr. Kennick said.

This post has been updated to include CIBA's response. [GN]


CITIMED MANAGEMENT: Jimenez Seeks Overtime Wages under Labor Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Jimenez, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Citimed Management Services Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 706258/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 23, 2018),
seeks to recover maximum liquidated damages (for the period after
April 9, 2011) and interest for being paid overtime wages and
non-overtime wages later than weekly, and costs and attorneys'
fees, pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

The Defendant was engaged in the business of providing physical
therapy services. The Defendant employed over 80 employees during
the class period across several locations. The Plaintiff was
employed by Defendant from in or around January 2016 until on or
about March 23, 2018. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as
a manual worker performing all manual, physical and repetitive
tasks within the capacity including cleaning, doing repairs,
handling patients and their belongings in and out, wheeling
patients in and out, etc. The Plaintiff was paid at a regular
rate of about $14 an hour. The Plaintiff and the putative class
members were paid on a bi-weekly basis in violation of NYLL.

The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff at a rate of at least 1.5
times his regular rate for overtime hours worked (hours over 40
in a week) - the Defendant paid the Plaintiff at his straight
regular rate for overtime hours worked. For example, for the
Biweekly pay period ending July 2, 2017, the Plaintiff worked at
least 82.52 hours and Defendant paid Plaintiff at his straight
regular rate of $14 an hour for each and all of these 82.52 hours
worked.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
          ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          215-28 Hillside Avenue
          Queens Village, NY 11427.
          Telephone: 718 740 1000
          Facsimile: 718 740 2000
          E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


COLONY NORTHSTAR: Faces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Colony NorthStar,
Inc. ("Colony NorthStar " or the "Company") (NYSE: CLNS) and
certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased
or otherwise acquired Colony securities between February 28, 2017
through March 1, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the
firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/clns.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Colony NorthStar's Healthcare
and Investment Management segments were performing worse than
reported; and (2) consequently, Colony NorthStar's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/clnsor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484.  If you
suffered a loss in Colony NorthStar you have until June 5, 2018
to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve
as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  It represents institutions and other investor
plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's
expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation,
as well as securities arbitration. [GN]


COLONY NORTHSTAR: June 5 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A
Professional Corporation, on April 9 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
purchasers of Colony NorthStar, Inc. (NYSE:CLNS) ("Colony
NorthStar" or the "Company") securities during the period between
February 28, 2017 through March 1, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  Investors who wish to become proactively involved in
the litigation have until June 5, 2018 to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff.

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

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that Colony
NorthStar's Healthcare and Investment Management segments were
performing worse than reported.

According to the complaint, following a March 1, 2018
announcement of a goodwill impairment of $375 million
attributable to the Investment Management segment and
disappointing performance due to challenging industry conditions
in healthcare, the value of Colony NorthStar shares declined
significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Colony NorthStar securities purchased on or after February 28,
2017 and held through the revelation of negative information
during and/or at the end of the Class Period and would like to
learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as
a lead plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please
contact Brower Piven either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com
or by telephone at (410) 415-6616. [GN]


COMMONWEALTH BANK: Four Large Pensions Funds Join Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that four large US
pension funds have joined a new class action against the
Commonwealth Bank over alleged breaches of continuous disclosure
obligations related to the lender's money-laundering scandal.

Law firm Phi Finney McDonald said it was approached by
sophisticated institutional investors to initiate an action after
they learned of an existing action filed in Federal Court in
October.

The action would seek compensation for anyone who acquired CBA
shares between June 16, 2014 and August 3, 2017 -- a longer
period than that covered by Maurice Blackburn's rival action.

Phi Finney McDonald director, Odette McDonald said their class
action is therefore open to a greater number of investors.

"We consider that the integrity of CBA's anti-money laundering
and counter-terrorism financing systems, and compliance with laws
and directions of regulators, was of incredible importance to CBA
shareholders", Ms McDonald said.

"This is clear from the proactive steps investors have taken in
driving this action".

The law firm is inviting investors to join the US pension funds,
which control billions of dollars, in signing up to the action.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn filed a statement of claim naming then
chief executive Ian Narev and current chair Catherine Livingstone
as being among those who knew regulator AUSTRAC had accused CBA
of breaching money-laundering and terrorism funding laws.

The lender was accused of failing to promptly disclose the 2015
allegations to the market.

The public pension funds involved are the California State
Teachers Retirement System, Teachers Retirement System of Texas,
Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Management Board, and
Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association.

CBA on April 10 said it has not received any formal
communications or documents in relation to the latest action.
[GN]


COMMUNITY PROBATION: Certification of Two Classes Sought
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KAREN MCNEIL, LESLEY JOHNSON, TANYA
MITCHELL, INDYA HILFORT, and SONYA BEARD, On behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. COMMUNITY
PROBATION SERVICES, LLC; COMMUNITY PROBATION SERVICES, L.L.C.;
COMMUNITY PROBATION SERVICES; PROGRESSIVE SENTENCING, INC.; PSI-
PROBATION II, LLC; PSI-PROBATION, L.L.C.; TENNESSEE CORRECTIONAL
SERVICES, LLC; TIMOTHY COOK; GILES COUNTY, TENNESSEE; PATRICIA
MCNAIR; MARKEYTA BLEDSOE; HARRIET THOMPSON, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-00033 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs move the court for
an order to certify classes:

Class for Equitable Relief:

   "all persons who, at any time since April 23, 2014, (1) have
   incurred, or will incur, court-imposed financial obligations
   arising from a traffic or misdemeanor case in Giles County
   General Sessions or Circuit Court; and (2) are currently being
   supervised, or will be supervised, on probation in that case
   by Community Probation Services, LLC, Community Probation
   Services, L.L.C., Community Probation Services, Progressive
   Sentencing, Inc., PSI-Probation II, LLC, PSI-Probation,
   L.L.C., or Tennessee Correctional Services, LLC"; and

Damages Class:

   "all persons who, at any time since April 23, 2014, (1) have
   incurred court-imposed financial obligations arising from a
   traffic or misdemeanor case in Giles County General Sessions
   or Circuit Court; and (2) have been assigned to be supervised
   on probation in that case by Community Probation Services,
   LLC, Community Probation Services, L.L.C., Community Probation
   Services, Progressive Sentencing, Inc., PSI-Probation II, LLC,
   PSI-Probation, L.L.C., or Tennessee Correctional Services,
   LLC."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Jbj3r6B9

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kyle Mothershead, Esq.
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 982 8002
          Facsimile: (615) 229 6387
          E-mail: kyle@mothersheadlaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Rossi, Esq.
          Jonas Wang, Esq.
          Eric Halperin, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          910 17th Street NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 599 0953
          Facsimile: (202) 609 8030
          E-mail: elizabeth@civilrightscorps.org
                  jonas@civilrightscorps.org
                  eric@civilrightscorps.org


CORDS & CO: Website Not Accessible to Blind, "Kiler" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARION KILER, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. THE CORDS & CO,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02375 (E.D.N.Y., April 23,
2018), seeks to recover damages caused by The Cords' failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using
his computer.

The lawsuit says the Defendant is denying blind and visually-
impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access
to the goods and services The Cords provides to their non-
disabled customers through http//:www.Thecords.com. The
Defendants' denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Thecords.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials, employment opportunities and other
programs offered by The Cords. Yet, Thecords.com contains
thousands of access barriers that make it difficult if not
impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the
website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for
blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction
on the website. Thus, The Cords excludes the blind and visually-
impaired from the full and equal participation in the growing
Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the
common marketplace and daily living.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

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


DAVIS STUART: Faces Class Action Over Wage Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
Katy Andersen, writing for 59 News, report that two former
employees of Davis Stuart have filed class action complaints
against the home for troubled youth in Lewisburg, accusing the
company of violating the West Virginia Wage Payment and
Collection Act

Connie Hamilton and Rocky Adkins are named in two separate
lawsuits against Davis Stuart.  Both allege the company did not
pay them properly.

According to court documents, Mr. Adkins and Ms. Hamilton allege
Davis Stuart required them to work before and after their
scheduled shifts, totaling more than 40 hours a week, but failed
to pay them any overtime.  They also said Davis Stuart did not
pay for their required training and travel time and failed to pay
retirement benefits in a "timely manner."

Mr. Adkins and Ms. Hamilton are being represented by Attorney
Stephen P. New.  According to Mr. New, since filing the lawsuit
in January, about two dozen more people who work and have
previously worked for Davis Stuart have come forward with the
same allegations.  He said he believes these practices date back
10 years.

According to their website, Davis Stuart "operates as a private,
non-profit organization providing services for adolescents ages
12-18, recovering from abuse, neglect, or behavioral issues."

59 News has reached out to Davis Stuart and is waiting for a
response.  A trial date has not been set at this time. [GN]


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Faces "Smith" Suit in N.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Tonia Smith, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, Cavalry SPV I, LLC and John Does
l-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00972-C (N.D. Tex., April 17,
2018).

Dynamic Recovery Solutions is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan David Kandelshein, Esq.
   The Law Offices of Jonathan Kandelshein
   18208 Preston Rd, Suite D-9 #256
   Dallas, TX 75252
   Tel: (469) 677-7863
   Fax: (972) 380-8118
   Email: Jonathan.kandelshein@gmail.com


EMBRAER SA: New York Judge Dismisses FCPA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Buckley Sandler on April 10 disclosed that a class action against
Brazilian aerospace firm Embraer SA was recently dismissed by
U.S. District Judge Richard Berman.  The class action, which was
brought in federal district court in New York, alleged that the
firm had failed to adequately disclose the scope and possible
financial impact of ongoing corruption investigations by the DOJ
and SEC, harming the company's investors.

In granting the firm's motion to dismiss, Judge Berman held that
the company's disclosures were sufficient as a matter of law, and
that requiring disclosures advocated by the putative class
plaintiffs would effectively require reporting companies to
acknowledge guilt for conduct that was still being investigated
and had not yet been charged.

The underlying bribery alleged in the complaint (and being
investigated by regulators) involves the firm's October 2016
admissions that from 2007 to 2011, company executives made
payments to government officials in several countries, including
the Dominican Republic, Saudi Arabia, Mozambique, and India,
totaling $11.5 million.  The firm received government contracts
resulting in profits over $83 million in exchange.

This decision is a clear win for publicly traded companies
currently under investigation for corruption-related conduct.
Had the case proceeded, companies may have faced difficult
choices between making more detailed disclosures to investors
regarding the potential merits of ongoing investigations and
protecting themselves against incriminatory public statements
about these same matters. [GN]


EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Sanfilippo Sues over Plunge in Stock Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN SANFILIPPO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. EDGE THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
BRIAN A. LEUTHNER, and ANDREW SAIK, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-08236 (D.N.J., April 23, 2018), seeks to recover
compensatory damages in favor of Plaintiff and the other Class
members against all defendants, jointly and severally, for all
damages sustained as a result of Defendants' wrongdoing, in an
amount to be proven at trial, including interest.

The case is a class action on behalf of all persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Edge common stock between
December 29, 2017 and March 27, 2018, inclusive. The Plaintiff
pursues claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Edge operates as a clinical-stage biotechnology company, to
discover, develop and commercialize hospital-based therapies for
the management of acute, life-threatening neurological
conditions. On March 28, 2018, the Company published a press
release announcing the discontinuation of the Phase 3 Newton 2
study, stating in relevant part. On this news the Company's
shares fell $14.28 per share, or over 90%, to close at $1.31 per
share on March 28, 2018.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: that the
Company's lead product candidate EG-1962 would likely fail a
futility analysis in connection with the NEWTON 2 study; and,
that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
statements and Defendants' statements about Edge's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts
and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of
the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages.[BN]

Counsel for Steven Sanfilippo:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,
          OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994 1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994 1744

               - and -

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


ENAGIC USA: Class and Subclasses in "Makaon" TCPA Suit Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDWARD MAKARON, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ENAGIC USA, INC., Defendants,
Case No. CV 15-05145 DDP (Ex)(C.D. Cal.), Judge Dean D. Pregerson
of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

Enagic is a "direct selling company" that markets alkaline water
filtration and ionization systems.  Enagic does not sell devices
to consumers in the United States directly, but instead utilizes
a network of thousands of distributors.  The parties dispute
whether these distributors are independent contractors or are
controlled by Enagic.

On May 18, 2015, the Plaintiff received a call on his cell phone.
When the Plaintiff answered the call, he heard a 22-minute
prerecorded phone message encouraging him to purchase an Enagic
water machine and to become a distributor.  Two days later, the
Plaintiff received a phone call from Gary Nixon, who tried to
convince him to purchase an Enagic product and recruit him to be
an Enagic salesperson.

Under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), it is
unlawful to make any call using any automatic telephone dialing
system or an artificial or prerecorded voice to any cellular
telephone service.  It is also unlawful to initiate a phone call
to a residential phone line with an artificial or prerecorded
voice.

The Plaintiff represents that he has obtained information from
third party calling services, including Phone Prospector and
Phone Burner, that three of the thousands of distributors
associated with the Defendant made over 15,000 phone calls using
third party phone dialing systems.  The Plaintiff's Second
Amended Complaint alleges that Engagic and/or its distributors,
who are alleged to be Enagic's agents, called his cell phone with
an automatic dialing system and played a pre-recorded message, in
violation of the TCPA.

The Plaintiff now moves to certify a class under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) comprised of all
persons within the United States who received a telephone call
from Defendant or one of its Distributors, on said Class Member's
telephone made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing
system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, between July 8,
2011 and Present, as well as various related subclasses.

Judge Pregerson granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.  He certified a class comprised of all persons
within the United States who received a telephone call from the
Defendant or one of its Distributors, on said Class Member's
telephone made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing
system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, between July 8,
2011 and Present.

The Judge also certified these subclasses:

     (1) Prerecorded Voice Subclass, comprised of all persons
within the United States who received a telephone call from
Defendant or one of its Distributors, on said Class Member's
telephone made through the use of any system that utilized an
artificial Case 2:15-cv-05145-DDP-E Document 101 Filed 03/13/18
Page 15 of 16 Page ID #:3132 or prerecorded voice, between July
8, 2011 and Present;

     (2) Cell Phone Subclass, comprised of all persons within the
United States who received a telephone call from Defendant or one
of its Distributors, on said Class Member's cellular telephone
made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or
an artificial or prerecorded voice, between July 8, 2011 and
Present;

     (3) Prerecorded Voice Cell Phone Subclass, comprised of all
persons within the United States who received a telephone call
from Defendant or one of its Distributors, on said Class Member's
cellular telephone made through the use of any system that
utilized an artificial or prerecorded voice, between July 8, 2011
and Present; and

     (4) Prerecorded Voice Cell Phone 2015 subclass, comprised of
all persons within the United States who received a telephone
call from Defendant or one of its Distributors, on said Class
Member's cellular telephone made through the use of any system
that utilized an artificial or prerecorded voice, between Jan. 1,
2015 and Dec. 31, 2015.

Judge Pregerson appointed the Plaintiff as the Class
Representative and his attorneys as the Class Counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/xBrVi1 from Leagle.com.

Edward Makaron, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Meghan Elisabeth George , Law
Offices of Todd M Friedman PC, Thomas Edward Wheeler --
twheeler@toddflaw.com -- Todd M Friedman Law Offices PC, Adrian
Robert Bacon -- abacon@toddflaw.com -- Law Offices of Todd
Friedman PC & Todd M. Friedman --
tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com -- Todd M Friedman Law
Offices PC.

Enagic USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andre Joseph
Cronthall -- acronthall@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin
Richter and Hampton LLP, Dwight M. Francis --
dfrancis@gardere.com -- Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP, pro hac vice,
Fred R. Puglisi -- fpuglisi@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin
Richter and Hampton LLP & Jay T. Ramsey --
jramsey@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton
LLP.


EXPERIAN INFO: Wilson and White Sue over Background Checks
----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN WILSON and NIEYSHA WHITE, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. EXPERIAN
INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 37-2018-
D0019369-CU-NP-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., April 20, 2018), seeks to
recover damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, in
negligently and willfully inaccurately reporting the location of
the courthouse in which Plaintiffs filed for bankruptcy in
violation of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Experian is a "consumer reporting agency" which publishes
information bearing on a consumer's credit worthiness, credit
standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation,
personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or
expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the
purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer's
eligibility for, among other things, credit to be used primarily
for personal, family, or household purposes, and employment
purposes.

As a "consumer reporting agency," the Defendant was required to
follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy
of the information concerning the individual about whom the
report related, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. section 1681 e(b). The
Plaintiffs' consumer report contained inaccurate information.

On January 28, 2016, Wilson filed bankruptcy in the United States
Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of California located at 325
West F Street, San Diego, CA 92101. Sometime thereafter, or about
November 22, 2016, Wilson requested and obtained a copy of his
consumer report from Experian. Upon close inspection, Wilson
realized that Experian had reported the location of his
bankruptcy information as "940 FRONT ST RM 5N26, SAN DIEGO CA
92101", rather than the true address.

On April 24, 2017, White filed bankruptcy in the United States
Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of California located at 325
West F Street, San Diego, CA 92101. Sometime thereafter, or about
September 28, 2017, White requested and obtained a copy of her
consumer report from Experian. Upon close inspection, White
realized that Experian had reported the location of her
bankruptcy information as "940 FRONT ST RM 5N26, SAN DIEGO CA
92101", rather than the true address as indicated.

As a consumer reporting agency, Experian had a duty and
obligation to report true and accurate information regarding
public records. The Plaintiffs believe that the inaccuracy was
due to Defendant's unreasonable procedures. As a result of
Defendant's inaccuracy, the Plaintiffs suffered injury and such
injury was caused by Defendant's inclusion of the inaccurate
entry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Mona Amini, Esq.
          Veronica Cruz, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400 6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520 5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  mona@kazlg.com
                  veronica@kazlg.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 222 7249
          Facsimile: (866) 431 3292
          E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com


EZ CHOICE: Henry Sues over Recurring Debit Practices
----------------------------------------------------
SANDRA HENRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. EZ CHOICE FINANCIAL CORP. and
DOES 1-10, the Defendant(s), Case No. 8:18-cv-00694 (C.D. Cal.,
April 23, 2018), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and
any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from
the illegal actions of Defendants debiting Plaintiff's and the
putative Class members' bank accounts on a recurring basis
without obtaining a written authorization signed or similarly
authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund transfers from
Plaintiff's and the putative Class members' accounts, thereby
violating the California False Advertising Act; California Unfair
Business Practices Act; and the Federal Credit Repair
Organizations Act; and the California Credit Services Act.

The Plaintiff also seeks to stop Defendant's continued false
advertisement of providing a money back guarantee for their
service, when in fact, they refuse to return any monies paid to
them for their services; and to stop Defendant's gathering of
payments for credit repair services prior to actually rendering
any services to consumers.

According to the complaint, prior to May of 2017, the Plaintiff
entered into an agreement with Defendant, whereby Defendant would
deduct funds from Plaintiff's account on a reoccurring basis.
However, in or around October of 2017, Plaintiff canceled this
service. Despite this, Defendant continued to deduct funds from
Plaintiff's account multiple times on a reoccurring basis,
without Plaintiff's consent or authorization. The Defendant's
automatic withdrawals caused an overdraft on Plaintiff's bank
account, causing her actual injury in the forms of additional
fees. The Plaintiff never provided Defendant with any
authorization to deduct these sums of money on a regular
recurring basis from Plaintiff's banking account after the
cancellation of the service. The Defendants continued to deduct
this monthly sum from Plaintiff for several months without
Plaintiff's authorization. Additionally, Defendants did not
provide to Plaintiff, nor did the Plaintiff execute, any written
or electronic writing memorializing or authorizing these
recurring or automatic payments in the first instance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Cambridge Analytica Class Action in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fields PLLC disclosed that on April 10, 2018, a class action
lawsuit against Facebook, Inc., in the United States Federal
District Court in Delaware, was filed on behalf of both American
and British Facebook users, alleging the social media company
failed to protect the personal information of 70.6 million
Facebook users in the U.S. and another more than 1 million in the
United Kingdom.  The lawsuit was also filed against Cambridge
Analytica LLC, SCL Group Limited and Global Science Research
Limited, organizations that obtained the Facebook user data to
develop and foster political propaganda campaigns.  The suit also
names Aleksandr Kogan, a founding director of Global Science
Research Ltd.  Former Trump campaign and White House Advisor
Steve Bannon led Cambridge Analytica in 2014 at the time the data
was collected and extracted.  Rebekah Mercer, a prominent Trump
campaign donor, was a member of the board of Cambridge Analytica
at the time.

"Facebook utterly failed in its duty and promise to secure the
personal information of millions of its users, and, when aware
that this stolen information was aimed against its owners, it
failed to take appropriate action," said Robert Ruyak --
robertr@ruyakcherian.com -- co-lead counsel in the class action
suit.  "Facebook must be held responsible for failing to protect
its users' personal information.  We must also make certain that
organizations like Cambridge Analytica and their benefactors --
the Mercer family and Steve Bannon -- are held accountable for
this egregious theft and misuse and cannot further exploit it."

"Facebook has made billions of dollars selling advertisements
targeted to its customers, and in this instance made millions
selling advertisements to political campaigns that developed
those very ads on the back of their customers' own stolen
personal information," said co-lead counsel Richard Fields.
"That's unacceptable, and they must be held accountable."

"The defendants effectively abused the human right to privacy of
ordinary Facebook users and, if that were not enough, then the
fruits of that abuse are alleged to have undermined the
democratic process.  This case will go some way to ensure that
neither of these things can happen in the future," said co-
counsel Jason McCue -- jason.mccue@mccue-law.com -- an expert on
UK data privacy and human rights law.

The lawsuit alleges that in 2014, Cambridge Analytica, SCL and
GSR improperly acquired the personal information of 71.6 million
Facebook users, including names, phone numbers, mailing and email
addresses, political and religious affiliations, and interests.
This was done to accomplish Cambridge Analytica's driving
principle: to build psychological profiles of voters to effect
election results in the United States and The United Kingdom.

GSR was granted access by Facebook to collect data solely for
academic research.  Instead the data was used by Cambridge
Analytica and GSR for purely political and commercial purposes.
The information was obtained by using a digital application
called thisisyourdigitallife, developed by Cambridge University
psychologist Aleksandr Kogan.  Mr. Kogan created a personality
quiz that required individuals to use their Facebook login
credentials to take the quiz.  Approximately 270,000 Facebook
users installed the application, and gave their personal
information to Mr. Kogan and Cambridge Analytica.  The design of
the application allowed Mr. Kogan and Cambridge Analytica to
obtain without consent the personal information of more than 71
million Facebook users in the U.S. and U.K. who were Friends of
the original 270,000 users.  When Facebook first learned of the
true nature of Cambridge Analytica's work in 2015, they failed to
notify Facebook users and to ensure that the stolen data was
destroyed, which enabled its use through the 2016 U.S. elections
and the June 2016 UK "Brexit" Referendum.

The plaintiffs are represented by co-lead counsel Robert Ruyak of
RuyakCherian LLP, and Richard Fields of Fields PLLC, both in
Washington, D.C., by Jason McCue and Matthew Jury --
matthew.jury@mccue-law.com -- of McCue & Partners LLP in London,
and by Christopher P. Simon -- csimon@crosslaw.com -- of Cross &
Simon, LLC in Wilmington, Delaware. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Another Class Action Over Data Misuse
---------------------------------------------------------
Shara Tibken, writing for Cnet, reports that a law firm on
April 9 filed another lawsuit against Facebook for failing to
protect consumer data.

The suit, following a similar case, was filed in the US District
Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose.  It
accuses Facebook of "unjust enrichment and violation of privacy
and consumer-protection laws when it permitted app developers and
other third parties to exploit its 'lax to non-existent
enforcement practices,'" according to a press release from law
firm Hagens Berman.

The firm alleges breach of contract and violation of California's
unfair competition law, among other complaints.  The suit asks
for damages to be awarded to the plaintiffs, as well as
injunctive relief "to ensure that Facebook's users are not
injured by similar shenanigans again."  It wants class action
status.

Facebook reiterated a comment from Paul Grewal, its deputy
general counsel.  "We are committed to vigorously enforcing our
policies to protect people's information," he said in response to
the awsuit.  "We will take whatever steps are required to see
that this happens."

Facebook has been facing the biggest scandal in its 14-year
history.  Personal info from about 300,000 users was originally
collected in 2013 for a personality quiz app called This is Your
Digital Life, designed by Aleksandr Kogan, a Cambridge University
researcher.  Because of how Facebook worked at the time,
Mr. Kogan was able to access data from friends of the quiz takers
-- up to 87 million of them -- and share the information with
Cambridge Analytica.  The data analytics firm then may have used
the data to help the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential
election.

Outcry over the misuse of data has caused Facebook to make
changes to its site, including launching a tool to notify users
if they were affected by the Cambridge Analytica data scandal.
Facebook also announced new privacy settings and a clearer
privacy policy and said it's auditing the thousands of apps on
its site to make sure it knows how data is being collected.

CEO Mark Zuckerberg was slated to testify before Congress on
April 10 and April 11.  The US government wants Mr. Zuckerberg to
explain how so much personal data could have been shared about
users, as well as what he's doing to prevent this from happening
in the future.

Attorney John Yanchunis of law firm Morgan & Morgan filed a
lawsuit against Facebook and requested class action status. That
suit alleges the companies violated California's unfair
competition law. It seeks damages paid to plaintiff Lauren Price
and, as a proposed class action, to others similarly affected.

The April 9 lawsuit alleges that "Facebook stood idly by" while
an app developer "sucked down the data portfolios of 70 million-
plus of its users."  It also said that Facebook "made only the
weakest attempts to prevent further access to this data."

That complaint initially includes three plaintiffs: Carol Johnson
from Novato, California; Daniel Paul of Boulder, Colorado; and
Steve Mortillaro of Nashville, Tennessee.  They say that Facebook
likely shared their data with Cambridge Analytica without their
permission.

Hagens Berman is seeking additional people to join its proposed
class action suit.  It noted that it "has represented millions of
consumers in class action cases, recovering more than $200
billion in victories and settlements."

"Facebook has repeatedly failed to uphold its own privacy
agreements and policies, and it's brazenly neglected the data
security of the billions of those who use its social media
service," Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman, said
in a statement.  "Instead of choosing to be vigilant, making
appropriate investments in data security and stopping this
massive harvesting of users' information by third parties,
Facebook stood by as the private information of millions was
funneled into the hands of bad actors." [GN]


FALCON RECOVERY: Faces "Lord" Suit in N.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Falcon Recovery
Systems, LLC. The case is styled as Amanda Lord, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Falcon
Recovery Systems, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-00475-FJS-CFH
(N.D. N.Y., April 18, 2018).

Falcon Recovery Systems LLC offers adjustment and collection
service located in Canton, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
   Marcus & Zelman, LLC
   701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
   Asbury Park, NJ 07712
   Tel: (845) 367-7146
   Fax: (732) 298-6256
   Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


FAMOUS DAVE'S: "Broad" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE BROAD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FAMOUS DAVE'S RIBS INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 508082/2018 (S.D. Fla., April 20, 2018),
seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, and other
damages for Plaintiff and their similarly-situated co-workers -
servers, bartenders, and other similarly situated non-tipped
employees -- who work or have worked for the Famous Dave's
restaurant located at 1060 Corporate Drive, Westbury, NY 11590.

According to the complaint, throughout Plaintiff's employment,
Defendant applied a tip credit to Tipped Employees' wages and
paid Tipped Employees a reduced minimum wage rate. The Defendant,
however, did not satisfy the requirements under the New York
Labor Law or the Fair Labor Standards Act by which they could
take a tip credit towards the hourly rates paid to Tipped
Employees. In that regard, Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff
and other Tipped Employees with notification of the tipped
minimum wage rate or tip credit provisions of the NYLL or the
FLSA, or of their intent to apply a tip credit to Plaintiffs and
other Tipped Employees' wages. As a result, the Defendant is
liable to Tipped Employees for the difference between the full
minimum wage rate and the tipped minimum wage rate paid for all
hours worked up to 40 each workweek. The Defendant applied the
same employment policies, practices, and procedures to all Tipped
Employees at the Famous Dave's in Westbury, New York.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Collective:

          Brian S. Scnaffer, Esq.
          Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300 0375

Counsel to Defendant:

          David Feather, Esq.
          FEATHER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          666 Old Country Rd #605
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 745 9000
          E-mail: dfeather@featherlawfirm.com


FOREVER 21: Faces "Hameed-Bolden" Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forever 21 Retail,
Inc. The case is captioned as Jowharah Hameed-Bolden and Ali
Conrad O'Brien, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Forever 21 Retail, Inc. and Forever
21, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03019-SJO-JPR (C.D.
Cal., April 10, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge S.
James Otero.

Forever 21 operates retail stores for clothing and accessories
for shoppers in United States and Canada. The stores offer casual
tops, dressy tops, basics, sweaters, outerwear, pants, shorts,
dresses, skirts, and denim clothing.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin F Ruf, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY AND MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201 9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201 9160
          E-mail: kruf@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN AND MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 275 5272
          Facsimile: (813) 275 9295
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com


G. WELDING: Sanchez Seeks Unpaid Wages and Overtime under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARCELINO SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. G. WELDING CONTRACTOR, CORP.,
a Florida Corporation, and ROBERLAY ROMERO, individually, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-21593-JEM (S.D. Fla., April 20,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable attorneys' fees
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants had knowledge of the
actual hours worked by Plaintiff and other similarly situated
non-exempt employees in multiple work weeks between April 2015
and the present, all of which work was for the benefit of
Defendants. Nonetheless, the Defendants knowingly and willfully
failed to compensate Plaintiff and the other similarly situated
employees with time and one-half wages for all of their actual
overtime hours worked, instead accepting the benefits of the work
performed by Plaintiff and the others similarly situated to him
without paying the overtime compensation required by the FLSA.

G. Welding is a full service metal and aluminum fabricator
providing welding and installation services of fences, doors,
decks, stairs, and railings, for residential and commercial
customers throughout the State of Florida.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Keith M. Stern, Esq.
          Hvazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
          One Flagler
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 901 1379
          Facsimile: (561) 288 9031
          E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
                  hsolis@workingforyou.com


GALVESTON, TX: ACLU Sues Over Discriminatory Bail Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Newsfix reports that the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas
and Arnold & Porter has filed a federal class-action lawsuit
against Galveston County, for violating the constitutional rights
of people arrested for misdemeanors and felonies.

The lawsuit alleges that the county's Judge's, Magistrates, and
the District Attorney's hold alleged criminals in jail if they
can't afford bail, while allowing those who can pay to go home to
their families, jobs, and communities.  With each day in jail,
the person's chances for a fair trial diminishes as evidence and
witnesses disappear, and many who are innocent usually plead
guilty simply to end the ordeal.

This is the first filing by the ACLU to include the District
Attorney as a defendant in bail reform litigation.

The plaintiff Aaron Booth, age 36, was arrested on Apr. 8, for
drug possession. He cannot afford the $20,000 money bail required
by the court's bail schedule.  Mr. Booth fears losing his job
because he is in jail.

"A system that requires people to buy their freedom is not a
system interested in dispensing justice," said Trisha Trigilio,
senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Texas.  "Our client is
seeking one thing, a fair hearing. Rich or poor, everyone should
have a meaningful chance for a judge to hear them out before they
are locked in a jail cell but that's not what's happening in
Galveston County."

Galveston's system of wealth-based detention is arbitrary, the
lawsuit argues.  Each offense has an assigned dollar amount.  If
a person can arrange to pay the full amount to the sheriff in
cash or property, or can arrange for payment through a bail bond
company or another third party, the sheriff releases that person
automatically.  Those who cannot pay the predetermined bail
amount must remain in jail indefinitely.

"A person's wealth should never decide their freedom, but that's
exactly what's happening in Texas and across the country," said
Brandon Buskey, staff attorney with the ACLU's Criminal Law
Reform Project.  "Galveston's bail system disregards the
presumption of innocence, destroys families, and negatively
affects jobs, and homes."

The lawsuit against Galveston County is a continuation of efforts
from the ACLU Campaign for Smart Justice to end wealth-based bail
detention in Texas and across the nation.  The ACLU Campaign for
Smart Justice hopes to reduce the U.S. jail and prison population
by 50 percent and combat racial disparities in the criminal
justice system.  They also plan to end money bail and eliminate
wealth-based pretrial detention through legislative advocacy,
voter education, and litigation.

"Studies consistently show that individuals who are held in jail
until trial are more likely to be convicted, and more likely to
be sentenced to prison, than those who are released pending
trial," said Christopher Odell --
christopher.odell@arnoldporter.com -- an attorney with Arnold &
Porter. "Our goal is to ensure that the criminal justice system
is fair to everyone in Galveston County, whether they're rich or
poor or somewhere in between." [GN]


GLOBAL EXECUTIVE: Levy Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled NURIT LEVY f/k/a NURIT LAVERTOVSKY, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. GLOBAL EXECUTIVE SOLUTIONS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 9:18-
cv-80284-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons (a) with a Florida address, (b) to whom Global
      Executive Solutions, LLC, (c) between March 6, 2017 and
      March 6, 2018, (d) in connection with the collection of a
      consumer debt, (e) mailed an initial debt collection
      communication not returned to Global Executive Solutions,
      LLC as undeliverable, (f) that stated (i) "[i]f you dispute
      this amount, or any portion thereof, you need to dispute
      the account in writing within 30 days," or (ii) "[i]f you
      notify us in writing within 30 days of receiving this
      notice, this office will obtain verification of the debt or
      obtain a copy of a judgment or verification."

   2. appointing herself as class representative; and

   3. appointing her counsel as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PFoNJ1yW

Counsel for Plaintiff and the proposed class:

          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826 5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961 5684
          E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
          Kuhn Raslavich, P.A.
          2124 W. Kennedy Blvd., Suite B
          Tampa, Florida 33606
          Telephone: (813) 422 7782
          Facsimile: (813) 422 7783
          E-mail: ben@thekrfirm.com


GOHEALTH LLC: Beck Seeks to Certify 4 Classes
---------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MATTHEW TODD BECK, individually and on
behalf of all CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. GOHEALTH, LLC, a foreign limited liability
company; NORVAX, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; and
BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF FLORIDA, INC., d/b/a FLORIDA BLUE,
a foreign corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02889
(N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify these
classes:

Auto-Dialed Calls Class:

   "all persons within the United States subscribing to a
   cellular telephone number to which GoHealth Defendants
   initiated a telephone call for health insurance marketing
   purposes through the Predictive Dialer, Broker Dialer, or
   similar system, from April 23, 2014 through the date the Court
   rules on Plaintiff's motion for class certification, whose
   telephone number was obtained prior to July 9, 2015";

Auto-Dialed Calls BCBSFL Class:

   "all persons within the United States subscribing to a
   cellular telephone number to which GoHealth Defendants or
   BCBSFL or both initiated a telephone call in order to market
   BCBSFL health insurance through the Predictive Dialer, Broker
   Dialer, or similar system, from April 23, 2014 through the
   date the Court rules on Plaintiff's motion for class
   certification, whose telephone number was obtained prior to
   July 9, 2015";

Prerecorded Calls Class:

   "all persons within the United States subscribing to a
   residential or cellular telephone number to which GoHealth
   Defendants a telephone call for health insurance marketing
   purposes using an artificial or prerecorded voice, from April
   23, 2014 through the date the Court rules on Plaintiff's
   motion for class certification, whose telephone number was
   obtained prior to July 9, 2015"; and

Prerecorded Calls BCBSFL Class:

   "all persons within the United States subscribing to a
   residential or cellular telephone number to which GoHealth
   Defendants or BCBSFL or both initiated a telephone call in
   order to market BCBSFL health insurance using an artificial or
   prerecorded voice, from April 23, 2014 through the date the
   Court rules on Plaintiff's motion for class certification,
   whose telephone number was obtained prior to July 9, 2015."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Zr3p80lh

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726 1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726 1093
          E-mail: Keith@KeoghLaw.com


GOODLIFE FITNESS: Settles Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Sara Mojtehedzadeh, writing for The Star, reports that gym giant
GoodLife Fitness has settled a class-action lawsuit over unpaid
wages for $7.5 million, after employees claimed the company
"systematically failed" to accurately compensate them for hours
of work and overtime.

The suit originally filed in October 2016 by Toronto-based labour
law firm Goldblatt Partners alleged that the gym did not pay
employees for certain kinds of work, such as preparation for
classes and seeking out new clients, and created "an unlawful
barrier to payment of overtime" at its 166 locations across
Ontario.

Last year, the scope of the suit was expanded nationwide -- so
the settlement, which is pending court approval, will impact
thousands of current and former non-managerial employees across
Canada.

After the $60 million class action launched, GoodLife made
significant changes to its payment policies.  It began paying
personal trainers for their prospecting hours and removed
clawbacks on their commission.  It also began paying trainers for
preparation and administrative tasks and paying lieu time at
time-and-a-half, rather than straight time, as required by law.

Carrie Eklund, the representative plaintiff in the suit, said she
was "proud of what this case and this settlement have achieved
for GoodLife employees."

"I started this class action because I believed GoodLife
employees deserved to be paid for all of their hard work, and the
changes this claim encouraged and the settlement money to be paid
to the class go a long way towards that goal."

Personal trainers will get around $5.5 million out of the
settlement, and fitness advisers around $800,000.  Other job
classifications will be paid out from the balance of the $7.5
million settlement. Individual dollar figures will be determined
based on the amount of work employees did at the gym from October
2014 to the end of December 2017.

GoodLife will donate cheques that are not cashed after six months
to the Canadian Cancer Society.

David Patchell-Evans, the founder and CEO of GoodLife Fitness,
said in an emailed statement that he could not comment on the
specifics of the settlement as it is still before the courts, but
said it was "important to come to a settlement that is reasonable
for all to bring closure to this case."

"We are hopeful that the court approves the proposed settlement
so that we may continue on our journey to provide the best
experience for our members and associates."

Goldblatt lawyer Josh Mandryk said the settlement would put
"millions of dollars into the pockets of current and former
GoodLife employees, and the changes encouraged by this class
action will mean millions more in wages for current and future
employees each year going forward."

"Work in the fitness industry is notoriously precarious," said
Goldblatt co-counsel Christine Davies.  "This settlement and the
changes made since this class action was filed sent a strong
message that all work must be paid and will have reverberations
throughout the fitness industry."

The Star has previously reported on an organizing campaign at
GoodLife that resulted in around 650 Toronto personal trainers
unionizing after complaints of poor pay and health and safety
concerns.

Unionized employees are eligible for settlement payouts up until
Dec. 5, 2017, when they signed their first collective agreement.

GoodLife will also pay $1 million in legal fees for the
plaintiffs. [GN]


HERBALIFE INT'L: Files Motion to Dismiss RICO Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Lane, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Herbalife
International, a global multi-level marketing corporation, on
Dec. 22 filed a motion to dismiss a legal action filed against
the company that alleged violation of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The motion was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

In the motion for dismissal, Herbalife attorneys said that
plaintiffs like Jeff Rodgers did not allege the most basic
elements of a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
claim.

"The complaint does not, and cannot, allege the existence of a
distinct enterprise as opposed to the ordinary business affairs
of Herbalife and its distributor network," the motion states.

Herbalife also stated that plaintiffs did not allege a cognizable
injury to their businesses or property, but instead experienced
losses stemming from a failed business opportunity. It alleges
that this is not recoverable under RICO.

Another argument made by Herbalife's attorneys was that the case
should be dismissed because payment had already been made to some
of the plaintiffs in a previous lawsuit, Bostick v. Herbalife.
It stated that the other plaintiffs should not receive payment
because their claims are subject to arbitration.

Charges of misrepresentation were the basis of this lawsuit filed
by the former Herbalife distributors and some of their spouses in
September.  As stated in the defendant's motion, plaintiffs say
that the promises made by Herbalife about achieving a "guaranteed
pathway to attaining life-changing financial success" were not
realistic.  To achieve this financial success, the distributors
said they were "encouraged" to attend every training event and
spent thousands to attend them.

As a result, plaintiffs asked to be reimbursed for the cost of
attending these training events as well as the money they spent
on what they considered to be a "fraudulent and illusory"
business opportunity, the motion states.

In addition, plaintiffs alleged that Herbalife was conducting a
RICO operation.  According to the U.S. Department of Justice, in
order to be found guilty of violating the RICO statute, it must
be proved "that an enterprise existed, that the enterprise
affected interstate commerce, that the defendant was associated
with or employed by the enterprise, that the defendant engaged in
a pattern of racketeering activity and that the defendant
conducted or participated in the conduct of the enterprise
through the commission of at least two acts of racketeering
activity as set forth in the indictment."

This lawsuit is but one of several filed against Herbalife, a
company that offers nutritional supplements, weight management,
sports nutrition and personal care products.

In another legal action in 2016, conducted by the Federal Trade
Commission, Herbalife agreed to a $200 million settlement with
the FTC. This was based on the allegations that the company had
been offering more compensation for recruitment of new
distributors than for sales of the products.

"This settlement will require Herbalife to fundamentally
restructure its business so that participants are rewarded for
what they sell, not how many people they recruit," FTC Chairwoman
Edith Ramirez said in the press release.  "Herbalife is going to
have to start operating legitimately, making only truthful claims
about how much money its members are likely to make, and it will
have to compensate consumers for the losses they have suffered as
a result of what we charge are unfair and deceptive practices."
[GN]


HOMETOWN RESTORATION: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Darcy Reddan, writing for Law360, reports that New York-based
construction company Hometown Restoration LLC has been hit with a
potential collective action that alleges its employees were not
properly compensated for working overtime, according to a
complaint filed in New York federal court on April 6.

A former employee of Hometown Restoration, Segundo Alfredo Zaruma
Angamarca, alleged that the construction company violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law by failing to
properly compensate employees for overtime hours worked or
provide notice of employees' rights.

The case is Alfredo Zaruma Angamarca et al v. Hometown
Restoration, LLC et al, Case No. 1:18-cv-03058 (S.D.N.Y.).  The
case is assigned to Judge Alison J. Nathan.  The case was filed
April 6, 2018. [GN]


HOSTMARK HOSPITALITY: Robertson Sues over Biometric Data
--------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS ROBERTSON, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HOSTMARK HOSPITALITY GROUP,
INC., RAINTREE ENTERPRISES MART PLAZA, INC., INTERCONTINENTAL
HOTELS GROUP OPERATING CORP. d/b/a HOLIDAY INN CHICAGO MART PLAZA
RIVER NORTH, the Defendants, Case No. 2018-CH-05194 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., Cook Cty., April 20, 2018), seeks to redress and curtail
Defendants' unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of
Plaintiffs sensitive biometric data.

According to the complaint, when Defendants hire an employee, he
or she is enrolled in its employee database. The Defendants use
the employee database to monitor the time worked by its hourly
employees. While most employers use conventional methods for
tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks),
the Defendants' employees are required to have their fingerprints
scanned by a biometric timekeeping device. Biometrics are not
relegated to esoteric comers of commerce. Many businesses -- such
as Defendants -- and financial institutions have incorporated
biometric applications into their workplace in the form of
biometric timeclocks, and into consumer products, including such
ubiquitous consumer products as checking accounts and cell
phones. Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be changed or
replaced if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are unique,
permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee.
This exposes Defendants' employees to serious and irreversible
privacy risks. For example, if a database containing fingerprints
or other sensitive, proprietary biometric data is hacked,
breached, or otherwise exposed - like in the recent Equifax and
Uber data breaches - employees have no means by which to prevent
identity theft, unauthorized tracking or other unlawful or
improper use of this highly personal and private information.

Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like
these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act
("BIPA"), 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq., specifically to regulate
companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics,
such as fingerprints. Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal
requirements of the law, Defendants' disregard their employees'
statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collect,
store, disseminate and use their employees' biometric data in
violation of BIPA.

Hostmark Hospitality Group, is a hotel management company located
in Schaumburg, IL and operates throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan
          James B. Zouras
          Stephan Zouras, LLP
          205 N. Michigan A venue Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: 312 233 1550
          Facsimile: 312 233 1560
          E-mail: aficzko@stephanzouras.com


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces "Brogan" Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hyundai Motor
America. The case is styled as Maryanne Brogan, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hyundai
Motor America, Kia Motors America Inc, Hyundai Motor Company and
Kia Motors Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-00622-DOC-
KES (C.D. Cal., April 16, 2018).

The Hyundai Motor Company is a South Korean multinational
automotive manufacturer headquartered in Seoul, South Korea.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Austin B Cohen, Esq.
   Charles E Schaffer, Esq.
   Daniel C Levin, Esq.
   LevinSedran and Berman LLP
   510 Walnut Street Suite 500
   Philadelphia, PA 19106
   Tel: (215) 592-1500
   Fax: (215) 592-4663
   Email: acohen@lfsblaw.com
          CSchaffer@lfsblaw.com
          dlevin@lfsblaw.com

      - and -

   Jeffrey L Koenig, Esq.
   Hecht KleegerPintel and Damashek
   19 West 44th Street Suite 1500
   New York, NY 10036
   Tel: (212) 490-5700
   Fax: (212) 490-4800
   Email: koenig@lawyer1.com


IDENTIV INC: "Cunningham" Securities Suit Dismissal Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS CUNNINGHAM, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. IDENTIV, INC.;
et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-15220 (9th Cir.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
court's dismissal of Cunningham's Second Amended Complaint.

In this putative class action, Lead Plaintiff Cunningham appeals
the district court's dismissal of his Second Amended Complaint
alleging securities fraud by Identiv Inc., Identiv's former CEO
Jason Hart, and Identiv's former CFO Brian Nelson in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Appellate Court reviewed de novo the district court's
dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  It found that Cunningham (i) failed to
adequately plead scienter as required by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1995; (ii) failed to allege specific facts giving rise to a
strong inference, at least as compelling as any opposing
inference, that the Defendants acted with contemporaneous intent
to defraud investors; (iii) did not adequately plead loss
causation; and (iv) failed to establish a causal connection
between a material misrepresentation and the loss faced by the
Plaintiffs.

The Court concluded that the second amended complaint lacked
specific facts indicating that the decline in the Defendant's
stock price was proximately caused by a revelation of fraudulent
activity rather than by changing market conditions, changing
investor expectations, or other unrelated factors.  Accordingly,
it adopted the detailed and well-reasoned analysis in the
district court's order entered Jan. 4, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/jMCKBV from Leagle.com.


INTEGRITY PIZZA: Underpays Delivery Drivers, McKeon Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MCKEON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, v. INTEGRITY PIZZA LLC, and INFINITY
PIZZA LLC d/b/a Domino's Pizza, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00932 (D. Colo., April 20, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages and overtime hours owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated
delivery drivers employed by Defendants at its Domino's stores,
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act,
the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, and the Colorado Minimum Wage
Order.

The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores.
The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for
the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their
vehicles, the Defendants use a flawed method to determine
reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate
beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur
that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall
below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Forester, Esq.
          Matthew Haynie, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
          Dallas, Texas 75202
          Telephone: (214) 210 2100
          Facsimile: (214) 346 5909
          E-mail: www.foresterhaynie.com


INTERSTATE NATIONAL: Faces "Gattuso" Suit in N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Interstate National
Dealer Services, Inc. The case is captioned as Frank Gattuso,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Interstate National Dealer Services, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01536-MHC (N.D. Ga., April 10, 2018).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Mark H. Cohen.

Interstate National Dealer Services, Inc. provides service
contract and extended warranty programs in the United States and
Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robin Frazer Clark, Esq.
          ROBIN FRAZER CLARK, PC
          Centennial Tower, Suite 2300
          101 Marietta Street, N.W.
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 873 3700
          Facsimile: (404) 876 2555
          E-mail: robinclark@gatriallawyers.net


JANI-KING INC: "Mujo" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SIMON MUJO and INDRIT MUHARREMI, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. JANI-KING INTERNATIONAL, INC., JANI-KING INC., and JANI-KING
OF HARTFORD, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01990-VAB (D.
Conn.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all individuals who have entered into a franchise
      agreement with Jani-King and performed cleaning services
      for Jani-King in Connecticut since December 5, 2010";

   2. designating themselves as Class Representatives; and

   3. designating their counsel, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. and
      The Hayber Law Firm, LLC, as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=REDwa6ee

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter Delano, Esq.
          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994 5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994 5801
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  pdelano@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
          THE HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC.
          221 Main Street
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Telephone: (860) 522 8888
          Facsimile: (860) 218 9555
          E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hall Sues over Talcum Powder in Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
LAURA HALL, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF
CAROLYN WHITE, the Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a
New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV326338 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
April 10, 2018), seeks to recover damages as a result of ovarian
cancer, which was directly and proximately caused by wrongful
conduct by Defendants, the unreasonably dangerous and defective
nature of the talcum powder, the main ingredient of their
products, which include "Johnson's Baby Powder" and "Shower to
Shower."

The Plaintiff or Plaintiff's Spouse or Plaintiff's Decedent
purchased the products and used them on a daily basis in and
around her perineal regions. The Plaintiff further used the
products to dust other parts of her bodies including, but not
limited to, her face, under arms and chest in proximity to their
breathing zone. The Plaintiff also used the products when
diapering her children and on their bed sheets and for other
household purposes. The Plaintiff's parents and others further
used the products when diapering the Plaintiff.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding
talc use and ovarian cancer development over the past several
decades, none of the warnings on product labels or in other
marketing informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that
use of the products in the genital area could lead to an
increased risk of ovarian cancer.

Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. F/K/A
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. designed, developed,
manufactured, tested, packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised,
distributed, labeled, and sold the products to consumers.

Imerys Talc America, Inc. mined, extracted, sorted, milled,
processed, treated, processed, formulated, packaged, sold, and
shipped the talcum powder.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Lee Cirsch, Esq.
          Michael Akselrud, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC
          21550 Oxnard Street, 3rd Floor
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (310) 277 5100
          Facsimile: (310) 277 5103
          E-mail: lee.cirsch@lanierlawfirm.com
                  michael.akselrud@lanierlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Susanne Scovern, Esq.
          Joseph McPeak, Esq.
          SCOVERNLAW
          201 Spear St., Suite 1105
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (888) 725 1890
          E-mail: scovern@scovernlaw.com
                  joseph@mcpeak@scovernlaw.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Pelles Sue over Talcum Powder in Products
------------------------------------------------------------
PAMELA PELLE AND WESLEY PELLE, the Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER
COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in
California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation
with its principal place of business in the State of California;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
18CV326357 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 10, 2018), seeks to recover
damages as a result of ovarian cancer, which was directly and
approximately caused by wrongful conduct by Defendants, the
unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of the talcum powder,
the main ingredient of Johnson & Johnson's products, which
include "Johnson's Baby Powder" and "Shower to Shower.

The Plaintiffs purchased the products and used them on a daily
basis in and around her perineal regions. The Plaintiff further
used the products to dust other parts of her bodies including,
but not limited to, her face, under arms and chest in proximity
to their breathing zone.  The plaintiff further used the products
when diapering her children and on their bed sheets and for other
household purposes. The Plaintiff's parents and others further
used the products when diapering the plaintiff. The Plaintiff
purchased the products and used the products by applying the
PRODUCTS to her body in accordance with the instructions for use
that accompanied the products and in a reasonably foreseeable
manner.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding
talc use and ovarian cancer development over the past several
decades, none of the warnings on product labels or in other
marketing informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that
use of the products in the genital area could lead to an
increased risk of ovarian cancer.

Johnson & Johnson And Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. F/K/A
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. designed, developed,
manufactured, tested, packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised,
distributed, labeled, and sold the products to consumers.

Imerys Talc America, Inc. mined, extracted, sorted, milled,
processed, treated, processed, formulated, packaged, sold, and
shipped the talcum powder that comprises the products.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Lee Cirsch, Esq.
          Michael Akselrud, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC
          21550 Oxnard Street, 3rd Floor
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (310) 277 5100
          Facsimile: (310) 277 5103
          E-mail: lee.cirsch@lanierlawfirm.com
                  michael.akselrud@lanierlawfirm.com


KRISPY KREME: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Donut Labels
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Trock and Ryan Naumann, writing for Blast, report that
Krispy Kreme is once again in the legal fryer after a woman is
holding them accountable for the alleged natural ingredients
advertised in their delicious donuts.

According to freshly baked documents obtained by The Blast,
Irina Agajanyan filed a class action lawsuit on April 6 against
the Krispy Kreme Donut Corporation accusing them of engaging in a
deceptive practice of selling donuts "With the words such as
'blueberry' and 'maple' in their names, which do not contain the
named ingredients."

Ms. Agahanyan specifically calls out the "Glazed Blueberry Cake
Doughnut," "Glazed Blueberry Cake Doughnut Hole," "Maple Iced
Glazed," "Strawberry Iced," and "Strawberry Iced with Sprinkles."

She claims that purchasing the alleged fake fillings gave her a
false sense of  getting the proper nutrition that she needed, and
claims had she known about the "lack of real ingredients," they
never would have been purchased.

Interestingly, this isn't the first time Krispy Kreme has been
accused of selling fake fillings; a similar class action lawsuit
was filed in 2016 claiming the donut maker engaged in false
advertising and mislead customers about the nutritional content
of the fruit filling inside several of their donut products.
That case was dismissed by the plaintiff in 2017.

Also in 2017, Krispy Kreme was on the receiving end of another
class-action lawsuit for allegedly having misleading nutritional
labels.  That lawsuit was dismissed as well.

This time around, Ms. Agahanyan wants Krispy Kreme to stop
selling any donuts with the words "Blueberry" and "Maple" in
their name, and also for the donut giants to pay $1,000 per
plaintiff in the class action suit.

The Blast reached out to Krispy Kreme for comment, and breakfast.
[GN]


LIBERTY POWER: Court Denies Summary Judgment in BLT Steak Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Shlomo S. Hagler of the New York County Supreme Court
denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the case,
BLT STEAK LLC and BLT FISH LLC, Plaintiffs, v. LIBERTY POWER
CORP., LLC, d/b/a LIBERTY POWER NEW YORK, and LIBERTY POWER
HOLDINGS LLC, Defendants, Docket No. 151293/13, Motion Seq. No.
005 (N.Y. Sup.).

In their Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants are Energy Services Companies ("ESCOs") that supply
electricity to residential and commercial customers.  The
Plaintiffs maintain that Liberty Power offers different rate
plans to its customers, which generally run for a fixed period of
time.  When a Liberty Power customer's rate term ends and that
customer does not explicitly renew that or another rate plan,
rather than return the customer to Consolidated Edison ("Con
Edison"), Liberty Power instead places the customer into the
Variable Rate Plan, which Liberty Power refers to as its
'default' plan.

Under the Terms and Conditions of the Variable Rate Plan, a
customer's enrollment automatically renews every 30 days.  The
rate that a customer is charged under the Plan varies from month
to month, based upon various factors.  The Terms and Conditions
of the Variable Rate Plan unambiguously promised that Liberty
Power customers on that Plan will be charged a competitive price
tied to the market price paid by Liberty Power to purchase the
electricity on the customer's behalf.

The Plaintiffs allege that, in reality, one of the components of
the rate that they were charged under the Plan was a hidden,
fixed fee that was not 'established each month' but rather
remained unchanged for long periods of time.  This fixed fee is a
so-called margin fee that represents Liberty Power's pre-
determined profit on the sale of electricity.  The margin fee
under fixed rate plans is low and is adjusted frequently.  By
contrast, under the Plan, the margin fee is as much as 17 times
higher than on its fixed rate plans and often remains unchanged
for more than three years.  As a result, the rates charged under
the Plan were not "remotely" tied to the wholesale price of
electricity and were significantly higher that the rates charged
by Con Edison.

The restaurants operated by BLT Steak and BLT Fish originally
received electricity through Con Ed.  In March 2005, upon
deregulation of electricity delivery in New York, both
restaurants switched to Liberty Power as their electricity
supplier.  BLT Fish and Liberty Power allegedly entered into a
contract, which remained in effect until approximately May 31,
2012.  BLT Steak and Liberty Power allegedly entered into a
contract, which remained in effect until approximately June 30,
2012.  The Plaintiffs allege that at the time of termination,
they were enrolled in the Plan and were charged at least $350,000
more than under the market rate for a full requirements contract.

On these facts, the Plaintiffs assert a claim for breach of
contract.  Specifically, they allege that, under the Plan,
Liberty Power was obligated to charge the Plaintiffs and the
class members only a market-based supply charge based on the
purchase of electricity in a competitive market.  Instead,
Liberty Power charged the Plaintiffs arbitrary and exorbitant
amounts well in excess of market rates, including by assessing a
hidden fee that frequently doubled the price customers paid.

The Defendants move pursuant to CPLR 3212 for an Order granting
summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice.  In support of their
contention that the parties never entered into a contract, the
Defendants proffers the Rosen Affidavit.  They also rely on a
testimony of James Haber, one of the Plaintiffs' witnesses, a
manager of BLT Restaurant Group, an entity that owns both the
Plaintiffs, who testified that he never authorized his employees
to enter into a contract with Liberty Power, nor was he aware of
the existence of a contract between plaintiffs and Liberty Power.
They further argue that the Plaintiffs are barred from recovery
of payments pursuant to the voluntary payment doctrine and the
Plaintiffs voluntarily paid the monthly bills without protest
from 2005 until May 2012.

The Plaintiffs oppose the motion.  In opposition, they state that
the only claim remaining in the case, is whether the Defendants
breached contractual terms between the parties from 2009 onward.
They also raise an issue of fact as to whether or not the
voluntary payment doctrine applies.

Judge Hagler finds that it is undisputed that payment was made to
Con Edison for electrical service covering the Plaintiff
restaurants and that the Con Edison bills for the period 2005
through 2012 listed Liberty Power as the electrical supplier.
The parties' differing accounts regarding what agreement, if any,
governed the parties' relationship after 2009, which according to
the Plaintiff is the claim remaining in this matter, raises an
issue of fact, as to whether there was an enforceable contract
between the parties.

The Judge says although the Defendants claim that the Terms and
Conditions only apply to customers who enrolled with the
Defendants after 2009, the Plaintiffs contend that the Variable
Rate Plan applies to all customer who do not explicitly renew or
cancel their contracts.  In addition, as a matter of law, if,
after expiration of a contract, the parties continue to conduct
business in the same manner as they did before, they impliedly
assent to a new contract on the same terms as the prior one.  As
such, if there was a contractual obligation, there is also an
issue of fact as to whether the Defendants breached an agreement
by imposing the rates charged to the Plaintiffs.

The Judge also finds that although the Defendants argue that Con
Ed billing statements provided specific rates at which the
Plaintiffs were billed, the record fails to establish that the
Plaintiffs possessed sufficient information necessary for them to
determine if they were being overcharged and by how much.
Accordingly, there is an issue of fact as to whether the
Plaintiffs had full knowledge of the facts, necessary to invoke
the voluntary payment doctrine.

Because he will deny the Defendants' motion for summary judgment,
the Judge says it is not necessary to consider the Plaintiffs'
alternative grounds for denial, namely that further discovery is
needed.

For these reasons, Judge Hagler denied the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/xPbeQ0 from Leagle.com.


MARIO ALMANZA: Weight Loss Surgery Victims File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Katie LaGrone, writing for WPTV, reported that "He had taken a
huge chunk of my liver," said a victim in Montana.

"I will do everything I could to make sure he can't do this to
people anymore," said another victim in California.

More than a dozen others patients in America shared the same
sentiment about Dr. Mario Almanza.

Now the Tijuana doctor, who describes himself as the leading
gastric sleeve surgeon in the world, will have to defend himself
against a multi-million dollar class action lawsuit in Arizona.

Dr. Almanza, who states on his website that he's performed more
gastric sleeve procedures than any other surgeon in the world, is
one of twenty defendants named in the suit filed recently by
several Arizona patients.

Among them, Jessica Ballandby who traveled to Tijuana in 2014 for
a gastric sleeve only to return with a cut spleen and life-long
problems.

"I ended up having to have female surgery and now my thyroid is
messing up," she told our sister-station KNXV recently.

WPTV first introduced Jessica in 2015 when she and more than a
dozen other patients across the country spoke publicly, accusing
Dr. Almanza of botching their weight loss surgeries.

Kaycha Baez of Central Florida says she was sent to Dr. Almanza
by Weight Loss Agents, a South Florida-based medical tourism
company quick to state that they are not a medical referral
agency.

Ms. Baez returned home with a hole in her stomach.

"Why wasn't this detected in Mexico?  Why do I have to deal with
it at home?" she told us in 2015.

Over the course of our investigation in 2015 and 2016, WPTV
confirmed at least four Americans died after surgery with
Dr. Almanza.  The doctor claims he learned about the deaths
following our reports.

In an interview granted with our sister station, KGTV in San
Diego, Almanza claimed unhappy patients were bribed by
disgruntled employees.

This new class-action lawsuit accuses Dr. Almanza and a number of
Arizona-based medical businesses and a medical middleman of
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and negligent supervision.
Among the businesses sued include Fill Centers USA, a medical
group with 40 branches nationwide.  The group would help care for
patients after they returned from surgery in Mexico.

Attorney Robert Gregory, who is representing the Arizona patients
in the class-action suit, believes the lawsuit could expand
nationwide.

"I've spoken to potential plaintiffs in places like New Mexico,
Florida, Washington, Arizona of course and California so the
potential is definitely there.  Patients who had these surgeries
are angry at what happened to them," he said.

"I was healthier and prettier when I was bigger.  I'd do anything
to go back," said Jessica Ballandby.

If you believe you are a victim of weight loss surgery in Mexico
and/or Dr. Mario Almanza and would like to learn more about this
class action lawsuit, contact attorney Robert Gregory of the
Gregory Law Group at 480-664-0855. [GN]


LONGFIN CORP: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller") on April 9
disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of
purchasers of Longfin Corp. ("Longfin") (NASDAQ:LFIN) Class A
common stock during the period between December 15, 2017 and
April 2, 2018 (the "Class Period").  This action was filed in the
Southern District of New York and is captioned Miller v. Longfin
Corp., et al., No.18-cv-3121.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from April 3, 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,
Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com.
If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/longfin/. Any
member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Longfin and its CEO with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Longfin is a finance and
technology company that provides trade and physical commodities
solutions for finance businesses and trading platforms.  In
December 2017, Longfin went public through Regulation A+ ("Reg
A+") of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012. Under
Reg A+ issuers can raise up to $50 million from investors through
"public solicitation" without having to register the offering
with the SEC or state regulators.  Shortly after going public,
Longfin announced that it was buying Ziddu.com ("Ziddu") to
enable global trade through the use of blockchain technology.
The Company purchased Ziddu from an affiliate of its CEO and
Chairman, Venkata S. Meenavalli, in exchange for 2.5 million
Longfin Class A common shares.  On this news, the price of
Longfin Class A shares jumped more than 1,200% in two days.
Effective March 16, 2018, Longfin was added to two widely tracked
stock indices, the Russell 2000 Index and the Russell 3000 Index
(the "Russell Indices").

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose that: (i) Longfin had misrepresented the
location of its primary offices and the identity of key employees
in its public statements; (ii) Longfin had numerous material
weaknesses in its operations and internal controls over financial
reporting; (iii) Longfin was ineligible for inclusion in the
Russell Indices; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.  As a result of defendants' false statements
and/or omissions, the price of Longfin Class A shares was
artificially inflated throughout the Class Period.

On March 26, 2018, Citron Research accused the Company of
inaccuracies in its financial reporting and fraud.  The same day,
Russell issued a statement announcing that Longfin would be
removed from its global indices after market close on March 28,
2018, approximately 12 days after being added.  Then, on April 2,
2018, Longfin filed its annual report on Form 10-K for its 2017
fiscal year, which revealed that the Company was subject to an
SEC investigation (which ultimately led to a court-imposed freeze
on $27 million in illicit trading proceeds), suffered from a
multitude of material weaknesses in its internal controls over
financial reporting, and may not be able to continue as a going
concern.  The foregoing events caused the price of the Company's
stock to decline 86%, from $71.10 per share on March 23, 2018, to
close at $9.89 per share on April 3, 2018.

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

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is a law firm
representing investors in securities litigation.  With 200
lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the
largest securities class action recoveries in history.  Beyond
securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins
Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance
reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors
worldwide. [GN]


MDL 2826: "Designor" Suit over Data Security Breach Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled REBECCA DESIGNOR, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v.
Uber Technologies Inc., Raiser, LLC., and Rasier-CA, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-05289, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Western Division - Los Angeles) on April 10, 2018. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-03003-PSG-GJS to the
proceeding.

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

In its April 4, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that the Central
District of California is an appropriate transferee district for
this litigation. Three actions are pending in this district. The
Uber defendants support this district if centralization is
granted over their objection, and plaintiffs in two Northern
District of Illinois actions support it as their second choice.
California has a significant connection to this litigation, as
Uber Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this state,
where much of the common evidence, including witnesses, will be
located.

Judge Philip S. Gutierrez oversees the litigation.  The lead case
is 2:18-ml-02826-PSG-GJS.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dianne M Nast, Esq.
          Daniel N Gallucci, Esq.
          NASTLAW LLC
          1101 Market Street Suite 2801
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 923 9300
          Facsimile: (215) 923 9302
          E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com
                  dgallucci@nastlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Allison M Holt, Esq.
          E. Desmond Hogan, Esq.
          Michelle A Kisloff, Esq.
          Vassiliki Iliadis, Esq.
          Stephen A Loney, Jr., Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS LLP
          Columbia Square
          555 Thirteenth Street NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637 5872
          Facsimile: (202) 637 5910
          E-mail: allison.holt@hoganlovells.com
                  desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com
                  michelle.kisloff@hoganlovells.com
                  vassi.iliadis@hoganlovells.com
                  stephen.loney@hoganlovells.com


MDL 2826: "Harang" Suit over Data Security Breach Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Julius J. Harang, Norbert
Hennrich, Betsy Hennrich, Sam Mangano, Stephen Goerke, Jeff
Klueff, Dara Swango, Jesse Lopez, Don Lapato, and Ryan Glaze, the
Plaintiffs, v. Uber Technologies Inc.; Rasier, LLC; Travis
Kalanick; Salle Eun Yoo; Katherine Tassi; Sabrina Ross;
John Flynn; Chief Deputy Joe Sullivan; Dara Khosrowshahi;
Apple Inc.; Tim Cook; and Unknown John Does and Jane Does, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-08500, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Western
Division - Los Angeles) on April 10, 2018. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-02998-PSG-GJS to the proceeding.

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

In its April 4, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that the Central
District of California is an appropriate transferee district for
this litigation. Three actions are pending in this district. The
Uber defendants support this district if centralization is
granted over their objection, and plaintiffs in two Northern
District of Illinois actions support it as their second choice.
California has a significant connection to this litigation, as
Uber Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this state,
where much of the common evidence, including witnesses, will be
located.

Judge Philip S. Gutierrez presides over the litigation.  The lead
case is 2:18-ml-02826-PSG-GJS.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James C Vlahakis, Esq.
          Ahmad Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq.
          Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
          Nathan Charles Volheim, Esq.
          Omar Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 575 8181
          Facsimile: (630) 575 8188
          E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com
                  ahmad.sulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com
                  mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
                  osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com

Attorneys for Uber Technologies Inc.; Rasier, LLC; Salle Eun Yoo;
Katherine Tassil Sabrina Ross; John Flynn; and Dara Khosrowshahi:

          Allison M Holt, Esq.
          E. Desmond Hogan, Esq.
          Michelle A Kisloff, Esq.
          Vassi Iliadis, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS LLP
          Columbia Square
          555 Thirteenth Street NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637 5872
          Facsimile: (202) 637 5910
          E-mail: allison.holt@hoganlovells.com
                  desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com
                  michelle.kisloff@hoganlovells.com
                  vassi.iliadis@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Christopher B Wilson, Esq.
          Eric D. Brandfonbrener, Esq.
          Regina L. LaMonica, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE, LLC
          35 W Wacker Dr, Ste 3750
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 263 5601
          E-mail: ebrand@perkinscoie.com
                  RLaMonica@perkinscoie.com

Attorneys for Travis Kalanick:

          Robin Anne Linsenmayer, Esq.
          Eric Matthew Hairston, Esq.
          Melinda Haag, Esq.
          Walter Francis Brown, Jr., Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE
          1000 Marsh Road
          Menlo Park, CA 95025
          Telephone: (650) 614 7423
          E-mail: rlinsenmayer@orrick.com
                  ehairston@orrick.com
                  mhaag@orrick.com
                  wbrown@orrick.com

               - and -

          Brett Michael Doran, Esq.
          Francis A Citera, Esq.
          GREENBERT TRAURIG LLP
          77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 457 8400
          E-mail: doranb@gtlaw.com
                  citeraf@gtlaw.com

Attorneys for Chief Deputy Joe Sullivan:

          Matthew S Ryan, Esq.
          Emily Cohen Rossi Vermylen, Esq.
          COTSIRILOS TIGHE STREICKER
          POULOS AND CAMPBELL LTD
          33 North Dearborn Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 332 5675
          Facsimile: (312) 263 4670
          E-mail: mryan@cotsiriloslaw.com
                  evermylen@cotsiriloslaw.com

Attorneys for Apple Inc. and Tim Cook:

          Mark Steven Mester, Esq.
          Kathleen Patricia Lally, Esq.
          Megan C Fitzpatrick, Esq.
          Sean M Berkowitz, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 876 7700
          E-mail: mark.mester@lw.com
                  kathleen.lally@lw.com
                  megan.fitzpatrick@lw.com
                  sean.berkowitz@lw.com


MDL 2826: "Patni" Suit over Data Security Breach Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Junaid Patni, Charlene Marsh, and
Kimberly Crawl, the Plaintiffs, v. Uber Technologies Inc., a
Delaware Corporation, Rasier, LLC, Travis Kalanick, Sallie Eun
Yoo, Angela M. Padilla, Katherine Tassi, Sabrina Ross, Craig
Clark, John Flynn, Chief Deputy Joe Sullivan, Dara Khosrowshani
and JOHN AND OR JANE DOES, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
08709, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles)
on April 10, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-03002-PSG-GJS to the proceeding.

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

In its April 4, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that the Central
District of California is an appropriate transferee district for
this litigation. Three actions are pending in this district. The
Uber defendants support this district if centralization is
granted over their objection, and plaintiffs in two Northern
District of Illinois actions support it as their second choice.
California has a significant connection to this litigation, as
Uber Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this state,
where much of the common evidence, including witnesses, will be
located.

Judge Philip S. Gutierrez presides over the litigation.  The lead
case is 2:18-ml-02826-PSG-GJS.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James C Vlahakis, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD
          2500 South Highland Avenue Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 575 8181
          Facsimile: (630) 575 8188
          E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com

               - and -

          Allison M Holt, Esq.
          E Desmond Hogan, Esq.
          Michelle A Kisloff, Esq.
          Vassi Iliadis, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS LLP
          Columbia Square
          555 Thirteenth Street NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637 5872
          Facsimile: (202) 637 5910
          E-mail: allison.holt@hoganlovells.com
                  desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com
                  michelle.kisloff@hoganlovells.com
                  vassi.iliadis@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Christopher B Wilson, Esq.
          Eric D. Brandfonbrener, Esq.
          Regina L. LaMonica, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE, LLC
          35 W Wacker Dr, Ste 3750
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 263 5601
          E-mail: ebrand@perkinscoie.com
                  RLaMonica@perkinscoie.com


MDL 2826: "West" Suit over Data Security Breach Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Bradley West, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, UBER USA,
LLC, Uber Technologies Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Rasier,
LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-08593, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Western Division - Los Angeles) on April 10, 2018. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-03001-PSG-GJS to the
proceeding.

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

In its April 4, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that the Central
District of California is an appropriate transferee district for
this litigation. Three actions are pending in this district. The
Uber defendants support this district if centralization is
granted over their objection, and plaintiffs in two Northern
District of Illinois actions support it as their second choice.
California has a significant connection to this litigation, as
Uber Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this state,
where much of the common evidence, including witnesses, will be
located.

Judge Philip S. Gutierrez presides over the litigation.  The lead
case is 2:18-ml-02826-PSG-GJS.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          Erich Paul Schork, Esq.
          Anthony L Parkhill, Esq.
          Jeffrey Daniel Blake, Esq.
          BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES PC
          One North LaSalle Street Suite 4600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 621 2000
          Facsimile: (312) 641 5504
          E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
                  aparkhill@barnowlaw.com
                  e.schork@barnowlaw.com
                  j.blake@barnowlaw.com

               - and -

          Aron David Robinson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ARON ROBINSON
          180 W. Washington Street, Suite 700
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 857 9050
          E-mail: adroblaw@aol.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Allison M Holt, Esq.
          E Desmond Hogan, Esq.
          Michelle A Kisloff, Esq.
          Vassi Iliadis, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS LLP
          Columbia Square
          555 Thirteenth Street NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637 5872
          Facsimile: (202) 637 5910
          E-mail: allison.holt@hoganlovells.com
                  desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com
                  michelle.kisloff@hoganlovells.com
                  vassi.iliadis@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Christopher B Wilson, Esq.
          Eric D. Brandfonbrener, Esq.
          Regina L. LaMonica, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE, LLC
          35 W Wacker Dr, Ste 3750
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 263 5601
          E-mail: ebrand@perkinscoie.com
                  RLaMonica@perkinscoie.com


MDL 2827: "Miller" Suit over iPhone Performance Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Mark Miller, Chris Spearman, and
Craig Stanford, on behalf of themselves individually and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, the Apple Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00889, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose)
on April 23, 2018. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 5:18-cv-02328-EJD to the proceeding.

The Miller case is being consolidated with MDL 2827 in re: Apple
Inc. Device Performance Litigation. The MDL was created by Order
of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
on April 4, 2018. All responding parties support centralization,
but there is some disagreement as to the transferee district. In
addition to the movant, plaintiffs in 30 actions and potential
tag-along actions (as well as plaintiff in one action in the
alternative) support centralization in the Northern District of
California. The Plaintiff in a Southern District of Florida
action proposes centralization in that district, while common
defendant Apple Inc. supports centralization in the Northern
District of California or, alternatively, the Central District of
California.

In its April 4, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that these
actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
Apple included code in updates to its mobile operating system
(iOS) that significantly reduced the performance of older-model
iPhones. The Plaintiffs also allege that Apple misrepresented the
nature of the iOS updates and failed to adequately disclose to
iPhone owners the impact the iOS updates would have on the
performance of their iPhones.

Discovery regarding the engineering of the iPhone and the iOS
updates likely will be technical and complex. Plaintiffs assert
similar causes of action for false advertising, alleged unfair
business practices, trespass to chattels, breach of contract, and
unjust enrichment. Moreover, plaintiffs bring these actions on
behalf of overlapping putative classes of iPhone owners.
Centralization thus will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class
certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their
counsel, and the judiciary.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila. The lead
case is 2:15-md-02661-MHW-EPD.

Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops,
and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online
services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert W. Gifford, Esq.
          Kenneth Craig Johnston, Esq.
          JOHNSTON PRATT PLLC
          1717 Main Street, Suite 3000
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 974 8000
          Facsimile: (972) 474 1750
          E-mail: rgifford@johnstonpratt.com
                  kjohnston@johnstonpratt.com

Attorneys for Apple, Inc.:

          Clyde Moody Siebman, Esq.
          SIEBMAN REYNOLDS BURG & PHILLIPS LLP
          300 N Travis Street
          Sherman, TX 75090-0070
          Telephone: (903) 870 0070
          Facsimile: (903) 870 0066
          E-mail: siebmanecfin@texoma.net


MDL 2828: Artesia Hospital's Suit over CPU Defects Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Artesia General Hospital, et al.,
a New Mexico not-for-profit corporation, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Intel
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-01216, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon (Portland) on April 20, 2018. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00684-SI the proceeding.

The Artesia case is being consolidated with MDL 2828 in re: Intel
Corp. CPU Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability
Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 5, 2018. All
responding parties agree that the actions share factual issues
arising out of allegations that Intel manufactured its computer
processors to use "speculative execution" technology, which left
the processors exposed to security vulnerabilities known as
"Spectre" and "Meltdown," and that the fix for this problem can
considerably slow the processors' speed. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings on class certification and other issues, and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.

In its April 5, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that
centralization in the District of Oregon is appropriate. The
Defendant Intel and the Plaintiffs in at least nine related
actions support centralization in that district. Intel has
extensive operations there, including its employees who evaluated
the security vulnerabilities and developed patches to mitigate
them, as well as the team that led the development of the first
Intel processor to use speculative execution. It is likely,
therefore, that relevant evidence and witnesses will be located
in this district.

The Hon. Judge Michael H. Simon has been assigned to the case.
The lead case is 3:18-md-02828-SI.

Intel Corporation is an American multinational corporation and
technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, California, in
the Silicon Valley.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lucas Williams, Esq.
          HINKLE SHANOR LLP
          P.O. Box 10
          Roswell, NM 88202-0010
          Telephone: (575) 622 6510
          Facsimile: (575) 623 9332
          E-mail: lwilliams@hinklelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Andrew J Cloutier, Esq.
          Michael E. Jacobs, Esq.
          Thomas Mark Hnasko, Esq.
          HINKLE SHANOR LLP
          P.O. Box 10
          Roswell, NM 88202-0010
          Telephone: (575) 622 6510
          Facsimile: (575) 623-9332
          E-mail: acloutier@hinklelawfirm.com
                  mjacobs@hinklelawfirm.com
                  thnasko@hinklelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Esq.
          KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone (619) 398 4340
          E-mail: bgralewski@kmllp.com

Attorneys for Intel Corp.:

          Miriam Kim, Esq.
          Allison Marie Day, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON
          560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 512 4041
          E-mail: Miriam.Kim@mto.com
          allison.day@mto.com


MDL 2828: "Bahcevan" Suit over Defective CPUs Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Alexandr Bahcevan, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Intel Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00187, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon (Portland) on April 20, 2018. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00689-SI the proceeding.

The Bahcevan case is being consolidated with MDL 2828 in re:
Intel Corp. CPU Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability
Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 5, 2018. All
responding parties agree that the actions share factual issues
arising out of allegations that Intel manufactured its computer
processors to use "speculative execution" technology, which left
the processors exposed to security vulnerabilities known as
"Spectre" and "Meltdown," and that the fix for this problem can
considerably slow the processors' speed. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings on class certification and other issues, and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.

In its April 5, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that
centralization in the District of Oregon is appropriate. The
Defendant Intel and the Plaintiffs in at least nine related
actions support centralization in that district. Intel has
extensive operations there, including its employees who evaluated
the security vulnerabilities and developed patches to mitigate
them, as well as the team that led the development of the first
Intel processor to use speculative execution. It is likely,
therefore, that relevant evidence and witnesses will be located
in this district.

The Hon. Judge Michael H. Simon has been assigned to the case.
The lead case is 3:18-md-02828-SI.

Intel Corporation is an American multinational corporation and
technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, California, in
the Silicon Valley.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
          Quentin Alexandre Roberts, Esq.
          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363 7500
          Facsimile: (866) 367 6510
          E-mail: qroberts@zlk.com

Attorneys for Intel Corp.:

          Miriam Kim, Esq.
          Allison Marie Day, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON
          560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 512 4041
          E-mail: Miriam.Kim@mto.com
                  allison.day@mto.com


MDL 2828: "Jones" Suit over Defective CPUs Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Carl Jones, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Intel
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00105, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for Northern the
District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon (Portland) on April 20, 2018. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00686-SI the proceeding.

The Jones case is being consolidated with MDL 2828 in re: Intel
Corp. CPU Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability
Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 5, 2018. All
responding parties agree that the actions share factual issues
arising out of allegations that Intel manufactured its computer
processors to use "speculative execution" technology, which left
the processors exposed to security vulnerabilities known as
"Spectre" and "Meltdown," and that the fix for this problem can
considerably slow the processors' speed. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings on class certification and other issues, and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.

In its April 5, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that
centralization in the District of Oregon is appropriate. The
Defendant Intel and the Plaintiffs in at least nine related
actions support centralization in that district. Intel has
extensive operations there, including its employees who evaluated
the security vulnerabilities and developed patches to mitigate
them, as well as the team that led the development of the first
Intel processor to use speculative execution. It is likely,
therefore, that relevant evidence and witnesses will be located
in this district.

The Hon. Judge Michael H. Simon is assigned to the case.  The
lead case is 3:18-md-02828-SI.

Intel Corporation is an American multinational corporation and
technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, California, in
the Silicon Valley.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER LAW GROUP
          16870 W. Bernardo Drive, Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92127
          Telephone: (619) 308 5034
          Facsimile: (888) 341 5048
          E-mail: alan@clgca.com

               - and -

          Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
          WESTERMAN LAW CORP
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 698 7450
          Facsimile: (310) 775 9777
          E-mail: jwesterman@jswlegal.com


MDL 2828: Providence Suit over Defective CPUs Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled City of Providence, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Intel Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00894, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon (Portland) on April 20, 2018. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00698-SI the proceeding.

The Providence case is being consolidated with MDL 2828 in re:
Intel Corp. CPU Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability
Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 5, 2018. All
responding parties agree that the actions share factual issues
arising out of allegations that Intel manufactured its computer
processors to use "speculative execution" technology, which left
the processors exposed to security vulnerabilities known as
"Spectre" and "Meltdown," and that the fix for this problem can
considerably slow the processors' speed. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings on class certification and other issues, and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.

In its April 5, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that
centralization in the District of Oregon is appropriate. The
Defendant Intel and the Plaintiffs in at least nine related
actions support centralization in that district. Intel has
extensive operations there, including its employees who evaluated
the security vulnerabilities and developed patches to mitigate
them, as well as the team that led the development of the first
Intel processor to use speculative execution. It is likely,
therefore, that relevant evidence and witnesses will be located
in this district.

The Hon. Judge Michael H. Simon is assigned to the case.  The
lead case is 3:18-md-02828-SI.

Intel Corporation is an American multinational corporation and
technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, California, in
the Silicon Valley.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David A. Straite, Esq.
          Donald R Hall, Esq.
          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687 1980
          Facsimile: (212) 687 7714
          E-mail: dstraite@kaplanfox.com
                  dhall@kaplanfox.com

Attorneys for Intel Corp.:

          Miriam Kim, Esq.
          Allison Marie Day, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON
          560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 512 4041
          E-mail: Miriam.Kim@mto.com
                  allison.day@mto.com


MDL 2828: Zog Inc. Suit over Defective CPUs Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Zog, Inc., Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Intel
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00298, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon (Portland) on April 20, 2018. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00691-SI the proceeding.

The Zog case is being consolidated with MDL 2828 in re: Intel
Corp. CPU Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability
Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 5, 2018. All
responding parties agree that the actions share factual issues
arising out of allegations that Intel manufactured its computer
processors to use "speculative execution" technology, which left
the processors exposed to security vulnerabilities known as
"Spectre" and "Meltdown," and that the fix for this problem can
considerably slow the processors' speed. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings on class certification and other issues, and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.

In its April 5, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that
centralization in the District of Oregon is appropriate. The
Defendant Intel and the Plaintiffs in at least nine related
actions support centralization in that district. Intel has
extensive operations there, including its employees who evaluated
the security vulnerabilities and developed patches to mitigate
them, as well as the team that led the development of the first
Intel processor to use speculative execution. It is likely,
therefore, that relevant evidence and witnesses will be located
in this district.

The Hon. Judge Michael H. Simon is assigned to the case.  The
lead case is 3:18-md-02828-SI.

Intel Corporation is an American multinational corporation and
technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, California, in
the Silicon Valley.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eli Greenstein, Esq.
          Jennifer Lauren Joost, Esq.
          Stacey Marie Kaplan, Esq.
          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 400 3000
          Facsimile: (415) 400 3001
          E-mail: egreenstein@ktmc.com
                  jjoost@ktmc.com
                  skaplan@ktmc.com
                  jmeltzer@ktmc.com

               - and -

          David H. Thompson, Esq.
          COOPER & KIRK PLLC
          1523 New Hampshire Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 220 9600
          Facsimile: (202) 220 9601
          E-mail: dthompson@cooperkirk.com

Attorneys for Intel Corp.:

          Miriam Kim, Esq.
          Allison Marie Day, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON
          560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 512 4041
          E-mail: Miriam.Kim@mto.com
                  allison.day@mto.com


MECHEL BLUESTONE: $300K Settlement in "Ray" Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL RAY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MECHEL BLUESTONE, INC.
and DOUBLE-BONUS COAL COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 5:15-
cv-03014 (S.D. W.Va.), Judge Irene C. Berger of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Beckley
Division, granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Approve Notice of
Final Settlement, Approve Attorney Fees, and Enter Administrative
Termination Order.

On May 3, 2016, the Court certified the matter as a class action
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).  The
parties mediated the case twice with the assistance of the
Honorable Omar Aboulhosn, achieving success when they entered a
Mediation Agreement on Jan. 20, 2017.  The Parties have agreed to
final terms of a Settlement Agreement.

The parties have agreed to settle the matter pursuant to these
agreed-upon terms:

     1. The Defendants agree to pay to the Plaintiffs the sum of
$300,000 inclusive of attorney fees, costs, class administration
fee, and class representative fee.

     2. Call-Back List: Within 60 days after notice of the
settlement agreement issues, the class members may notify the
class counsel whether they wish to be placed on a Call-Back List
from which they will be returned to employment on the basis of
their seniority at the Double Bonus Mine, as outlined in the
Agreement.

          a. Seniority: The List Members will be ranked in
accordance with the seniority that they had earned at the Double
Bonus Mine prior to  their final layoff at that mine.

          b. Covered Mines: List Members will be considered for
every full-time job at the next three underground coal mines,
inclusive of preparation and refuse facilities serving those
mines, at which no collective bargaining agreement is in place at
the time of hiring List Members, that the Bluestone Entities
control or operate, in McDowell, Wyoming, Mercer, or Raleigh
Counties, W.Va.

               i. The hourly wage rate of such jobs must be equal
to or greater than $28 per hour for the first year of a List
Member's employment there.

               ii. If a Covered Mine ceases operation within a
year of hiring a List Member, such mine ceases to be a Covered
Mine and the Defendants must honor the call-back obligations
under this Agreement at one additional Covered Mine that is next
opened by the Bluestone Entities.

               iii. Mechel Bluestone, Inc., Bluestone Resources,
Inc., Bluestone Industries, Inc., Dynamic Energy, Inc., Gilbert
Mine, Inc., JCI Coal Group, LLC, and coal-producing divisions
thereof, and wholly owned and controlled coal producing
subsidiaries and wholly owned and controlled coal producing
affiliates, or other subsidiaries and affiliates wholly owned and
controlled by principals of the Defendants, will be treated as
one and the same Bluestone Entities for purposes of the Covered
Mines and the Agreement.

               iv. If a training opportunity is available at a
Covered Mine, the Defendants must inform eligible List Members of
such opportunity in sufficient time for such List Members to
participate in the training.

          c. Recall Rights: When a job opportunity exists at the
Covered Mines, the Defendants will review the List and will
recall to employment, in the order of their seniority, List
Members with the ability to perform the work of such job.

               i. The Defendants will inform List Members of
call-back opportunities by means of both certified mail and
telephone message delivered to the addresses and numbers provided
by class counsel or the class members themselves.

               ii. A List Member who does not return to work
after receiving offers at each of the Covered Mines will
sacrifice his seniority on the list and will have his name
removed from the list.

               iii. Any person on the list who secures other
employment during the period when no work is available for him at
the Covered Mines will in no way jeopardize his seniority while
engaged in such other employment. Upon receipt of notice of a
call-back opportunity, List Members will have five business days
to accept or reject each such opportunity.

          d. Settlement of Disputes Regarding Recall Rights:

               i. Disputes arising regarding a List Member's
recall rights will be resolved as follows.

               ii. An earnest effort will be made to settle
differences at the earliest practicable time.

               iii. At all steps of the dispute process, the
party initiating the dispute will disclose to the List Member and
to Class Counsel a full statement of the facts relied upon by
them.

               iv. If no settlement is reached within 7 days of
the nondisputing party receiving notice of the dispute, the
parties will reach mutual agreement on an arbitrator within the
following 7 days.  At the earliest possible time, but no later
than 15 after referral to him, the arbitrator will conduct a
hearing in order to hear testimony, receive evidence and consider
arguments.

               v. The costs of arbitration will be borne by the
disputing party.

               vi. No Class Member may be excluded from the List
except for just cause.

               vii. No List Member may be denied a recall
opportunity for a job if they are able to perform the work of
such job.

               viii. The List Members will be entitled to be
present at any conference, meeting, or hearing regarding a
dispute as to their recall rights.

     3. Payment to Class Members: The Class Members who are not
List Members will each receive from Defendants a sum of $3,046.87
plus an additional amount of Excess Funds.

     4. Attorney Fee: The Class counsel will receive an attorney
fee of $70,000.

     5. Class Administration: The Class counsel will receive an
administrative fee of $25,000 to administer the settlement.

     6. Class Representative: The Defendants agree to pay to
Michael Ray a class representative fee of $10,000.  This amount
will be in addition to his right to claim an individual member
settlement and Excess Funds.

     7. Excess Funds: Any excess funds that remain from the
settlement amount of $300,000, less payments to the class
members, less Attorney's Fee, less Class Administration, and less
Class Representative Fee, will be considered the Excess Funds.
Those Excess Funds will be divided equally among all the Class
Members who do not opt to be List Members.  However, in no case
may a distribution of Excess Funds, when added to a payment,
cause any Class Member to receive more than $11,000 in a total
gross individual settlement award.

     8. Periods for Performance:

          a. $150,000 has been paid by the Defendants and held in
trust by the Class Counsel pending approval of the Order.

          b. $150,000, plus interest calculated daily and
compounding annually at a rate agreed upon by the parties,
running from Jan. 19, 2018 until the time of payment, will be
paid to Class Counsel in a lump sum by the Defendants by no later
than Feb. 26, 2018, and held in trust by Class Counsel pending
approval of the Order.  The Class Counsel will initiate notice of
the final settlement within seven days of the approval of the
Settlement and will allow for class members to retrieve payments
as set forth in the Notice of Final Settlement.

The Agreement provides for payments of a minimum of $3,046.87 to
each of the 64 class members, and alternately provides those
class members the option to be placed on a Call-Back List with
recall rights at various mining operations, based on the miners'
seniority status at the Double-Bonus Mine No. 65, in lieu of
receiving payment.  If miners opt to participate in the
settlement by being placed on the Call-Back List, they will
possess recall rights on that List, based on their Double-Bonus
mine seniority.

The Agreement also provides that the class representative would
receive a fee of $10,000, the class would be administered by the
class counsel for a fee of $25,000, and the attorney fee for
class counsel would be $70,000.  Due to the passage of time since
the initial Mediation Agreement, the parties have agreed that the
60 days for class members to opt for the Call-Back List will run
from the date that the Final Notice of Settlement is mailed by
the Class Counsel and that all elections are final after those 60
days.

On March 22, 2017, the Court Ordered that the Plaintiff's Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Settlement be granted, that the
Mediation Agreement be approved pending the final settlement
hearing, and that the Plaintiff's proposed plan for providing
class notice of the Mediation Agreement be approved.  The
Plaintiff provided notice to the putative class members of the
Fairness Hearing by U.S. Mail to each class member listed and
agreed upon by the parties.

On May 24, 2017, the Plaintiff appeared before the Court for the
Fairness Hearing, and presented the Mediation Agreement reached
by the parties in the matter.  At the Fairness Hearing, the Court
indicated its approval of the agreement subject to issuance of a
final order making findings under Rule 23(e) and giving effect to
that approval.  Thereafter, the Plaintiff submitted documentation
to support the parties' assessment of the reasonable attorney
fees and costs, and filed therewith the pending Motion to Approve
Notice of Final Settlement, Approve Attorney Fees, and Enter
Administrative Termination Order.

After careful review and consideration, Judge Berger finds, among
other things, that the settlement agreement is fair, reasonable
and adequate to the Class Members pursuant to Rule 23(e),
inclusive of the fees for the class representative and
administrator; and the attorney's fees and costs are found to be
reasonable, adequately-documented by time records submitted on
the record, and commensurate with the degree of success achieved
by the class in the case.

Accordingly, the Judge approved (i) the class Settlement, as set
forth in the Order, and will be implemented in accordance with
its terms; (ii) the plan set out for giving notice to the class;
and (iii) the attorney's fees and costs.  An Order of Termination
will be entered to allow for class administration.  She directed
the Clerk to send a copy of the Order to the counsel of record
and to any unrepresented party.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Ll1T7C from Leagle.com.

Michael Ray, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bren J. Pomponio, MOUNTAIN
STATE JUSTICE, INC. & Samuel Brown Petsonk, MOUNTAIN STATE
JUSTICE, INC.

Mechel Bluestone, Inc., Double-Bonus Coal Company & Dynamic
Energy, Inc., Defendants, represented by Andrew L. Ellis, WOOTON
WOOTON & DAVIS, John F. Hussell, IV, WOOTON WOOTON & DAVIS & John
D. Wooton, Jr., THE WOOTON LAW FIRM.


MEDPARTNERS INC: Rainey Seeks Minimum & OT Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL RAINEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MEDPARTNERS, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00267-DPM (E.D. Ark., April 20,
2018), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, costs, including a reasonable
attorney's fee as a result of Defendant's failure to pay
Plaintiff and other Nurse Practitioners, Certified Nursing
Assistants and related hourly paid healthcare workers lawful
minimum and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of
40 hours per week under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The case is a hybrid class and collective action brought by the
Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of other hourly paid Nurse
Practitioners, Certified Nursing Assistants and related hourly
paid healthcare workers employed by Defendant at any time within
a three-year period preceding the filing of this Complaint. The
Defendant has willfully and intentionally committed violations of
the FLSA.

The Defendant is a for-profit, Tennessee corporation, owning and
operating outpatient medical facilities that provide diagnostic
and treatment services to patients. The Defendant's annual gross
volume of sales made or business done was not less than $500,000
-- exclusive of exercise taxes at the retail level that are
separately stated -- during each of the three calendar years
preceding the filing of this Complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris Burks, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221 0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787 2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  chris@sanfordlawfirm.com


MERCHANTS CREDIT: Taylor Seeks Final Settlement Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JANNETTE TAYLOR, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERCHANTS CREDIT
ADJUSTERS, INC. and PANSING, HOGAN, ERNST & BACHMAN, LLP, the
Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-00452-JFB-SMB (D. Neb.), the
Plaintiff moves the Court for final certification, final approval
of a proposed class action settlement, and entry of Final Order
and Judgment.

On October 4, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the class action lawsuit,
asserting class claims against Defendants under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, and the Nebraska Consumer Protection
Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Rt4whWFt

Attorneys for Plaintiff and The Putative Class:

          William L. Reinbrecht, Esq.
          Pamela A. Car, Esq.
          William L. Reinbrecht, Esq.
          CAR & REINBRECHT, P.C., LLO
          2120 S. 72nd Street, Suite 1125
          Omaha, NE 68124
          Telephone: (402) 391 8484
          Facsimile: (402) 391 1103
          E-mail: billr205@gmail.com

               - and -

          Tregg R. Lunn, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TREGG LUNN
          830 L Street, Suite 200
          Lincoln, NE 68508
          Telephone: 402 730 7012
          E-mail: tregg@tregglunnlaw.com


MICHIGAN: Supreme Court to Hear Unemployment Fraud Case
-------------------------------------------------------
WMUK reports that the case over people falsely accused of
unemployment fraud is headed to the Michigan Supreme Court.

The Michigan Supreme Court will hear a case about people falsely
accused of unemployment fraud in the state.  The Detroit Free
Press reports that the state's highest court issued an order on
April 7 that it will take up the case.  The state Court of
Appeals dismissed a class action suit in July of last year,
saying it had been filed too late.  The state has acknowledged
that at least 20,000 people were falsely accused to unemployment
fraud because of a state computer system.  It's possible that as
many as 40,000 people were wrongly accused of scamming the state
of unemployment benefits. [GN]


MICROSEMI CORP: Rubin Balks at Merger Deal with Microchip
---------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL RUBIN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MICROSEMI CORPORATION, JAMES J.
PETERSON, DENNIS R. LEIBEL, KIMBERLY E. ALEXY, THOMAS R.
ANDERSON, WILLIAM E. BENDUSH, RICHARD M. BEYER, PAUL F. FOLINO,
WILLIAM L. HEALEY and MATTHEW E. MASSENGILL, the Defendants, Case
No. 8:18-cv-00653 (C.D. Cal., April 20, 2018), seeks to
preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Defendants and all
persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing a proposed merger transaction, unless
and until defendants disclose and disseminate the material
information identified above to Microsemi, and in the event the
Defendants consummate the Proposed Transaction, rescinding it and
setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages to Plaintiff and
the Class.

The case is a class action brought on behalf of the public
stockholders of Microsemi Corporation against Microsemi and
its Board of Directors for their violations of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission and to enjoin the vote on a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which Microsemi will be acquired by
Microchip Technology Incorporated through its wholly owned
subsidiary Maple Acquisition Corporation.

On March 1, 2018, Microsemi issued a press release announcing it
had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger to sell
Microsemi to Microchip for $68.78 in cash per Microsemi common
share. The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $8.35
billion. On April 19, 2018, Microsemi filed a Definitive Proxy
Statement on Schedule 14A with the SEC. The Proxy Statement,
which recommends that Microsemi stockholders vote in favor of the
Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information
concerning, among other things: (i) Microsemi insiders' potential
conflicts of interest; (ii) Microsemi's financial projections,
relied upon by the Company's financial advisor, Qatalyst Partners
LP; and (iii) the data and inputs underlying the financial
valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by
Qatalyst. The failure to adequately disclose such material
information constitutes a violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as Microsemi stockholders
need such information in order to cast a fully informed vote or
seek appraisal in connection with the Proposed Transaction.

Microsemi Corporation is an Aliso Viejo, California-based
provider of semiconductor and system solutions for aerospace &
defense, communications, data center and industrial markets.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: 310/208-2800
          Facsimile: 310/209-2348
          E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682 3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682 3010


MYRIAD GENETICS: Kessman Sues over Misleading Disclosures
---------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW KESSMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MYRIAD GENETICS, INC., MARK
CHRISTOPHER CAPONE, PETER D. MELDRUM, R. BRYAN RIGGSBEE, and
JAMES S. EVANS, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00336-PMW (D.
Utah, April 20, 2018), seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of Myriad between
August 13, 2014 and March 12, 2018, both dates inclusive.

Myriad develops and markets molecular diagnostic products to
provide physicians with information to help guide the care of
their patients, to prevent disease, delay the onset of disease,
and catch disease at an early stage. Myriad purports to employ a
variety of proprietary techniques designed to provide an
understanding of the genetic basis of disease and the role of
genes in the onset, progression and treatment of disease. Founded
in 1991, the Company is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah,
and its stocks trade on the NASDAQ Global Select under the ticker
symbol "MYGN."

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically,
Myriad made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Myriad was submitting false or otherwise
improper claims for payment under Medicare and Medicaid for the
Company's hereditary cancer testing; (ii) the foregoing conduct
would foreseeably subject Myriad to heightened regulatory
scrutiny and/or enforcement action; (iii) Myriad's revenues from
its hereditary cancer testing were in part the product of
improper conduct and unlikely to be sustainable; and (iv) as a
result, Myriad's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On March 12, 2018, post-market, Myriad disclosed that it had
received a subpoena from the Department of Health and Human
Services, Office of Inspector General, in connection with "an
investigation into possible false or otherwise improper claims
submitted for payment under Medicare and Medicaid," specifically
relating to Myriad's hereditary cancer testing. The subpoena
covers a time period from January 1, 2014 -- less than four
months after the September 2013 launch of Myriad's myRisk test --
through the date of the subpoena's issuance.

On this news, Myriad's share price fell $4.01, or 12.14%, to
close at $29.01 on March 13, 2018. As a result of Defendants'
wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the
market value of the Company's common shares, Plaintiff and other
Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          David W. Scofield, Esq.
          PETERS SCOFIELD
          7430 Creek Road, Suite 303
          Sandy, Utah 84093-6160
          Telephone: (801) 322 2002
          Facsimile: (801) 912 0320
          E-mail: dws@psplawyers.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ, LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, New York 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661 1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661 8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


NATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces "Roth" Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Business
Factors, Inc. of Nevada. The case is styled as Aaron Roth,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. National Business Factors, Inc. of Nevada
and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-
03256 (C.D. Cal., April 18, 2018).

National Business Factors specializes in medical billing,
collection services and outsource receivable solutions in Carson
City.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


NAVIENT CORP: Appeals Ruling in Student Loan Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Berman, writing for Marketwatch, reports that a recent
court ruling may offer hope for thousands of struggling borrowers
looking to escape education-related debts.

A Texas bankruptcy judge denied a request by student loan
company, Navient, last month to dismiss a class-action lawsuit
accusing the firm of illegally collecting on loans that were
discharged in bankruptcy.  Navient is appealing.

Patricia Christel, a spokeswoman for the Navient, declined to
comment on pending litigation, but noted in an email that the
company supports reform "that would allow federal and private
student loans to be dischargeable in bankruptcy for those who
have made a good-faith effort to repay their student loans over a
five-to-seven year period and who still experience financial
difficulty."

The decision last month means the case can move forward and it
also offers the opportunity for an appellate court to weigh in on
whether loans historically viewed as exempt from bankruptcy
discharge can actually be wiped away in the process.

"This is one to watch for potential," said John Rao, an attorney
at the National Consumer Law Center and expert on consumer
bankruptcies.

The ruling comes as lawyers across the country are increasingly
looking to challenge the conventional wisdom that any type of
student loan isn't dischargeable in bankruptcy. It also comes as
the Department of Education is reviewing the high standard
student loan borrowers must meet in order to have their debts
discharged in bankruptcy.

This case centers around a very specific type of debt -- and a
small share of Navient's private loan portfolio -- money loaned
to borrowers to pay for unaccredited programs, such as bar exam
study courses and K-12 educational expenses.  The lawyers
representing the class estimate that about 16,000 borrowers fall
into this category, according to Austin Smith, one of those
attorneys.

But if the appellate court rules in favor of the plaintiffs that
could indicate that borrowers with similar loans from other
companies could also be entitled to relief.  "If I were advising
other companies who have these loans and have taken similar
positions as Navient -- I would be worried," said Dalie Jimenez,
a professor of law at the University of California-Irvine's
School of Law.

Reasons for student loans to be exempt from discharge in
bankruptcy

To discharge a loan in bankruptcy, they must fall into one of
four categories:

1. A federal student loan.

2. A student loan made by a qualified nonprofit (say, by a
school).

3. A qualified education loan, which could be made by a for-
profit company, but would need to be made for qualified
educational expenses; in other words, those incurred at an
accredited program for the cost of attendance.

4. Funds received as an "educational benefit."

Traditionally, bankruptcy courts have determined that the types
of loans in question in this case can't be discharged because
they were received as an "educational benefit." But recently,
lawyers and judges have started to question whether loans to help
borrowers study for the bar and other similar debts truly fit
into that category.

"It does definitely reflect a trend of this kind of decision,"
Mr. Rao said of the recent ruling.

In his order, the judge argues that the phrase "educational
benefit," likely refers to something different from simply a loan
used for educational expenses.  And, instead, refers to
arrangements like money fronted by an employer for a worker to
attend college that would need to be repaid if that employee
leaves their job.

"By its use throughout [the provision], Congress was certainly
aware of the term "loan" and is presumed to have made a conscious
decision of when to use it and when to choose something
different," the order reads.

The legislative history of funds with 'educational benefit'

That rationale appears to be in line with the legislative history
of the educational benefit term, according to a recent paper by
Jason Iuliano, a fellow at the University of Pennsylvania School
of Law.  The paper argues that -- by viewing funds received for
educational benefit to mean loans -- judges have been
interpreting the educational benefit language too broadly.

Mr. Iuliano notes that during congressional hearings around the
time the language was added, an expert explained to members of
Congress that it was meant to only exempt conditional grants from
being discharged in bankruptcy.

"It was an effort to stop this very, very narrow category of
exceptions," Mr. Iuliano said.  "It just ballooned up to cover
pretty much anything you can make a case that advances one's
education."

Judges have been using this broader interpretation in part
because it's been so rarely challenged historically, Mr. Iuliano
said.  Because of the popular narrative that student debt is
impossible to discharge in bankruptcy, it's extremely rare for
debtors to actually attempt to do so.  What's more, lawyers have
also historically shied away from representing student loan
borrowers trying to discharge their debt in bankruptcy,
Mr. Iuliano said.

Now that's starting to change, said Mr. Rao.  As more lawyers are
beginning to challenge whether these debts are dischargeable in
bankruptcy, judges are now hearing and carefully considering both
arguments, he said. "Judges are not just going to automatically
assume that the loan is entitled to this protection from
discharge," Mr. Rao said.

Of course, the case is far from over.  And Mr. Iuliano notes that
even if the judge rules in a way that's the most favorably
possible to the debtors, the ruling would still only cover a
fraction of borrowers or those with these very specific types of
loans from this company.  Still, he said there's reason to
believe these borrowers tend to be worse off than others with
student loans and so it would help those who are struggling the
most.

"There's probably a large swath of people that this applies to
that they could get some fairly immediate relief," Professor
Jimenez said. [GN]


NEW ORLEANS, LA: Cain, et al. Seek to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ALANA CAIN, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. CITY
OF NEW ORLEANS, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-04479-
SSV-JCW (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order
certifying a class of:

   "all persons who currently owe or who will incur court debts
   arising from cases adjudicated in the Orleans Parish Criminal
   District Court."

The Defendants attempted to moot this lawsuit by representing to
the Court that they modified certain policies and practices. But
as the Court observed, the Plaintiffs still face the possibility
of alleged constitutional injury if they fail to pay their court
debts, and in any case, the "capable of repetition, yet evading
review" exception applies because it is undisputed that a
constant stream of class members is subjected to the same
violations on an ongoing basis.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

          Alec Karakatsanis, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          916 G Street, NW Suite 701
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 681 2409
          E-mail: alec@civilrightscorps.org

               - and -

          Bill Quigley, Esq.
          William P. Quigley, Esq.
          7214 St. Charles Ave.
          Campus Box 902
          New Orleans, LA 70118
          Telephone: (504) 710 3074
          E-mail: quigley77@gmail.com

               - and -

          Anna Lellelid, Esq.
          ANNA LELLELID-DOUFFET
          PO Box 19388
          New Orleans, LA 70179
          Telephone: (504) 224 9670
          E-mail: lellelid.law@gmail.com

               - and -

          Jon Greenbaum, Esq.
          Mateya Kelley, Esq.
          LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW
          1401 New York Ave NW Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 662 8315
          E-mail: jgreenbaum@lawyerscommittee.org
                  mkelley@lawyerscommittee.org

               - and -

          Jonathan P. Guy, Esq.
          David P. Fuad, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP
          1152 15th Street, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20005-1706
          Telephone: (202) 339 8516
          E-mail: jguy@orrick.com
                  dfuad@orrick.com


NEW ORLEANS MILLWORKS: "Maldonado" Class Conditionally Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OSMAN MALDONADO, v. NEW ORLEANS MILLWORKS, LLC, et
al., Section: "J" (5), Civil Action No. 17-1015 (E.D. La.), Judge
Carl J. Barbier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional
Class Certification, Judicial Notice, and for Disclosure of Names
and Addresses of Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs.

This is a collective action filed by Plaintiffs Maldonado, Josue
Nunez, Mauricio Hernandez, and Marvel Guerrero, under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA").  They brought the suit on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated to recover
allegedly unpaid overtime wages for manual work they performed
for Defendants, O&G Construction, LLC, Olan David Del Arca Sabat,
New Orleans Metalworks, Inc, and David Waldheim.

O&G is a commercial construction company that is owned and
managed by Olan David Del Arca Sabat and specializes in providing
manual labor for general contractors, including New Orleans
Metalworks, Inc. ("NOMW").  NOMW, owned by David Waldheim, is a
general contractor that provides construction services in the
greater New Orleans area.  NOMW allegedly engaged O&G to provide
labor for its jobsites. Plaintiffs allege that they were hired by
O&G as laborers prior to March 2015 to perform work such as
painting, sheet-rocking, and finishing.

Initially, the lawsuit was brought by Plaintiff Maldonado against
Millworks and its owner Scott Taranto.  By two subsequent
amendments to his complaint, Plaintiff Maldonado added O&G and
Sabat, and replaced Millworks and Taranto with NOMW and Waldheim
as the Defendants.  On June 8, 2017, the Court granted in part
and denied in part NOMW's Motion to Dismiss, holding that
Plaintiff Maldonado had adequately alleged an individual FLSA
overtime claim but had not sufficiently pleaded a FLSA collective
action.  The Court granted Plaintiff an additional 21 days to
file an amended complaint alleging a FLSA collective action.

On June 16, 2017, a third amended collective action complaint was
filed by Maldonado, Nunez, Hernandez, and Guerrero, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated.  On Aug. 22, 2017, the
Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Conditional Class
Certification, Judicial Notice, and for Disclosure of the Names
and Addresses of Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs.  The Defendants
opposed the motion, and the Plaintiffs filed a reply.

The Plaintiffs seek to maintain their FLSA claim as a collective
action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).  As such, they move
the Court to conditionally certify a collective action of
employees limited to the following: All individuals who worked or
are working performing manual labor for O&G during the previous
three years, and who are eligible for overtime pay pursuant to
the FLSA, and who did not receive full overtime compensation.

The Plaintiffs argue that the allegations in their complaint as
well as their attached sworn declarations and timesheets
demonstrate clear violations of the FLSA that are not personal to
them, but rather are part of the Defendants' general policy not
to pay their employees overtime.  O&G foremen allegedly
supervised the Plaintiffs and would send the employees'
timesheets to a NOMW supervisor.

The Plaintiffs allege that they and their co-workers were paid by
check bearing the name O&G, and would be paid an hourly rate
regardless of the number of hours that they worked per week and
that they often worked in excess of 40 hours per week.  The
Plaintiffs argue that this information establishes that there is
likely a group of similarly situated individuals entitled to
receive notice of this lawsuit.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate the
existence of a class of similarly situated individuals.  First,
O&G opposes conditional class certification, arguing that the
Plaintiffs have failed to establish that they were the victims of
a single decision, policy, or plan.  They also assert that the
Plaintiffs' proposed class definition violates Federal Rule Civil
Procedure 20(a)(2) regarding the joinder of the Defendants.

Because NOMW and O&G are both named Defendants in the litigation,
the Defendants argue that the potential class must be comprised
of employees who have worked for both NOMW and O&G, rather than
limiting the class to current and former employees of O&G
exclusively.  NOMW also filed an opposition to the motion,
adopting and incorporating by reference O&G's arguments and
further contending that conditional class certification is
improper because the Plaintiffs have not established their status
as employees.

Judge Barbier finds that the complaint and the Plaintiffs'
declarations set forth substantial allegations that the putative
class members were together victims of a single decision, policy,
or plan.  The alleged policy of failing to pay employees
performing manual labor an overtime rate for work performed in
excess of forty hours a week constitutes a factual nexus which
binds the named plaintiffs and the potential class members
together.

Accordingly, he finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied their
lenient burden of showing that there is likely a class of
"similarly situated" employees entitled to receive notice.  As
discovery proceeds to completion, the Defendants may move for
decertification if it is determined that the Plaintiffs have
failed to meet their burden of establishing that they and the
proposed class members are similarly situated.  The Defendants
submitted no further objections to the form, content, or timing
of the Plaintiffs' proposed notice.

Accordingly, Judge Barbier granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Class Certification, Judicial Notice, and for
Disclosure of Names and Addresses of Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs,
and conditionally certified as a collective action pursuant to 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b).

The Judge ordered that the Notice will be sent to the all
individuals who worked or are working performing manual labor for
O&G during the previous three years, and who are eligible for
overtime pay pursuant to the FLSA, and who did not receive full
overtime compensation.

The Defendants will have 14 days from the entry of the Order to
produce the full names, dates of employment, and last known
addresses of all potential opt-in Plaintiffs.

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

A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2018 Order and Reasons
is available at https://is.gd/uLGVeF from Leagle.com.

Osman Maldonado, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated,, Josue Nunez, Mauricio Hernandez, Marvel Guerrero,
Antonio Rodriguez, Jose S. Hernandez, Nerlin Sosa, Carlos
Enriquez-Galeas Hernandez, Fredis Rodriguez, Luis Alonso
Martinez, Enil Ponce, Jose Guiterrez, Alba Luz Coello, Nelson
Rodriquez, Lorenzo Funes Romero, Yessica Quintanilla, Alex Mena &
Jose Bordalez, Plaintiffs, represented by Roberto L. Costales --
costaleslawoffice@gmail.com -- Costales Law Office, Emily
Westermeier -- eaw@beaumontcostales.com -- Costales Law Office &
William Henry Beaumont -- whbeaumont@gmail.com -- William H.
Beaumont Law.

O&G Construction LLC & Olan David Del Arca Sabat, Defendants,
represented by Lawrence J. Centola, III -- info@mbfirm.com --
Martzell & Bickford & Christopher Hicks Carbine, Martzell &
Bickford.

David Waldheim & New Orleans Metalworks, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Cesar Roberto Burgos -- cburgos@burgoslawfirm.com
-- Burgos & Associates, LLC, Gabriel Omar Mondino --
gmondino@burgoslawfirm.com -- Burgos & Associates, LLC, George M.
McGregor, Jr. -- gmcgregor@burgoslawfirm.com -- Burgos &
Associates, LLC & Robert J. Daigre -- rdaigre@burgoslawfirm.com -
- Burgos & Associates, LLC.


NEW YORK: Seubert Files Suit v. Election Board
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Andrew M. Cuomo.
The case is styled as David Seubert, Caroline Tolbert, Mark
Whelan, Dilys Farney, Richard Hastings, Lynn Lanphear and Linda
Lanphear, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. Andrew M. Cuomo in his official capacity as Governor of the
State of New York, The New York State of Board of Elections and
The Monroe County Board of Elections, Defendants, Case No. 6:18-
cv-06303 (W.D. N.Y., April 17, 2018).

New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Andrew K Preston, Esq.
   Bee Ready Fishbein Hatter & Donovan, LLP
   170 Old Country Road, Suite 200
   Mineola, NY 11501
   Tel: (516) 746-5599
   Fax: (516) 746-1045
   Email: apreston@beereadylaw.com


NVR INC: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Smith, et al.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Paul Smith, et al., the Plaintiff, v. NVR,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08328 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon.
Judge Gary Feinerman entered an order denying class certification
without prejudice.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on April 23,
2018, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied
without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule
5.3(b).

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


ODWALLA INC: Thompson Sues over "No Added Sugar" Label in Juices
----------------------------------------------------------------
COY THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated California citizens, the Plaintiffs, v. ODWALLA, INC., a
California corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. 37-2D18-00019815-CU-BT-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., April 20,
2018), seeks to enjoin the Defendants from further unfair and
deceptive business practices regarding the deceptive advertising,
sales, and other business practices relating to the Odwalla
Juices.

The Plaintiff brings this action for himself and on behalf of all
citizens of California who purchased one or more containers of
Odwalla Juices, including those branded as "Berry Greens",
"Groovin' Greens", and "100% Orange Juice", and that
conspicuously included the maxim "No Added Sugar" on their label
and/or outer packaging created, manufactured, distributed,
marketed, and/or sold by Defendant Odwalla, Inc. and DOES 1-10.

The action arises out of the representation "No Added Sugar" as
placed by Defendants on the labels and/or outer packaging of
Odwalla Juice containers. The Food and Drug Administration
regulations promulgated pursuant to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics
Act of 1938 specify the exact nutrient content claims for sugar
that are permitted on a food label. The Defendants' "No Added
Sugar" claims on its Odwalla Juices containers fail to comply
with these requirements, as set forth below. Defendants have
inter alia violated California's Sherman Law and numerous
consumer protection statutes, which wholly adopt the federal
requirements.

In California more than 30% of adults are obese, and
approximately 16% of children and adolescents are obese. The
obesity epidemic has been fueled, in part, by the increased
consumption of foods high in sugar. Obesity and excess sugar
consumption, in turn, are linked to a variety of other health
problems, including, heart disease, tooth decay and diabetes.
Consumers are increasingly aware of the importance of sugar
consumption and react positively to packaging that states "No
Added Sugar." To profit from consumers' well-placed and increased
focus on limiting and adjusting onward sugar consumption, the
Defendants prominently feature a "No Added Sugar" representation
on the front labels of its Odwalla Juice containers.

The FDA forbids the use of the representation "No Added Sugar"
claims unless the product having such a claim meets the following
criteria: No amount of sugars, as defined in 21 C.F.R. section
101.9(c)(6)(ii), or any other ingredient that contains sugars
that functionally substitute for added sugars is added during
processing or packaging; the product does not contain an
ingredient containing added sugars such as jam, jelly, or
concentrated fruit juice; the sugar content has not been
increased above the amount present in the ingredients by some
means such as the use of enzymes, except where the intended
functional effect of the process is not to increase the sugars
content of a food, and a functionally insignificant increase in
sugars results; the food that it resembles and for which it
substitutes normally contains added sugars; and the products bear
a statement that the food is not "low calorie" or "calorie
reduced" (unless the food meets the requirements for a "low" or
"reduced calorie" food) and that directs consumers' attention to
the nutrition panel for further information on sugar and calorie
content.

Odwalla Inc. is an American food product company that sells fruit
juices, smoothies and food bars. It was founded in Santa Cruz,
California, in 1980 and since 1995 is headquartered in Half Moon
Bay, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
          Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
          Josnua C. Anaya, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
          550 WestC Street, Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238 1333
          Facsimile: (619) 238 5425
          E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com
                  trk@classactionlaw.com
                  jca@classactionlaw.com


OPHTHOTECH CORP: Court Consolidates "Micholle," "Wasson" Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, FRANK MICHOLLE, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. OPHTHOTECH CORPORATION,
DAVID R. GUYER, MICHAEL G. ATIEH, GLENN P. SBLENDORIO, and SAMIR
PATEL, Defendants. MARK WASSON, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. OPHTHOTECH CORPORATION,
DAVID R. GUYER, MICHAEL G. ATIEH, GLENN P. SBLENDORIO, and SAMIR
PATEL, Defendants, Case Nos. 17-CV-210 (VSB), 17-CV-1758
(VSB)(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (i) granted the
motions to consolidate Micholle and Wasson complaints; (ii)
granted Pension Plan's motion for appointment as the Lead
Plaintiff and for approval of the lead counsel; and (iii) denied
the remaining motions from Jenkins, the Kirk Group, the Bristol
Group, Oppenheim, Magiera, Ferber, and the Wang Group for
appointment as the Lead Plaintiff.

On Jan. 11, 2017, Micholle filed a class action complaint against
Ophthotech and the Individual Defendants, alleging that the
Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act ("Exchange Act"), and the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated pursuant to the
Exchange Act by misrepresenting the results of its studies for
Fovista, a drug being tested to treat a retinal disorder called
age-related macular degeneration.  The essence of Micholle's
claim is that, between May 11, 2015 and Dec. 12, 2016, Ophthotech
mischaracterized both the results of Fovista's efficacy and the
results of the drug's phase three trial.

Micholle claims that, as a result of Ophthotech's positive
characterizations of the phase one and phase two clinical trials,
the market price of Ophthotech stock was artificially inflated.
This, in turn, caused Micholle and others who purchased
Ophthotech securities during the Class Period substantial losses
when Ophthotech issued a press release on Dec. 12, 2016,
announcing that the results of the phase three trial "had failed
to achieve its primary endpoint.

On Jan. 11, 2017, the same day that he filed his complaint,
Micholle published a notice of the complaint on Globe Newswire in
accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995 ("PSLRA").  The notice was addressed to all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Ophthotech
between May 11, 2015 and Dec. 12, 2016, and detailed the claims
in the Micholle Complaint.  It informed the Class that they had
until March 13, 2017 to file for appointment as the Lead
Plaintiff.

Several months later, on March 9, 2017, Wasson filed a class
action complaint against the Defendants.  The Wasson Complaint's
claims arise out of the same facts and allege the same
misrepresentations against the Defendants for the period between
May 11, 2015 and Dec. 9, 2016.

Since the Micholle Complaint was filed, eight Plaintiffs and
Plaintiff groups have filed motions requesting consolidation of
the Ophthotech Actions, appointment of the Lead Plaintiff, and
approval of the Lead Counsel.

Jenkins moves to appoint himself as the Lead Plaintiff and for
approval of Frank Sims Stolper LLP and Wolf Popper LLP as the
lead counsel and liaison counsel, respectively.  Colin Kirk, Dora
Jordan, and Sonia Carrero-Pomeroy ("Kirk Group") move to appoint
themselves as Lead Plaintiffs and for approval of Glancy Prongay
& Murray LLP and Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. as the co-lead
counsel.  City of Bristol Pension Fund, Brandon Suedekum, Ashok
Dalal, Sergio Albonico, and Mayur Shah ("Bristol Group") move to
appoint themselves as the Lead Plaintiffs and for approval
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP and Levi & Korsinsky LLP as
the co-lead counsel.  Oppenheim Asset Management Services
S.a.r.l. moves to appoint itself as the Lead Plaintiff and for
approval of Motley Rice LLC as the lead counsel.  Magiera moves
to appoint himself as the Lead Plaintiff and for approval of
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP as the lead counsel.  Xing Wang and Genghong
Zhao ("Wang Group") move to appoint themselves as the Lead
Plaintiffs and for approval of Pomerantz LLP and Goldberg Law PC
as the co-lead counsel.  Sheet Metal Workers' Pension Plan of
Southern California, Arizona, and Nevada moves to appoint itself
as the Lead Plaintiff, and for approval of Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP as the lead counsel.  Brian Ferber moves to appoint
himself as the Lead Plaintiff and for approval of Gainey McKenna
& Egleston as the lead counsel.  All the Plaintiffs and the
Plaintiff groups, except Magiera, who did not file a motion for
consolidation, but who does not oppose consolidation, move to
consolidate the Ophthotech Actions.

In response to the motions for appointment of the Lead Plaintiff
and approval of the lead counsel, the Kirk Group, Oppenheim,
Ferber, and Magiera filed notices of nonopposition acknowledging
that they do not possess the largest financial interest.  Three
of the remaining movants filed oppositions to the competing
motions.

On March 27, 2017, Jenkins filed an opposition to the Pension
Plan, Bristol Group, and Wang Group's motions.  On the same day,
the Pension Plan filed an opposition to all competing motions.
Lastly, on March 28, 2017, the Bristol Group filed an opposition
to the competing motions.  Thereafter, the Wang Group, Jenkins,
the Bristol Group, and the Pension Plan filed replies in support
of their motions.  The Defendant has not taken a position on the
merits of these motions.

In light of the fact that the motions for consolidation are
unopposed, as well as the substantially similar nature of the
Ophthotech Actions and the common questions of law and fact
arising under these actions, Judge Broderick will grant the
Movants' motions for consolidation.

The Judge finds that Pension Plan is the "most adequate"
Plaintiff under the PSLRA, and that the remaining Movants have
failed to rebut this presumption.  Pension Plan initially
calculated its losses at $1,004,573.27.  After excluding the
stock bought and sold before Dec. 12, 2016, the Pension Plan
reduced its losses to $988,499.07.  The record indicates that
this calculation is accurate and that the Pension Plan suffered
approximately $988,499 in total losses between May 11, 2015 and
Dec. 12, 2016.  Thus, the Pension Plan is the appropriate Lead
Plaintiff for the consolidated action.

Having reviewed the Pension Plan's Memorandum of Law, as well as
Rosenfeld's Declaration and the firm resume, the Judge finds that
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, the Pension Plan's proposed Lead
Counsel, will adequately and effectively represent the interests
of the class.  The attorneys at Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP have
substantial experience with securities litigation and securities
class actions.  He will approve the Pension Plan's selection and
will appoint Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as the Lead Counsel.

For these reasons, Judge Broderick granted the motions for
consolidation based on the similarity of the Ophthotech Actions.
Because he finds that Pension Plan is the presumptive Lead
Plaintiff and no other Movants have rebutted that presumption, he
granted Pension Plan's motion for appointment as the Lead
Plaintiff and for approval of the lead counsel.  The Pension Plan
has a substantial financial interest and meets the typicality and
adequacy requirements of Rule 23.  The remaining motions from
Jenkins, the Kirk Group, the Bristol Group, Oppenheim, Magiera,
Ferber, and the Wang Group for appointment as lead plaintiff are
denied.  The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to
terminate the pending motions.

Pension Plan is directed to file an amended consolidated
complaint no later than 30 days after the date of issuance of his
Opinion & Order.  The Defendants are directed to answer or
otherwise respond to the amended consolidated complaint no later
than 30 days after Pension Plan serves the amended consolidated
complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/tgMk5l from Leagle.com.

Mark Wasson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated,, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon Lee Hopkins --
shopkins@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.


OUTCOME HEALTH: Settles Suit Over Daily Nutrition Tip Texts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonah Comstock, writing for mobihealthnews, reports that things
aren't getting any better for Outcome Health, the digital health
media company that recently settled a three-month legal battle
over claims that the company misled its investors and defrauded
its customers.

Now the company, which installs screens in waiting rooms and
charges pharma companies and other stakeholders to advertise on
them, has agreed to settle another court case, this one a class
action suit by people who signed up for health tips via text
message in 2015.  Fierce first spotted the news.

Outcome Health will pay $2.9 million to the class, but doesn't
admit any fault or wrongdoing.

Christy Griffith originally filed suit in March 2016 against
Outcome Health, still known at the time as ContextMedia.
Ms. Griffith said she signed up for daily nutrition tips via text
messages after seeing the service advertised on one of Outcome
Health's waiting room screens.  At first, the messages didn't
offer any way to opt out.  Later, the words "To opt-out, reply
STOP" were added to the text messages, but multiple repeated
attempts to opt out went unanswered, and Griffith continued to
receive daily texts.

The suit alleges that using an automated system to text people
without their consent is a violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), including continuing to text someone who
has withdrawn their consent.

According to the settlement agreement, the courts will subpeona
wireless carriers to get the names of everyone who signed up for
the service and received messages.  Those individuals will be
contacted by direct mail to instruct them on how to submit a
claim to be included in the class.  After a certain amount of
time, the money will be distributed among the class based on the
number of texts they received after opting out of the service.

Outcome Health's recent troubles began last fall when a Wall
Street Journal investigation alleged that the company's employees
misled clients using inaccurate and manipulated advertisement
performance data.  Shortly thereafter a handful of Outcome's top
investors filed a lawsuit against the startup claiming they were
misled by Outcome's founders prior to their $487.5 million
investment.  This caused even more problems for the startup as
hospitals and professional associations cut ties and halted
expansion plans in the wake of the suit. [GN]


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: May 29 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on April 9 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Overstock.com, Inc. ('Overstock or the
'Company) (NASDAQ:OSTK) and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, District of Utah,
and docketed under 18-cv-00290, is on behalf of a class
consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Overstock securities between August 3, 2017 and March 26, 2018,
both dates inclusive (the 'Class Period), seeking to recover
damages caused by defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 'Exchange Act)
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Overstock securities
between August 3, 2017, and March 26, 2018, both dates inclusive,
you have until May 29, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be
obtained atwww.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact
Robert S. Willoughby at [email protected] or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone
number, and the number of shares purchased.

Overstock is an online retailer that offers discounted brand-name
merchandise for sale over the internet.  In late 2014, the
Company formed a wholly-owned subsidiary, Medici Ventures
('Medici), as part of its initiative to develop and advance
blockchain technology. Medici oversees a portfolio of blockchain
technology and fintech businesses, which includes tZERO. In
December 2016, the Company issued publicly traded blockchain
preferred shares of Overstock.com, Inc.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Overstock's coin
offering was highly problematic and potentially illegal; (ii) the
Company's Medici business was hemorrhaging money; and (iii) as a
result of the foregoing, Overstock's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On March 1, 2018, Overstock announced that the Securities and
Exchange Commission ('SEC) had requested information about its
initial coin offering.  The Company's filing with the SEC, Form
8-K, stated in relevant part: [I]n February2018, the Division of
Enforcement of the SEC informed the Company that it is conducting
an investigation in the matter Re: Overstock.com, Inc. (NY-9777)
and requested that the Company voluntarily provide certain
documents related to the Offering and the Tokens in connection
with its investigation.  The Company is in the process of
responding to this document request and will cooperate with the
SEC in connection with its investigation.

On this news, Overstock's share price fell $2.65, or 4.38%, to
close at $57.75 on March 1, 2018.

On March 15, 2018, post-market, the Company filed an annual
report on Form 10-K with the SEC, announcing the Company's
financial and operating results for the quarter and year ended
December 31, 2017 (the '2017 10-K).  In the 2017 10-K, the
Company provided an update on the SEC probe, stating in relevant
part: '[I]n February 2018, the Division of Enforcement of the SEC
informed tZERO and subsequently informed us that it is conducting
an investigation and requested that we and our affiliates,
including Medici Ventures and tZERO, voluntarily provide certain
information and documents related to tZERO and the tZERO security
token offering in connection with its investigation.  We are in
the process of responding to these document requests and intend
to cooperate fully with the SEC in connection with its
investigation, which will require the time and attention of tZERO
and our personnel and may have an adverse effect on our ability
to focus attention on our businesses and our ability to raise
capital.  In addition, the investigation could result in a delay
of the tZERO security token offering, negative publicity for
tZERO or us, and may have a material adverse effect on us or on
the current and future business ventures of tZERO.
On this news, Overstock's share price fell $2.50, or 5.18%, to
close at $45.70 on March 16, 2018.

Then, on March 26, 2018, post-market, Overstock announced that it
planned to offer 4,000,000 shares of its common stock in an
underwritten public offering.

On this news, Overstock's share price fell $6.68, or 14.97%, to
close at $37.92 on March 27, 2018.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. [GN]


P.J. CLARKES: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against P.J. Clarkes
Restaurant Corp. The case is styled as Brian Fischler,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. P.J. Clarkes Restaurant Corp., Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-03425 (S.D. N.Y., April 18, 2018).

The Defendant is engaged in the restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


PHARMACEUTICAL SPECIALIST: Quinonez Seeks to Certify Two Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BRIANNA QUINONEZ, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PHARMACEUTICAL
SPECIALTIES, INC., a foreign business corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:16-cv-05966-TJH-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to certify classes:

   "all consumers nation-wide who purchased a product in the
   Vanicream SPF 50+ product line, within the applicable statute
   of limitations, for personal use until the date notice is
   disseminated:"; and

   "all California consumers who purchased a product in the
   Vanicream SPF 50+ product line, within the applicable statute
   of limitations, for personal use until the date notice is
   disseminated."

Excluded from this Class are Defendants and its officers,
directors and employees and those who purchased a Product in the
Vanicream SPF 50+ product line for the purpose of resale.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Farahi, Esq.
          Raymond Collins, Esq.
          FARAHI LAW FIRM, APC
          22760 Hawthorne Blvd., Ste 230
          Telephone: (310) 774 4500
          Facsimile: (424) 295 0557
          E-mail: justin@farahilaw.com
                  raymond@farahilaw.com

               - and -

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


PHILLIPS NORTH AMERICA: Faces "Loujangamath" Wage-and-Hour Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHELLY LOUJANGAMATH, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PHILLIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company; ANGIOSCORE, INC., a
Delaware corporation; THE SPECTRANETICS CORPORATION d.b.a. SPNC,
INC., a Delaware corporation; " and DOES l through 50, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. RG18901786 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 20,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages for all hours worked under
the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to provide all
paid rest periods, provide all meal periods, pay all wages for
all hours worked at the correct rates of pay, indemnify for all
expenses, and provide accurate written wage statements.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          Sehyung "Logan" Park, Esq.
          THE SPlVAK LAW FIRM
          1116530 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 312
          4 Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone (818) 582 3086
          Facsimile (818) 582 2561
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
                  logan@spivaklaw.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          5500 Bolsa Ave, Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (562) 256 1047
          Facsimile: (562) 256 1006
          E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com


POWERCOR: Class Action Over Victor Bushfires Commences
------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that a multi-million
dollar class action has been launched against electricity
distributor Powercor over bushfires in southwest Victoria which
destroyed homes and ravaged the region's dairy farms.

Lawyers on April 11 confirmed they have begun a class action in
the Supreme Court of Victoria, alleging the March 17 bushfire at
Terang was caused when powerlines clashed or arced, leading to
molten metal falling to the ground.  The bushfire raged through
at least 6500 hectares of farmland, killing thousands of
livestock.

Lawyers estimate total losses will exceed $40 million.

Maddens Lawyers' Brendan Pendergast, who successfully sought
compensation for bushfire victims after Black Saturday, is
confident liability against Powercor will be proven.

"A safe system of electrical distribution should be designed such
that arcing and clashing does not occur in high wind, high fire
danger circumstances," he said in a statement.

It was lucky no one was killed in the fires, although many people
were distressed, he added.

"The community distress is amplified by the fact that many people
impacted were also impacted in 1983 as a result of the Ash
Wednesday fires, which were also caused by electrical events," Mr
Pendergast said.

Multiple fires burned at the same time across southwest Victoria,
hitting the areas of Garvoc, Gazette and Camperdown, in
combination destroying 30 homes and sheds and killed thousands of
cattle and sheep.

The law firm has already issued a $20 million class action
against Powercor for victims of the Garvoc fire.

There are further plans to launch similar proceedings in relation
to fires at Gazette and Camperdown.

Powercor says it is co-operating with Energy Safe Victoria as it
continues to investigate the Terang and Garvoc fires.

"Our thoughts are with all who have been affected," a spokeswoman
for the energy company said in a statement to AAP.

The devastating bushfires which spanned more than a week have
been dubbed the St Patrick's Day fires. [GN]


PROGRESSIVE COMMUNITY: Fails to Pay Wages, "Sanders" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
LA'OTIS NICKELSON, SHONDRECA SANDERS, ROYLENA HUMPHREYS, and
AMBER TREPAGNIER the Plaintiffs, v. PROGRESSIVE COMMUNITY CARE
CENTER, LLC; KEYORKA DENNIS, OFFICIALLY AND PERSONALLY, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-04147 (M.D. La., April 20, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, in connection with their employment
with Defendants, the Plaintiffs prepared patient treatment
records and reports. The Plaintiffs counseled patients
individually and in group sessions, to assist in overcoming
dependencies in adjusting to life. The Plaintiffs were required
to travel from site to site to conduct work on behalf of
Defendants. The Plaintiffs were not compensated for attending
mandatory monthly meetings and trainings. The Plaintiffs were not
compensated or reimbursed for travel from site to site. The
Plaintiffs' starting salaries ranged from $18 to $20 an hour.

Beginning in or about December 2015, the Defendants starting
paying Plaintiffs irregularly. The Defendants initially claimed
that the reason for the irregular payments was a change in
providers.  Days beyond the scheduled pay date would pass with
Plaintiffs receiving no compensation for hours worked. When
employees complained about not being compensated, the Defendants
threatened to terminate them. Over a period of approximately 18
months, the Plaintiffs waited patiently to receive full
compensation for hours worked. The Defendants' reasons for delays
in paying Plaintiffs or not paying them at all evolved from
alleged changes in providers to "recent financial hardships";
"repeated changes at the state level"; and "slowing of claims
payments".

The Defendants made repeated promises by email and other written
correspondences to pay Plaintiffs wages that they earned. Because
of they were not paid earned wages, each Plaintiff herein ended
her employment with Defendants. The Defendants never paid
Plaintiffs all of the wages Plaintiffs earned, from December 2015
through the dates each Plaintiff's employment with Defendants
ended.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nghana Lewis Gauff, Esq.
          1317 W Airline Ste E
          LaPlace, LA 70068
          Telephone: (504) 402 5911
          Facsimile: (985) 359 4805
          E-mail: nlglawfirm@bellsouth.net


PRONAI THERAPEUTICS: Court Dismisses "Gregory" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL GREGORY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PRONAI THERAPEUTICS
INC., NICK GLOVER, and SUKHI JAGPAL, Defendants, Case No. 16 Civ.
8703 (PAE)(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted
ProNAi's motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint
("AC").

Pronai, a clinical stage oncology company, produced only one
product, PNT2258, which was purportedly designed to target
cancers that over-express B-cell lymphoma such as Hodgkin's
lymphomas and non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients with relapsed or
refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.  On June 6, 2016, the
Company issued a press release announcing interim data for the
two Phase 2 trials and revealed that PNT2258 had failed to
produce sufficient efficacy results to justify its continued
clinical development.  On this news, the price of Pronai common
stock declined from a closing share price of $6.38 per share on
June 3, 2016 to close at $2.07 per share on June 6, 2016, a loss
of more than 67%, on extremely heavy trading volume.

In this putative class action under the federal securities laws,
Lead Plaintiffs Gregory, Yeshan Jagroo, and Mindy Frost claim
that pharmaceutical company ProNAi, its CEO and President Glover,
and its CFO Jagpal made false and misleading statements touting
the prospects of PNT2258, ProNAi's sole drug candidate.  These
statements were made between July 15, 2015, the day ProNAi's
initial public offering prospectus was released, and June 6,
2016, the day ProNAi announced the discontinuation of development
of PNT2258.

The Plaintiffs allege that, during the Class Period, ProNAi made
some 70 false and misleading statements, spanning a series of
disclosures, and these statements that are alleged to be
actionable concern the status of PNT2258 at various points in its
complex testing and development.  As a general proposition, the
Plaintiffs' core theory is that ProNAi consistently overstated
PNT2258's prospects, downplayed or failed to disclose historical
and more recent negative test results, and identified as risk
factors circumstances that had already come to pass.

The misstatements on which the Plaintiffs focus can be broadly
grouped into four categories: (1) ProNAi's statements regarding
the efficacy of PNT2258; (2) ProNAi's failure to more timely
disclose protocol amendments; (3) ProNAi's statements to the
effect that it had designed clinical trials with an eye toward
FDA approval; and (4) ProNAi's failure to reveal that it lacked
appropriate internal disclosure mechanisms.

The Plaintiffs bring the lawsuit on behalf of all persons who
purchased ProNAi securities between July 15, 2015 and June 6,
2016, and lost substantially.  They allege violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
corresponding rule of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 17
C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.

Pending now is ProNAi's motion to dismiss the AC for failure to
state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and
9(b).

Judge Engelmayer finds only one set of statements materially
misleading: ProNAi's non-forward-looking opinion statements made
after September 2015 about the potential novel applications of
PNT2258.  He holds these statements misleading for failure to
disclose the universally negative results to date of ProNAi's
internal preclinical studies.  As to other challenged statements,
although not finding these actionable, the Judge, solely for the
purpose of considering scienter, will also assume arguendo that
(i) ProNAi's omission of the fact that additional patients
discontinued the Pilot Phase II trial made statements about the
trial's efficacy materially misleading; and that (i) ProNAi's
failure to disclose the disease progression of patients using
ProNAi was also actionable.  He does so because these categories
present closer questions than the balance of the 70 statements
that the Plaintiffs put at issue, as to which their challenges
fall far short of the mark.

As to any challenged statement, to state a claim, the Judge finds
that the Plaintiffs would still need to adequately plead
scienter. The AC fails to do so.  It does not plausibly allege
(or come close to alleging) that any challenged statement was
made with the intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud.

First, the AC pleads that only a subset of this testing data was
conveyed to Glover -- none, as pled, was communicated to CFO
Jagpai.  Second, and more important, the AC does not plead any
facts to suggest that -- until the actual termination of
PNT2258's development at the end of the Class Period -- Glover,
Jagpai, or someone else whose intent could be imputed to ProNAi
subjectively believed that PNT2258 had ceased to have promise or
should be abandoned.  bsent such factual allegations, the
Defendants' qualified opinion statements reciting that there was
some promise for ProNAi in novel applications must be viewed as
reflecting sincerely held views.  Third and finally, the nature
of the undisclosed information matters.  There is in general no
freestanding obligation to disclose preclinical data.  And
sincerely held statements of opinion are rarely actionable.

As to the Plaintiffs' against ProNAi, Jagpal and Glover under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, the Judge finds that such
claims can lie only against the individual Defendants, as ProNAI
is not a controlling person of itself.  In any event, to state a
claim under Section 20(a), the Plaintiffs must adequately allege
a primary violation by the controlled person.  Because the
Plaintiffs have not done so, their Section 20(a) claim must also
be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Engelmayer dismissed the AC in
its entirety, with prejudice.  The Clerk of Court is respectfully
directed to terminate the motions pending at docket number 22 and
to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/sWh33d from Leagle.com.

ProNai Investor Group, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Shannon Lee
Hopkins -- shopkins@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.

Yeshan Jagroo, Lead Plaintiff, pro se.

Mindy Frost, Lead Plaintiff, pro se.

Michael Gregory, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon Lee
Hopkins, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.

ProNAi Therapeutics Inc., Nick Glover & Sukhi Jagpal, Defendants,
represented by Peter Andrew Stokes --
peter.stokes@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Fulbright & Jaworski LLP
& Robin D. Adelstein -- robin.adelstein@nortonrosefulbright.com -
- Norton Rose Fulbright Us LLP.


RASIER LLC: Faces "Durgin" Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rasier, LLC. The
case is styled as Brittany Durgin, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rasier, LLC, Rasier-
CA, LLC and Uber Technologies Inc, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-
03169-PSG-GJS (C.D. Cal., April 16, 2018).

Rasier LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Uber Technologies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Patrice L Bishop, Esq.
   Stull Stull and Brody
   9430 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 400
   Beverly Hills, CA 90212
   Tel: (310) 209-2468
   Fax: (310) 209-2087
   Email: service@ssbla.com


RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT: Faces "Dibartolo" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Receivable
Management Services Corporation. The case is styled as Michael A.
Dibartolo, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The Receivable Management Services
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02232 (E.D. N.Y., April
16, 2018).

The Receivable Management Services Corporation (RMS) provides
debt recovery services to companies from a wide range of
industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Sanders Law, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


SAGBOLT LLC: "O'Brien" Suit Brought Before New York Supreme Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Evelyn O'Brien, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sagbolt, LLC and
Ocean Properties Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 65232/2018, was
brought before the New York Supreme Court on April 16, 2018.

Sagbolt LLC operates a resort.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph T. Moen ESQ
   63 Putnam Street Ste 202
   Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
   Tel: (518) 588-0316

The Defendant is represented by:

   CHAUDHURI LAW PLLC
   57 WEST 57TH STREET 4TH FLOOR
   NEW YORK, NY 10019
   Tel: (212) 457-6734


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Faces "Fife" Suit in W.D. Washington
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Scientific Games
Corp. The case is styled as Sheryl Fife, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Scientific
Games Corp., a Nevada corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-
00565 (W.D. Wash., April 17, 2018).

Scientific Games Corporation is an American company that provides
gambling products and services to lottery and gambling
organizations worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Cecily C Shiel, Esq.
   TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS
   1700 SEVENTH AVE, STE 2200
   SEATTLE, WA 98101
   Tel: (206) 682-5600
   Email: cshiel@tousley.com

      - and -

   Janissa Ann Strabuk, Esq.
   TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS
   1700 SEVENTH AVE, STE 2200
   SEATTLE, WA 98101
   Tel: (206) 682-5600
   Email: jstrabuk@tousley.com


SETERUS INC: Demurrer Ruling in "Davidson" Suit Reversed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDWARD DAVIDSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
SETERUS, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case No.
D071502 (Cal. App.), Judge Cynthia Aaron of the Court of Appeals
of California for the Fourth District, Division One, reversed the
judgment of the trial court sustaining the Defendants' demurrer
and remanded the case for further proceedings.

In this case, Davidson, on behalf of California residents who
have been subjected to the Defendants' allegedly unlawful debt
collection practices, brought a putative class action against
Seterus and its parent company, International Business Machines,
Inc. ("IBM"), alleging that the Defendants violated  California's
Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), in September 2016.

Davidson alleges that the defendants are debt collectors who are
subject to the requirements of the Rosenthal Act, and that they
were acting as debt collectors when they undertook the allegedly
unlawful conduct described in his complaint.  He alleges that the
Defendants' conduct violates the Rosenthal Act's prohibitions
against causing a telephone to ring repeatedly or continuously to
annoy the person called and communicating by telephone with the
debtor with such frequency as to be unreasonable and to
constitute an harassment to the debtor under the circumstances.

The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendants violated the
prohibition against the false representation that information
concerning a debtor's failure or alleged failure to pay a
consumer debt has been or is about to be referred to a consumer
reporting agency, and that the Defendants violated the Rosenthal
Act's requirement that they comply with the federal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  Davidson's UCL cause of
action is based on the alleged violations of the Rosenthal Act
which, he asserts, constitute per se violations of the UCL.

The Defendants filed a demurrer to Davidson's complaint on May
11, 2016.  They argued that Davidson is unable to state facts
sufficient to constitute a cause of action under the Rosenthal
Act because neither Seterus nor IBM is a debt collector who
engages in debt collection under the Rosenthal Act.  IBM also
argued that the cause of action against IBM is too uncertain
because the complaint does not allege sufficient facts to
establish that IBM is a debt collector and that it is liable for
Seterus's conduct.

After full briefing, the trial court issued a tentative ruling on
the Defendants' demurrer on Sept. 6, 2016, in which it indicated
its intention to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend.
The court held a hearing on the matter on September 9, and
subsequently adopted its tentative ruling.  In sustaining the
demurrer without leave to amend, the trial court acknowledged the
existence of a split of authority in the federal courts as to
whether the Rosenthal Act's definition of debt collector includes
a mortgage servicer.  However, the court agreed with those courts
that have concluded that a mortgage servicer may not be
considered to be a debt collector under the Rosenthal Act.  The
court determined that because Davidson's UCL claim was derivative
of his Rosenthal Act claim, the complaint failed to state a cause
of action.

The court also ruled, in the alternative, that as to IBM, the
complaint failed to plead sufficient facts to demonstrate that
IBM could be held liable for the actions of its subsidiary,
Seterus.  The trial court further determined that no amendment
could cure the deficiencies of the complaint, and that the
demurrer should therefore be sustained without leave to amend.
The trial court entered judgment in favor of the Defendants on
Oct. 5, 2016.

Davidson filed a timely notice of appeal.  Davidson contends that
the trial court erred in (i) determining that mortgage servicers
are not debt collectors under the Rosenthal Act, and (ii)
concluding that Davidson failed to plead facts sufficient to
state a cause of action against IBM on an alter ego theory

Judge Aaron concludes that the Rosenthal Act's definition of debt
collector applies to a mortgage servicer who engages in debt
collection practices in attempting to obtain repayment of
mortgage debt, and that the trial court improperly sustained the
Defendants' demurrer on the ground that the Act does not apply to
mortgage servicers.  She ultimately agrees with Davidson's
contention, in no small part due to our adherence to the general
rule that civil statutes for the protection of the public are,
generally, broadly construed in favor of that protective purpose.
The fact that the Rosenthal Act's definitional language is
sufficiently broad to include mortgage lenders and/or mortgage
servicers within its purview, she concludes that mortgage lenders
and mortgage servicers can be debt collectors under the Rosenthal
Act.

Given her reversal of the court's ruling with respect to the
Rosenthal Act claim, the Judge must also reverse the court's
ruling with respect to Davidson's UCL claim, since that claim is
premised on his Rosenthal Act claim.

The Judge finds that the complaint alleges that both Seterus and
IBM were actively engaged in the offending conduct.  For example,
Davidson alleges that each of the Defendant ratified the other's
acts, and that they aided and abetted each other in committing
the offending acts and omissions.  Davidson has therefore alleged
that IBM, itself, was actively involved in the challenged
conduct; the complaint is not solely about the conduct of its
subsidiary entity, Seterus.  These allegations, she says, are
sufficient to state a cause of action against IBM for violations
of the Rosenthal Act and the UCL.  The trial court's sustaining
of the demurrer as to IBM on this basis must also be reversed.

For the reasons she stated, Judge Arron reversed the judgment of
the trial court.  Appellant Davidson is entitled to costs on
appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/029nx0 from Leagle.com.

Capstone Law, Glenn A. Danas -- Glenn.Danas@CapstoneLawyers.com -
- Melissa Grant -- Melissa.Grant@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Liana C.
Carter -- Liana.Carter@CapstoneLawyers.com -- and Arnab Banerjee
-- Arnab.Banerjee@CapstoneLawyers.com -- for Plaintiff and
Appellant.

Larson O'Brien, Stephen G. Larson -- slarson@larsonobrienlaw.com
-- Robert C. O'Brien -- robrien@larsonobrienlaw.com -- and Paul
A. Rigali -- prigali@larsonobrienlaw.com -- and Steven A. Haskins
-- shaskins@larsonobrienlaw.com -- for Defendants and
Respondents.

Wright, Finlay & Zak and Jonathan D. Fink for American Legal &
Financial Network, California Mortgage Association and California
Mortgage Bankers Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of
Defendants and Respondents.


SHORE CONSTRUCTION: Conditional Cert. of "Magana" Class Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MAGANA, v. SHORE CONSTRUCTION, LLC, et al., Section:
"G" (4), Civil Action No. 17-1896 (E.D. La.), Judge Nannette
Jolivette Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana denied the Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Class Certification, Judicial Notice, and for
Disclosure of the Names and Addresses of the Potential Opt-In
Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiff filed the putative class action on March 6, 2017,
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The
Plaintiff alleges that he worked for Defendants Shore
Construction and Kristi Caton as a "rigger" unloading barges in
Gibson, Louisiana.  He claims that the Defendants paid him a
regular rate of $9.00 per hour, an overtime rate of $13.50 per
hour, and a $50 per diem.  Thus, the Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants wrongfully did not include the $50 per diem in the
calculation of his overtime premium pay.

On June 13, 207, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion.  On July
11, 2017, the Defendants filed an opposition to the Plaintiff's
motion.  On July 19, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a reply to the
Defendants' opposition.

The Plaintiff alleges that there is a "Putative Class" consisting
of individuals who worked more than 40 hours a week at Shore
Construction and did not receive proper overtime pay.  He asserts
that he and his coworkers all recorded their hours in the same
way, were supervised by the same foremen, and did not live far
distances from the jobsite.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff does not provide a
sufficient factual basis for his allegations, as he submitted no
evidence and nothing other than conclusory assertions in his
Complaint that there is any common, policy, plan, or scheme.
Moreover, the Defendants assert that the Plaintiff presents no
evidence or even substantial allegations that the workers in his
proposed collective action have the same job titles, the same job
responsibilities, or work at the same location.

Judge Brown explains that in Rendon v. Global Technical
Solutions, LLC, the Court found that conditional certification of
a collective action was warranted when the plaintiff provided the
names of two potential opt-ins, despite the fact that the
plaintiff did not provide affidavits from those two individuals.
There, the plaintiff argued that his proposed class had the same
jobs and same basic responsibilities and stated that the proposed
class earned substantially similar wages.  The Court
characterized the plaintiff's evidence as "sparse," but
nevertheless certified a class because the plaintiff had named
two potential opt-in plaintiffs.

Here, similar to Rendon, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff does
not provide any affidavits from any potential options stating
that similarly situated individuals are interested in the suit to
support his "Putative Class."  However, unlike Rendon where the
Plaintiff named two potential opt-in Plaintiffs, in which the
Court characterized his evidence as "sparse," the Plaintiff also
does not provide any names of potential opt-in Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiff asserts that copies of his paychecks illustrate the
Defendants' policy, but his paychecks alone do not establish that
the Defendants had a policy of widespread violations affecting
similarly-situated employees, as he fails to present an affidavit
or even the name of a single similarly-situated employee.
Despite the lenient standard in Lusardi to certify a collective
action, the Judge finds that at least some evidence beyond
unsupported factual assertions of a single decision, policy, or
plan should be presented.  Since the Plaintiff fails to present
such evidence, he fails to meet this lenient standard.

Accordingly, Judge Brown denied the Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Class Certification, Judicial Notice, and for
Disclosure of the Names and Addresses of the Potential Opt-In
Plaintiffs.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/mSksnT from Leagle.com.

Magdaleno Bibian Magana, on behalf of himself and other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, pro se.

Shore Construction, LLC & Kristi Caton, Defendants, represented
by Gavin H. Guillot -- Gavin.Guillot@pjgglaw.com -- Pusateri
Johnston Guillot & Greenbaum, Elizabeth Belle McIntosh --
Elizabeth.McIntosh@pjgglaw.com -- Pusateri Johnston Guillot &
Greenbaum & Salvador Joseph Pusateri --
Salvador.Pusateri@pjgglaw.com -- Pusateri Johnston Guillot &
Greenbaum.


ST. LOUIS RAMS: Court Certifies Class, Subclass in "McAllister"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, RONALD McALLISTER, Plaintiff, v. THE ST. LOUIS
RAMS, LLC, Defendants, Case Nos. 4:16-CV-172 SNLJ, 4:16-CV-262,
4:16-CV-297, 4:16-CV-189 CONSOLIDATED (E.D. Mo.), Judge Stephen
N. Limbaugh, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted in part and
denied in part (i) McAllister's motion for class certification;
(ii) Arnold's motion for class certification; (ii) Envision's
motion for class certification.

The matter is comprised of four consolidated lawsuits relating to
the St. Louis Rams football team's January 2016 decision to move
the team to a new stadium in Inglewood, California.  The Rams'
home stadium had been located in St. Louis, Missouri since 1995.
The St. Louis Rams required football fans who wished to purchase
season tickets to buy Personal Seat Licenses ("PSLs") that
entitled the PSL holder to buy one season ticket per year in a
designated section of the stadium. Approximately 46,000 PSLs were
sold.  Upon the announcement that the Rams would move to
California, lawsuits were filed by PSL holders and others against
the Rams claiming damages arising from the Rams' move.

PSL holders purchased their PSLs subject to License Agreements,
which are at the heart of this controversy.  An entity known as
FANS, Inc. sold PSLs for home football games until Sept. 1, 1995.
Those PSLs were sold pursuant to an agreement known as the "FANS"
contract.  After Sept. 1, 1995, the Rams sold the PSLs directly
pursuant to the "Rams" contract.

The Rams announced they would move the team from St. Louis to
California in January 2016.  The Rams claim that all rights and
obligations under the Rams and FANS Contracts expired when the
team moved to California, and lawsuits were filed.  Plaintiff
McAllister alleged that the Rams terminated the PSLs thus
triggering the Rams' contractual duty to refund "deposits" that
the Rams had received.  Two other groups of Plaintiffs led by
Envision and Arnold sued under the theory that the Rams were
still required to use "best efforts" to secure tickets to home
games in California for PSL holders and that PSL holders still
had the right to transfer their PSLs by sale or otherwise.

The Court consolidated those cases, and the parties filed motions
to test the Plaintiffs' legal theories.  The results depended
entirely on which PSL Agreement, the FANS Contract or the Rams
Contract was at issue.  The Court held that the "best efforts"
obligations expired along with the FANS Contract upon the Rams'
move to California based on a clause unique to the FANS Contract:
The Rams terminated the FANS Agreement because it became invalid
on the Rams' move to California and now must refund deposits
according to the contract.

On the other hand, the Rams Contract contained no such clause, so
it was not terminated upon the Rams' move to California.  The
Rams Contract requires the Rams to use Best Efforts to secure
tickets for seats at games where the transferred home games are
played.

The result was that the Arnold and Envision "ticket theory"
applied to the Rams PSL Contract while the McAllister "refund
theory" applied to the FANS PSL Contract.  The parties apparently
agreed that Arnold and Envision would thus go forward with a
class of Rams PSL holders while McAllister would represent the
FANS PSL holders.  McAllister filed an early motion for class
certification consistent with that understanding moving for
certification of a class of only FANS PSL holders.

Months later, McAllister filed an amended motion for class
certification that seeks to represent classes of both FANS and
Rams PSL holders.  He asserts that the FANS Contract has been
terminated as stated in this Court's order and that the Rams
Contract has more recently been shown to be terminated by the
Rams.  That recent termination occurred, McAllister argues, when
Rams PSL owners called the Rams' ticket office after the Rams
announced season tickets were available, the ticketing agent told
them that those PSLs are no longer valid.

McAllister proposes the following Classes and Subclasses:

     a. FANS Class: All persons or entities who, at the
conclusion of the 2015 season, owned a PSL purchased from Fans,
Inc.

     b. FANS MMPA Subclass: All natural persons who are members
of the FANS Class.

     c. Rams Class: All persons or entities who, at the
conclusion of the 2015 season, owned a PSL: (a) purchased from
the St. Louis Rams; or (b) acquired through the Rams' PSL
transfer program.

     d. Rams MMPA Subclass: All natural persons who are members
of the Rams Class.

Arnold and Envision have also moved to certify classes under the
"ticket theory."   As part of their motions, they ask that the
Court not certify McAllister's classes of Rams PSL holders.

The Arnold Plaintiffs propose one class definition and one
subclass definition:

     a. Rams Class: (A) All persons or entities who (i) purchased
PSLs directly from the Rams; or (ii) had any Rams or FANS PSL
transferred to them; or (iii) upgraded their PSL tier; and (B)
purchased Rams season tickets through their PSLs for the 2015
season; or (C) did not purchase Rams season tickets for the 2015
season but did not receive a PSL cancellation notice from the
Rams.

     b. MMPA subclass: All natural persons who are members of the
Rams Class who purchased PSLs primarily for personal, family, or
household purposes.

Envision Plaintiffs propose the following class and subclass
definitions:

     a. Class: All persons or entities who possessed PSLs subject
to the Rams' Agreement, and who continued to be PSL owners
through, and purchased season tickets for, the 2015 season,
including the following subclasses:

            i. Charter Subclass: All persons or entities who
purchased one or more PSLs directly from the St. Louis Rams, and
who continued to be PSL owners through, and who purchased season
tickets for, the 2015 season.

            ii. Upgrade Subclass: All persons, or entities who
originally signed a PSL Agreement with FANS, Inc. or the Rams,
and later upgraded their PSLs, and who continued to be PSL owners
through, and purchased season tickets for, the 2015 season.

            iii. Transfer Subclass: All persons or entities who
took transfer of one or more PSLs after September 1, 1995, whose
interest in the PSLs was recorded on the books and records of the
Rams, and who continued to be PSL owners through, and purchased
season tickets, for the 2015 season.

            iv. MMPA Subclass: All natural persons who are
members of the Class (excluding entities because, pursuant to the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"), Section 407.025.1,
RSMo, damages are only recoverable by persons who purchase or
lease merchandise primarily for personal, family or household
purposes).

Judge Limbaugh declined to certify McAllister's proposed Rams
Class.  McAllister cites witnesses who testify that the Rams told
PSL holders that the Rams "PSLs are no longer valid."  He says
this does not entitle McAllister to represent a class of Rams PSL
Holders seeking to get their "deposits" back.  The Rams have
always maintained that both PSL contracts terminated when they
moved to California.  The fact that the Rams' ticket agents
continue to say the contracts are "invalid" does not affect the
Court's ruling that the Rams Agreement entitled Rams PSL holders
to activation of the Best Efforts Clause not to a refund of
deposits.

The Judge certified McAllister's proposed class definition for
the FANS PSL Holders with modifications as follows:

     a. FANS Class: All persons or entities who, at the
conclusion of the 2015 season, owned a PSL purchased from Fans,
Inc. that was not later transferred or upgraded.

     b. FANS MMPA Subclass: All natural persons who are members
of the FANS Class and who never claimed the PSL expense as a tax
deduction for business purposes.

McAllister is appointed as the class representative, and his
counsel as the class counsel.

The Judge also certified a modified version of Arnold's proposed
class definition as manageable, ascertainable, and in accordance
with the facts of the case.

     a. Rams Class: (A) All persons or entities who (i) purchased
PSLs directly from the Rams; or (ii) had any Rams or FANS PSL
transferred to them; or (iii) upgraded their PSL tier; and (B)
purchased Rams season tickets through their PSLs for the 2015
season; or (C) did not purchase Rams season tickets for the 2015
season but did not receive a PSL cancellation notice from the
Rams.

     b. MMPA subclass: All natural persons who are members of the
Rams Class who purchased PSLs primarily for personal, family, or
household purposes and who never claimed the PSL expense as a tax
deduction for business purposes.

The Judge appointed the Arnold Plaintiffs as the class
representatives.  At the invitation of Arnold's counsel, the
counsel for both Arnold and Envision is appointed as the class
counsel.

Accordingly, Judge Limbaugh granted in part and denied in part
(i) McAllister's motion for class certification; (ii) Arnold's
motion for class certification; (ii) Envision's motion for class
certification.  He appointed Plaintiff McAllister is as the Class
Representative for the FANS Class and FANS MMPA Subclass.
McAllister's attorneys, as listed on the motion, are appointed as
the counsel for the FANS Class and FANS MMPA Subclass.  He also
appointed Plaintiffs Richard Arnold, R. McNeeley Cochran, and
Brad Pearlman as the Class Representatives for the Rams Class and
Rams MMPA Subclass.  The Counsel for the Arnold and Envision
plaintiffs, as listed on their motions for class certification,
are appointed as the counsel for the Rams Class and Rams MMPA
Subclass.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/Z6Trqc from Leagle.com.

Ronald McAllister, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony S. Bruning --
tony@bruninglegal.com -- THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC, Anthony S.
Bruning, Jr. -- aj@bruninglegal.com -- THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC,
Richard S. Cornfeld -- rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com -- LAW OFFICE
RICHARD S. CORNFELD, Ryan L. Bruning -- ryan@bruninglegal.com --
THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC, Edward Morris Roth, THE BRUNING LAW
FIRM, LLC, 555 Washington Ave, St. Louis, MO, 63#600A 101, Kevin
Paul Green -- kevin@ghalaw.com -- GOLDENBERG HELLER, PC, Mark C.
Goldenberg -- mark@ghalaw.com -- GOLDENBERG HELLER, PC & Thomas
P. Rosenfeld -- tom@ghalaw.com -- GOLDENBERG HELLER, PC.

Brad Pearlman, Plaintiff, represented by Fernando Bermudez,
BERMUDEZ LAW STL, LLC.

Envision, LLC, Robert D Bohm, Sue Bohm & Edward E. Mock,
Consolidated Filer Plaintiffs, represented by David R. Bohm --
drbohm@dmfirm.com -- DANNA MCKITRICK, P.C. & Michael Ryan Cherba
-- mrcherba@dmfirm.com -- DANNA MCKITRICK, P.C.

Richard Arnold & R. McNeely Cochran, Consolidated Filer
Plaintiffs, represented by Fernando Bermudez, BERMUDEZ LAW STL,
LLC & Martin M. Green, LAW OFFICES OF MARTIN GREEN P.C.

James Pudlowski, Consolidated Filer Plaintiff, represented by
Steven J. Stolze -- sstolze@allfela.com -- HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC &
Daniel T. DeFeo, DEFEO AND KOLKER, LLC.

Louis C. Cross III, Gail Henry & Steve Henry, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Consolidated Filer
Plaintiffs, represented by Steven J. Stolze, HOLLAND LAW FIRM
LLC.

The St. Louis Rams, LLC, A Delaware General Partnership,
Defendant, represented by Amy Elizabeth Sestric --
amy.sestric@dentons.com -- DENTONS US LLP, Anders C. Wick --
anders.wick@dentons.com -- DENTONS US LLP, pro hac vice,
Elizabeth T. Ferrick -- elizabeth.ferrick@dentons.com -- DENTONS
US LLP, Roger K. Heidenreich -- roger.heidenreich@dentons.com --
DENTONS US LLP & Stephen H. Rovak -- stephen.rovak@dentons.com --
DENTONS US LLP.

The St. Louis Rams Partnership & ITB Football Company, LLC,
Consolidated Filer Defendants, represented by Amy Elizabeth
Sestric , DENTONS US LLP, Anders C. Wick , DENTONS US LLP,
Elizabeth T. Ferrick , DENTONS US LLP & Roger K. Heidenreich ,
DENTONS US LLP.

St. Louis Convention & Visitors Commission, Movant, represented
by Nicholas J. Lamb -- nlamb@thompsoncoburn.com -- THOMPSON
COBURN, LLP.

The St. Louis Rams, LLC, A Delaware General Partnership,
ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Amy Elizabeth Sestric,
DENTONS US LLP, Anders C. Wick, DENTONS US LLP, Elizabeth T.
Ferrick, DENTONS US LLP & Roger K. Heidenreich, DENTONS US LLP.

Regional Convention and Visitors Commission, Third Party
Defendant, represented by David A. Dick --
ddick@thompsoncoburn.com -- THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, Nicholas J.
Lamb, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP & Shaun C. Broeker --
sbroeker@thompsoncoburn.com -- THOMPSON COBURN, LLP.

The St. Louis Rams, LLC, A Delaware General Partnership, Counter
Claimant, represented by Amy Elizabeth Sestric, DENTONS US LLP,
Anders C. Wick, DENTONS US LLP, Elizabeth T. Ferrick, DENTONS US
LLP & Roger K. Heidenreich, DENTONS US LLP.

Ronald McAllister, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Counter Defendant, represented by Anthony S. Bruning ,
THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC, Anthony S. Bruning, Jr. , THE BRUNING
LAW FIRM, LLC, Richard S. Cornfeld , LAW OFFICE RICHARD S.
CORNFELD, Ryan L. Bruning , THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC, Edward
Morris Roth , THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC, Kevin Paul Green ,
GOLDENBERG HELLER, PC, Mark C. Goldenberg , GOLDENBERG HELLER, PC
& Thomas P. Rosenfeld , GOLDENBERG HELLER, PC.


STARKIST: AHA Defends "Heart-Check Mark" Logo After Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Blank, writing for SeafoodSource, reports that the
American Heart Association defended its "Heart-Check Mark" logo
on food products, after a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States against Starkist tuna for using the logo.

Tuna products from Starkist, owned by Dongwon Industries in South
Korea, do not disclose that the Heart-Check Mark is a "paid
endorsement," according to the complaint filed in U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of New York.

"StarKist's products contain a brazen misrepresentation that
causes consumers to falsely believe that StarKist products are
healthier than products made by other food manufacturers,"
Plaintiff Abraham Jacob Warner, a resident of Walker Valley,
New York, said.  "In fact, a food manufacturer must pay the
American Heart Association in order to place the Heart-Check Mark
on its products.  However, in violation of state and federal law,
StarKist fails to disclose on its product labels that the Heart-
Check Mark is a paid endorsement."

A Starkist spokesperson told SeafoodSource that the company had
"no comment" on the lawsuit.

The AHA makes a "significant profit" off the sale of rights to
use the Heart-Check Mark, according to the complaint.

"The AHA can do this because the presence of the Heart-Check Mark
on a product increases sales and allows companies such as
StarKist, to sell their Heart-Check Mark products at a price
premium," the complaint said.

However, a spokesperson for AHA explained how the organization's
Heart-Check Mark labeling program works.

"Participating food manufacturers pay administrative fees per
product to cover program operating expenses. Revenues cover the
expenses of the program itself, which include product testing and
certification, program management and oversight, legal and
contract fees, program marketing and staff resources," Suzanne
Grant, media relations and corporation communications for AHA,
told SeafoodSource.

"AHA's Heart-Check Mark program is an important resource for the
general consumer to use to select healthier food choices.  All
products must meet AHA, FDA [Food and Drug Administration] and
USDA [United States Department of Agriculture] dietary guidelines
and comply with U.S. government regulations for coronary heart
disease health claims," Grant added.

The complaint asks the judge to award USD 50 (EUR 41) for each
class member, or an increase in the award of damages to an amount
not to exceed three times the actual damages up to USD 1,000 (EUR
813), along with reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

The plaintiff is represented by Finkelstein Blankinship Frei-
Pearson & Garber LLP, a White Plains, New York-based law firm
that specializes in class action lawsuits. [GN]


TD ASSET: Faces Class Action Over Trailing Commissions
------------------------------------------------------
Siskinds LLP and Bates Barristers P.C. on April 9 disclosed that
they have filed a proposed class action against TD Asset
Management Inc. ("TDAM") regarding trailing commissions paid to
discount brokers on TD mutual funds.

The action alleges that TDAM, as the trustee and manager of TD
mutual funds, pays substantial sums of money out of TD mutual
funds as trailing commissions to discount brokers through which
the mutual funds are sold.  These payments reduce the returns of
investors.  TDAM describes the purpose of the trailing
commissions as compensation for "services and advice" provided to
investors.  However, discount brokers are prohibited from
providing investment advice to investors, and so it is alleged
that investors who hold these funds in discount brokerages
receive no value for the trailing commissions paid.

The action seeks to advance claims on behalf of all persons,
wherever they may reside or be domiciled, who hold or held, at
any time prior to the conclusion of the trial of the common
issues in the proposed class action, units of a TD mutual fund
through a discount broker.

Gary Stenzler, the proposed representative plaintiff in the
action said "I invested in mutual funds to save for my retirement
and to help fund my children's education.  I was troubled to
learn that the trustee of the mutual funds I owned was taking a
portion of my life's savings to pay my discount broker for advice
and services which I did not receive."

"Canadians entrust their hard-earned savings to the trustee of
their mutual funds on the understanding that the trustee will
protect and maximize the value of their investments.  Paying
trailing commissions to discount brokers as compensation for
advice that is never provided to investors is not just or fair,"
said Michael Robb -- michael.robb@siskinds.com -- of Siskinds LLP
in London.

"It's time for investors to challenge this long-standing practice
of paying trailing commissions to discount brokers, which is
common throughout the mutual fund industry in Canada.  This
practice continues today despite ongoing regulatory review of
embedded commissions having regard to investor protection
concerns," said Paul Bates of Bates Barristers P.C.

Class Member Contacts:

If you hold or previously held units of a mutual fund that pays
trailing commissions in a discount brokerage account, we
encourage you to complete the information form on the website of
Siskinds LLP at www.siskinds.com/mutual-fund-trailing-
commissions/ by clicking on the "Receive Updates on this Case"
link.

If you would like to contact Class Counsel, please direct your
inquiries to Siskinds LLP at 1800-461-6166 x 4228 or
laura-marie.paynter@siskinds.com [GN]


TENET FLORIDA: Averts Class Action Over Health Insurance Payments
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Joseph, writing for Law.com, reports that Miami
litigator Alan D. Lash helped one of South Florida's largest
hospital systems beat back a putative class action lawsuit with
the potential for far-reaching fallout.

The Lash & Goldberg partner worked with partner Greg Weintraub
and senior counsel Dave Ruffner to represent Tenet Florida Inc.
in closely watched litigation that once targeted insurance
companies but now aims to recoup billions of dollars from
hospitals across the country.

"This does have significant implications . . . industry-wide,"
Mr. Lash said.  "There are several of these actions that are
pending in (Florida) and other states."

Lash & Goldberg's client, Tenet, operates 10 acute-care
hospitals, three standalone emergency centers, urgent-care
clinics and more than 20 surgical and diagnostic imaging offices
in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties.

It is one of several hospital systems in the continental U.S. and
Puerto Rico facing suit in federal court from a Medicare
Advantage assignee looking to recover insurance payments under
the Medicare Secondary Payer Act.

The plaintiff is linked to Miami-based MSP Recovery Law Firm,
which claims hospitals collected billions of dollars from
Medicare and Medicaid when other insurers should have paid.

Under federal law, the public health insurance programs are set
up as secondary rather than primary payers. This means any other
insurer should pay before Medicare or Medicaid covers the balance
on claims.

But details that emerged last year suggested federal health
officials lost hundreds of millions of dollars in overpayments to
Medicare Advantage health plans under.  At the time, NPR reported
losses for 2007 alone were about $128 million and went unnoticed
until an initial round of audits.

MSP Recovery's lawsuit suggests Tenet contributed to the losses.
The complaint claimed the hospital system double-billed and never
returned overpayments.

Plaintiff MSPA Claims 1 LLC, an assignee of Florida Healthcare
Plus Inc., filed suit against a Tenet subsidiary, St. Mary's
Medical Center Inc. of West Palm Beach, pinpointing an alleged
Medicare overpayment of about $286 for a beneficiary identified
only by initials.  It then sought class certification for a broad
recovery.

"The hospital collects from both sides," said plaintiffs lawyer
John H. Ruiz, co-lead counsel in the MSP Recovery suits.  "It is
something that is impermissible by law and frankly unethical. . .
. That's the nature of the beast here.  There are billions upon
billions of dollars that are overpaid."

But Lash and his team argued the plaintiff lacked legal standing
to sue the health care company and persuaded U.S. District Judge
Kathleen M. Williams in Miami to close the case.

"The statute that the plaintiffs were suing under . . .  the
Medicare Secondary Payer Act . . . only allows Medicare Advantage
organizations to sue insurance companies, known as primary
payers," Mr. Lash said.  "Since the hospital was a provider and
not a primary payer, we did not believe that the statute . . .
gave them standing."

Judge Williams agreed.  The judge dismissed three of the
plaintiff's claims with prejudice, dismissed two others without
prejudice and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
claims brought under state law. [GN]


TIDEWATER FINANCE: Faces "Clark" Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tidewater Finance
Company. The case is styled as Rose Clark, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tidewater
Finance Company and Prenovost, Normandin, Bergh & Dawe, A
Professional Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-00624
(C.D. Cal., April 16, 2018).

Tidewater Finance Company provides finance to retail consumer
goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Matthew M Loker, Esq.
   Kazerouni Law Group APC
   245 Fischer Avenue Unit D1
   Costa Mesa, CA 92626
   Tel: (800) 400-6808
   Fax: (800) 520-5523
   Email: ml@kazlg.com


TIGER BRANDS: Says Not Opposed to Listeriosis Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Eyewitness News reports that fast-moving consumer goods company
Tiger Brands says that the reports that it's opposed the class
actions brought against it are inaccurate.

In a statement on Twitter, the company says two separate
applications for certification of a class action have been filed,
one by Richard Spoor and one by LHL attorneys.

"As a result, Tiger Brands is faced with two competing class
actions which are mutually exclusive.  What Tiger Brands is
opposing is the fact that two class actions are being brought
against us simultaneously.  Procedurally, this is not possible."

The class action relates to the listeriosis outbreak which
claimed the lives of at least 180 people.

Those who've been affected want both by Tiger Brands and
Enterprise Foods to be found liable for the deaths and injuries
caused.

The company says that all parties need for the court to decide
whether the class action should go ahead, which of the two class
actions should go ahead or whether a hybrid of the two should go
ahead.

"Tiger Brands cannot respond to two class actions concurrently.
This is a legal administrative process with timelines for
response, and Tiger Brands had to respond by the deadline to
reserve its rights.

"We confirm that the application for certification is a precursor
to a claim action.  The class action has not started yet." [GN]


TIGER BRANDS: Files Motions in Listeriosis Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Daniels, writing for jacarandafm, reports that Tiger
Brands filed a motion declaring its interests to an application
for certification of a class action lawsuit at the High Court in
Johannesburg.

At least 180 people died as a result of the outbreak of the ST6
listeria strain.

Tiger Brands was forced to close two factories after government
tests linked one of its facilities to the outbreak.

Two competing class actions have been launched by LHL Attorneys
Incorporated as well as human rights lawyer Richard Spoor.

According to the production giant's chief corporate affairs
officer, Mary Jane Morifi, is it up to the court to decide
whether the class action will proceed.

Spoor previously told Jacaranda FM that ten people have agreed to
be the face of the class action lawsuit that affected thousands
of consumers.

"The administrative processes that's now going is for all parties
to go and approach the court to decide whether firstly any of the
class action should go ahead and if they do go ahead which of
these class actions should go ahead or a combination of both. Not
all can be heard at the same time."

No claims have thus far been brought but Ms. Morifi says they are
not rejecting any motion brought by an interested party to have
the dispute settled out of courts.

"This is a legal process that had already been instituted so we
having to respond to that but that doesn't preclude sometime in
future to come together and work out other alternative mechanisms
of resolving this." [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Quashes Canadian Drivers' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Mojtehedzadeh, writing for The Star, reports that Uber
drivers who want to fight their employer in court will have to go
to the Netherlands to do it, an Ontario judge has ruled --
exposing what employment lawyer Lior Samfiru calls a dangerous
loophole in the province's labour laws.

The decision follows a class-action lawsuit launched by Toronto-
based Samfiru Tumarkin LLP arguing Uber drivers are employees
entitled to protection under the Employment Standards Act -- not
independent contractors as the company claims.

Uber fought the class action, arguing that its service agreements
with individual drivers specify that disputes must be resolved
through arbitration in the Netherlands, where one of the
company's arms is incorporated.

The Ontario superior court agreed, quashing the class action for
now.  The firm representing drivers has served its notice to
appeal the decision, which Mr. Samfiru says sets a dangerous
precedent for Ontario workers' rights.

"It robs any driver from having a remedy here," Mr. Samfiru said.
"Aside from the obvious logistical issues, the cost is
prohibitive."

"You can take our employment laws and essentially throw them in
the garbage.  Rights are of no value if they cannot be enforced."

Uber spokesperson Xavier Van Chau said the superior court
decision pointed to the dispute resolution mechanisms the company
already provides, such as drivers' "In-App Support" where
customer service representatives respond to "queries and
complaints" over small sums of money.

"Uber's legal team is located primarily in the Netherlands with
local assistance in certain jurisdictions in which Uber operates.
When drivers' complaints or disputes with Uber cannot be resolved
through either level of assistance with In-App Support or at a
Greenlight Hub, the matter may be referred to Uber's legal team,"
the decision said.

Mr. Samfiru says the Ministry of Labour should intervene by
changing its employment laws to prevent disputes being arbitrated
overseas.  Currently, the Employment Standards Act is silent on
the matter, which Mr. Samfiru argues could open the door to other
corporations adding arbitration clauses to workers' contracts to
evade local legal obligations.

"This is not an Uber specific situation.  There's nothing unique
to the Uber arrangement," he said.

Ministry of Labour spokesperson Janet Deline said Minister Kevin
Flynn was aware of the superior court decision.

"The Government of Ontario is currently reviewing the case and
considering whether to seek leave to intervene in this matter,"
she said."

The original class action filed last year sought $200 million in
damages on behalf of around 20,000 Uber drivers in Ontario and
claimed they were Uber employees entitled to rights like the
minimum wage and overtime pay.

Uber argues its drivers are independent contractors, a category
of worker that is not covered by employment legislation.

Under Ontario law, a worker is generally considered an employee
if the business directs the nature of their work, including
deadlines and pay rates.  Other indicators include providing a
worker with tools and equipment to do their job or the ability to
suspend, dismiss, or discipline a worker.  The Ministry of Labour
can find a worker is an employee even if their employer calls
them an independent contractor.

Recent reforms introduced through new employment legislation,
Bill 148, mean it is now explicitly prohibited to misclassify an
employee as an independent contractor.  When disputes arise, the
onus is on the employer to prove the worker is not an employee.

"Courts in the United States, Australia and France have all
recognized that rideshare drivers are self-employed," said
Mr. Van Chau.  "Drivers can set their own schedule hour-by-hour,
day-by-day, and week-by-week.  In Canada, approximately half of
all drivers drive less than 10 hours a week.  This means that
these partners can tend to child care, invest in their education
or work another job, driving only when they need or want -- even
if that's just to pay an unexpected bill or the rent between
jobs."

South of the border, Uber has been the subject of numerous class
action suits arguing its drivers are employees.  Uber initially
agreed to a $100 million settlement to one of the first such
suits launched in California, after a district judge called their
arbitration agreements unconscionable. But an appeals court
subsequently upheld Uber's arbitration clause.

Mr. Samfiru says he is not aware of any jurisdiction with
legislation that forbids arbitration clauses when it comes to
employment rights, although there is a similar provision in
Ontario's consumer protection laws.

Given new protections for vulnerable workers introduced by the
provincial government in November, Mr. Samfiru says it's now more
urgent than ever to ensure they can't be sidestepped.

"If the ESA can now be circumvented that way, these changes are
meaningless," he said. [GN]


UFC: Expects to Settle Streaming Class Action with Refunds
----------------------------------------------------------
Steven Marrocco, writing for MMA Junkie, reports that the UFC and
its streaming partner are expected to settle a class-action
lawsuit over streaming problems with "The Money Fight" between
Floyd Mayweather and Conor McGregor, awarding partial or full
refunds to fans unable to watch the blockbuster event in its
entirety.

The settlement, which has met preliminary approval from a federal
judge in Nevada, offers "tiered refunds" to fans depending on how
much of the event they were unable to watch due to technical
difficulties, according to a press release issued by Hart
Robinovitch Zimmerman Reed LLP, which represents plaintiffs in
the suit against the UFC and streaming partner NeuLion.

Fans who missed over 5 minutes of Mayweather vs. McGregor will
get a full refund of the $99.99 pay-per-view price.  Those who
missed some, but less than 5 minutes, will get $50. And those who
missed only preliminary bouts will get $25.

Fans who also were out money for food and beverage bought for
viewing parties will receive a smaller token of consideration:
They get a choice between one to three months of free access to
UFC Fight Pass or a $5 payment.

The settlement will move toward final approval after a comment
period and a fairness hearing scheduled for July 20.

The class-action lawsuit was filed this past October by fight fan
Cameron Park, who alleged the UFC and Neulion violated state
consumer protection laws when they delivered a faulty pay-per-
view product.  It was one of eight class-action suits filed by
disgruntled fans after high demand overwhelmed online and
broadcast platforms carrying the event, resulting in widespread
outages.

As MMAjunkie previously reported, one fan's lawsuit was sent to
arbitration after a judge ruled that Showtime's terms of use gave
proper notification that any disputes would be resolved without
the court.

Showtime and the UFC offered refunds to those affected by the
technical difficulties immediately after the event.  They
downplayed the severity of technical glitches encountered by
fans, who flooded social media with complaints as outages began.

Despite the issues, UFC President Dana White claimed the
spectacle showdown between then-UFC lightweight champ McGregor
(21-3 MMA, 9-1 UFC, 0-1 boxing) and boxing king Mayweather (50-0
boxing) set a record for the most lucrative pay-per-view event in
history, drawing 6.7 million worldwide buys.  But Showtime
executive Stephen Espinoza said the event did not break the
domestic pay-per-view record, resulting in an ugly war of words
that continues to this day.

Mayweather said he remains interested in fighting in the UFC, but
said Showtime and CBS would need to be involved. At the press
conference for UFC 223, White said, "that ain't happening" and
called Espinoza several unflattering names. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Appeals Ruling in Immigrant Minors' Abortion Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Mason Pieklo, writing for Rewire News, reports that
attorneys from the U.S. Department of Justice on April 9 appealed
a lower court ruling ordering the Trump administration stop
blocking abortion access for undocumented, unaccompanied pregnant
minors in its custody.

The appeal came in Garza v. Hargan, a lawsuit brought by
attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of
pregnant undocumented minors in federal custody who attorneys
claim had their requests for abortion care thwarted by members of
the Trump administration.

In late March, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled that
the administration's policy of requiring Scott Lloyd, the
virulently anti-choice director of the Office of Refugee
Resettlement (ORR), to personally sign off on any action that
"facilitates" an abortion was an attempt to "nullify" a minor's
right to an abortion. "ORR's policy vests the power to decide the
future of [an undocumented minor]'s pregnancy in one man:
Director Lloyd," Judge Chukan wrote.

Judge  Chutkan ordered the administration stop "interfering with
or obstructing" any undocumented pregnant minor in its custody
from accessing a judicial bypass; medical appointments related to
pregnancy dating; objective and unbiased pregnancy counseling;
abortions; and other pregnancy-related care. Judge  Chutkan also
ordered the administration to stop forcing minors in its custody
to reveal either the fact of their pregnancy or their abortion
decision to anyone, and to stop revealing those facts itself.

Judge Chutkan also certified the Garza v. Hargan litigation as a
class action. That means her ruling blocking the administration's
policy and ordering officials to stop thwarting abortion access
applies to every undocumented minor in federal custody who seeks
an abortion, and not on a case-by-case basis.

The appeal follows a request by the administration to stay the
March decision while the appeal continues.  The court has not yet
ruled on that request. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Class Action Over Male-Only Draft Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the National Coalition for Men can proceed with its class
action lawsuit challenging the government's men-only mandate for
registering for the military draft, a federal judge ruled on
April 6.

Although the U.S. military is now an all-volunteer force, to stay
prepared for a major war the Military Select Service Act requires
men age 18 to 25 to register with the Select Service System.

The government held its last draft, for the Vietnam War, in 1973.

All men, including undocumented immigrants, who do not register
and keep their contact information current can be sentenced to
five years in prison, fined up to $250,000 and be disqualified
from federal financial aid and citizenship, though no man has
been prosecuted for failing to register since the 1980s.

The National Coalition for Men, represented by Marc Angelucci in
Los Angeles, sued the Select Service System in April 2013,
claiming the male-only draft registration rule is
unconstitutional gender discrimination. The Pentagon in January
2013 lifted a ban on women serving in front-line combat
positions.

The coalition seeks an injunction ordering the government to make
both men and women register for the draft.

As of February there were 213,851 women in the military, about 16
percent of the 1.3 million total members, according to the
Department of Defense.

U.S. District Judge Gray Miller on April 6 denied the
government's motion to dismiss the coalition's class action.

The government claimed the coalition's co-plaintiffs, James
Lesmeister and Anthony Davis, lack standing, as neither has been
drafted, nor are they at risk of being prosecuted, because they
have registered for the draft.

"Regardless, both have a continuing obligation to update SSS with
changes to their information.  That obligation, paired with the
requirement to register with SSS, constitutes an injury
sufficient for Article III standing," Judge Miller wrote.

In its dismissal motion, the government said the challengers are
trying to intrude on Congress's authority to oversee military
affairs, and their claims are precluded by the U.S. Supreme Court
1981 ruling in Rostker v. Goldberg, involving men who made
similar sex-discrimination arguments about draft-registration
rules.  Justices Byron White wrote a dissent, joined by Justice
William Brennan, who also joined a separate dissent by Justice
Thurgood Marshall.

The 6-3 majority in Rostker held that because women were excluded
from combat, there was no need to draft them, so the male-only
rule was constitutional.

But Judge Miller ruled that the coalition has made a viable
gender discrimination claim under the Fifth Amendment's equal
protection clause, due to the military's new policy of letting
women fight on the front lines.

"Regarding Rostker's holding that the male-only draft did not
violate the Constitution, the factual circumstances of this case
are different. . . .  Now, women can serve in combat roles,"
Miller, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote in an 8-page order.

The coalition filed the lawsuit in April 2013 in the Central
District of California. U.S. District Judge Dale S. Fischer
dismissed it, but the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded.
Fischer again nixed the coalition's claims in November 2016,
finding it lacked standing since its only co-plaintiff, James
Lesmeister, was not a coalition member.

Fischer transferred the case to the Southern District of Texas
because Mr. Lesmeister lives near Houston.

The coalition filed an amended complaint in August 2017, adding
class claims and its member Anthony Davis as a plaintiff. Judge
Miller found the addition of Davis was enough for the coalition
to establish "associational standing."

The coalition, founded in 1977, is based in San Diego,
California.  It helped bring a lawsuit in 1985 against Hancock
International Airport in Syracuse, New York, for having diaper-
changing tables only in the airport's women's restrooms.

Settlement of that case led to the placement of changing tables
in men's bathrooms throughout the United States, the coalition
says on its website.

Its attorney, Marc Angelucci, is vice president of its board. He
started its Los Angeles chapter in 2001.

Mr. Angelucci said in a statement on April 8 the coalition is
pleased with Judge Miller's order.  But he said its goal is not
necessarily to force the government to make women sign up for the
draft.

"NCFM takes no position on whether the best approach is to end
mandatory draft registration or to require both men and women to
register.  Nor does NCFM take any position as to whether women
should be in combat, as the draft can include noncombat
positions.  As a men's rights organization, NCFM's concern is
with the unconstitutional sex discrimination against men.  How to
resolve the illegality is up to the federal government," he said.

The Department of Justice did not respond on April 8 to an email
seeking comment on Miller's order. [GN]


US POSTAL: Owes Payouts to Workers After Class Action Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Katz, writing for Government Executive, reports that the
U.S. Postal Service will soon have to make a payout to as many as
130,000 current and former employees as part of a class-action
lawsuit, with an anti-discrimination oversight body finding the
mailing agency created a program to rid its rolls of employees
injured on the job under the guise of trying to accommodate them.

The final ruling from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
came more than 10 years after a former employee first filed a
class complaint alleging USPS subjected employees to a "pattern
and practice" of discrimination under its National Reassessment
Program.  EEOC said the initiative, which the Postal Service had
in place between 2006 and 2011, subjected a class of employees to
disparate treatment, a removal of reasonable accommodations
without proving an undue burden, improper disclosure of medical
information and general violations of the 1973 Rehabilitation
Act.  USPS, under the direction of the commission, is in the
process of notifying employees affected by the program of their
potential eligibility to seek individual relief.

The lawsuit commenced after an employee who suffered an on-the-
job injury in 1997 was told in 2006 that under the National
Reassessment Program her post-disability assignment had been
deemed extraneous work and was escorted off the premises.  USPS
launched the program ostensibly as a "return-to-work" initiative
that would also help eliminate "make-work" jobs that "did not
contribute to or otherwise contribute to delivery of the mail,"
but would not serve as a cost savings project. In reality, EEOC
found, USPS used the program for the objective of shedding
employees who required special accommodations.

When launching the program, USPS directed injury compensation
specialists at 74 districts across the country to prepare account
files for all employees classified as limited duty or in
rehabilitation.  The agency tasked district leaders with making
every reasonable effort to identify positions for employees
deemed to be in "make-work" jobs.  If they could not find a
modified position, they would notify employees there was "no work
available," place them on leave without pay and escort them out
of the facility.

Over a six-year discovery process, EEOC found 15,000 employees
were given new assignments and 10,000 were notified of "no work
available."  More than 100,000 employees either recovered and
returned to their pre-injury positions or left the agency while
the program was in place.

USPS has fought back at every step of proceedings, saying the
affected class did not have standing and its actions did not
constitute any wrongdoing.  EEOC affirmed an initial ruling by an
administrative judge in finding the agency's true intentions were
to rid itself of employees on "injured on duty," status rather
than any legitimate operational objective.

"In targeting IOD employees, officials acting under the auspices
of the NRP had subjected them to disparate treatment because of
their disabilities," EEOC said in its ruling.  It went on to say,
"In implementing the NRP, [USPS] officials disregarded the
agency's obligations under the Rehabilitation Act, and had done
so in a fashion that could only be described as cavalier."

A wide array of internal documents and emails supported that
claim, such as a 2010 "congratulatory" message from a district
leader in Texas who praised his colleagues for reaching the goal
of reducing injured employees "on rolls by 25 percent."  The
email played a song titled "Cripple Creek" as background music.
In another email, a human resources manager sent a message to
leaders including the postmaster general that said the
reassessment program would reduce the number of IOD employees by
14,000.

"Every one of these emails, and numerous others, lays bare the
intensity with which the NRP teams at the agency's headquarters,
areas, and districts pursued their goal of reducing the IOD
rolls," EEOC said.  "Their statements clearly and unequivocally
contradict the stated explanation for the existence of the NRP as
a means to eliminate unnecessary work."

IOD employees were also subjected to a toxic work environment as
a result of the program, EEOC said.  Employees made comments in
response to its announcement such as "was past due," "see you
bums at Walmart," and "get rid of them all."

"Throughout the agency there was a pervasive fear among IOD
employees that being subjected to the NRP would cause them to
lose their jobs with the agency and have to work in less-
desirable jobs for employers such as Walmart or McDonald's, a
fear that was stoked not only by managers but by other
employees," EEOC said.

The Postal Service stripped employees of the reasonable
accommodations they had been provided without engaging in an
interactive process with employees or considering their
individual needs, EEOC found.  In one case, an employee suffered
a knee injury that prevented extended standing and in 2002
received a job as a safety instructor.  In a 2010 NRP meeting, he
was informed his job was no longer available and was sent home.
Another employee spent 20 years in a limited-duty work position
that involved administrative tasks, special projects and mail
delivery before being let go under the reassessment program.
USPS failed to ever define what actually constituted "necessary
work," which ultimately hurt the agency.

"None of that work disappeared after the IOD employees who had
been doing it had left the premises," EEOC said.  "Other
employees had to step in and take over, which left many
facilities short-staffed."

The EEOC has already ruled the individual who brought the class
action forward is entitled to attorney's fees and other
"individual relief."  Other members of the class must proactively
file claims to prove they are members of the class and will then
also be entitled to relief.  The law firm Thomas & Solomon, which
fought the case in front of EEOC, has launched a website to help
impacted employees file claims, predicting USPS will fight back
against every single individual.  The American Postal Workers
Union and National Association of Letter Carriers have estimated
about 130,000 current and former employees may benefit from the
EEOC decision. Thomas & Solomon has sent letters to members of
the class in addition to USPS, which was required to notify those
individuals of their eligibility to sign their names onto the
suit within 10 days of EEOC's ruling. [GN]


VISIONPRO CONNECTIONS: Fails to Pay Wages, Fearon Says
------------------------------------------------------
ROHAN FEARON, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. VISIONPRO CONNECTIONS,
INC., d/b/a VISIONRPRO, VISIONPRO CORP. d/b/a VISIONPRO,
VISIONPRO NETWORKS d/b/a VISIONPRO, and any other affiliated
entities that employed Plaintiff and members of the Putative
Class, the Defendants, Case No. 508064/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April
20, 2018), seeks to recover wages and benefits to which the
Plaintiffs were statutorily entitled to receive pursuant to New
York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, in April 2012, continuing through the
present, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs overtime and
time and one-half their regular rate of pay; failed to reimburse
Plaintiffs for business expenses borne for the benefit and
convenience of the Defendants; and unlawfully deducted wages from
Plaintiffs' paychecks. The Defendants paid Plaintiffs a piece
rate for each job performed. The Defendants failed to ensure that
Plaintiff and the Putative Class members were paid the
appropriate overtime wage required under the NYLL.

The Plaintiffs were required to use Defendants' company trucks
when performing jobs for customers. From approximately April 2012
and, continuing through the present, the Plaintiffs were required
to purchase their own equipment and tools, and pay the cost for
parking incurred in furtherance of Defendants' business. Until
approximately 2015, the Plaintiffs were also required to purchase
their own gas, in furtherance of Defendants' business. The
Defendants maintained a policy and practice of deducting monies
from its cable technicians' wages for, inter alia, missing cable
boxes. The reduction of wages imposed by these deductions was not
agreed upon in writing with the technicians in violation of the
NYLL.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Putative Class:

          Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
          Michele Moreno, Esq.
          Joel Goldenberg, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943 9082
          E-mail: mmoreno@vandallp.com


VOLKSWAGEN: Slovenian Consumer Watchdog Files Dieselgate Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers Weekly reports that the Slovenian consumer watchdog has
filed a lawsuit on behalf of some 6,000 Slovenian consumers
against Volkswagen in the global Dieselgate scandal.  Given the
"rulings in individual cases in German courts", the Slovenian
Consumer Association head Breda Kutin believes the class action
has "good chances for a positive outcome".[GN]


VOYA FINANCIAL: Court Denies Filing of 1st Amended "Patrico" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LISA PATRICO, Plaintiff, v. VOYA FINANCIAL, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 16 Civ. 7070 (LGS)(S.D. N.Y.), Judge
Lorna S. Schofiled of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denied the Plaintiff's motion for leave to
file the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 15(a)(2).

The Plaintiff initiated the putative class action on behalf of
all participants and beneficiaries of the Nestle 401(k) Savings
Plan and "All Other Similarly Situated Individual Account Plans"
against Voya Financial; Voya Institutional Plan Services, LLC;
Voya Investment Management, LLC; and Voya Retirement Advisors,
LLC ("VRA").  The Plaintiff is a participant in the Plan which
permits participants to invest the funds in their accounts using
various investment vehicles.  The "menu" of investment options is
selected by the Plan's sponsor and named fiduciary, Nestle USA.

Under an agreement between Nestle and Defendant Voya
Institutional, Voya Institutional provides record-keeping and
platform services to the Plan, including keeping track of Plan
participants' assets, maintaining a call center and online web
portal and preparing periodic account statements.  The
Administrative Services Agreement makes clear that Voya
Institutional does not provide investment advisory services,
including managed account services, to Plan participants.

To provide Plan participants access to investment advice, Nestle
entered into a separate Investment Advisory Services Agreement
with Voya Institutional's subsidiary, Defendant VRA.  Under the
Nestle-VRA Agreement, VRA offers Plan participants two options
for investment advice: a self-service, online program called
"Personal Online Advisor," for which Nestle pays VRA a fixed
"Platform Fee," and a managed account service called
"Professional Account Manager," for which Nestle pays VRA both
the Platform Fee and an additional fee based on the value of each
participant's account.

Although VRA offers these programs, Financial Engines Advisors,
LLC provides the investment advice pursuant to an agreement
between VRA and Financial Engines.  Under that agreement, VRA
agreed to provide its discretionary managed account portfolio
management service, the Personal Asset Manager Program, to enable
Advisor to brand and offer the same as the Professional Account
Manager to Program and potential Program Participants.  VRA's
sub-advisory agreement with Financial Engines is disclosed in the
Nestle-VRA Agreement and in a brochure for Plan participants
about the program.

The FAC alleges that by structuring its investment advisory
program in this way, VRA received a fee for services that it did
not provide and to which it was not entitled.  Based on this
alleged conduct, the FAC alleges that VRA and the other
Defendants, including Voya Institutional and its parent Voya
Financial, breached their fiduciary duties and engaged in
prohibited transactions in violation of ERISA.

Although the proposed FAC alleges seven more causes of action
than the Complaint for a total of nine, both the Complaint and
the FAC are based on substantially the same allegations of
wrongdoing on the part of the Defendants and Nestle, a non-party.

In an Opinion and Order dated June 20, 2017, the Court granted
the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint, holding that it
failed adequately to allege that any Defendant was an ERISA
fiduciary with respect to the fees charged for the investment
advice service, or that any ERISA fiduciary caused the Plan to
pay those fees with actual or constructive knowledge that they
were excessive.  The Court further held that the Complaint failed
to make any specific allegations as to Voya Financial, Voya
Institutional and Voya Investment Management, LLC, and therefore
that it failed to state a claim against them.

Pursuant to the June 20, 2017, Order, the Plaintiffs were
permitted to file a motion for leave to file a proposed amended
complaint.  The Plaintiff moves for leave to file the FAC under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2).

Proposed Counts II, IV, V and VI allege that Voya Institutional
and VRA breached their fiduciary duties, or in their capacity as
Plan fiduciaries, engaged in prohibited transactions in violation
of ERISA.  Judge Schofield finds that each of these Counts would
be futile as a matter of law because the FAC does not adequately
allege that Voya Institutional or VRA were Plan fiduciaries with
respect to the challenged conduct.

Count III alleges that VRA engaged in a prohibited transaction
under ERISA Section 406(b)(2) based on VRA's conduct in marketing
Financial Engines' services to the Plans for a fee.  The Judge
says this claim also would be futile because the FAC does not
plead sufficiently that VRA was a fiduciary with respect to the
challenged action.

The Judge also finds that Count I, which alleges that Voya
Financial, Voya Institutional and VRA knowingly participated in
Nestle's violation of ERISA Section 406(a), fails because the FAC
fails to allege sufficient facts that Nestle engaged in a
prohibited transaction by paying allegedly excessive fees to VRA.

Count VII alleges that that Voya Institutional received a
prohibited "kickback" in violation of ERISA Sec 406(b)(3) because
it received dividend payments from VRA, its subsidiary, in
connection with Financial Engines' services.  She says this claim
would be futile because the FAC does not allege that Voya
Institutional was a fiduciary with respect to the challenged
conduct.

Finally, as to Counts VIII and IX which seek equitable relief
under ERISA Section 502(a)(3) from Voya Financial and Voya
Institutional based on their allegedly benefiting from VRA's
"ill-gotten" fees, Judge Schofield holds that the FAC's claims
for equitable relief under Section 502(a)(3) are derivative of
its breach of fiduciary duty and prohibited transaction claims.
Because the FAC fails to allege that any ERISA fiduciary violated
ERISA, the FAC's claims for equitable relief necessarily fail.

Accordingly, Judge Schofield denied as futile the Plaintiff's
motion for leave to file the FAC because none of the claims could
survive a motion to dismiss.  She directed the Clerk of Court to
close the motion at Docket No. 73 and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/41iu4A from Leagle.com.

Lisa Patrico, On Behalf of The Nestle 401(K) Savings Plan and All
Other Similarly Situated Individual Account Plans, Plaintiff,
represented by Ellen T. Noteware -- enoteware@bm.net -- Berger &
Montague, P.C., James A. Bloom, Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLP, pro hac vice, Mark Thomas Johnson, Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP, Shanon Jude Carson --
scarson@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., Todd S. Collins --
tcollins@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., Todd Michael
Schneider -- tschneider@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP & John Joseph Nestico, Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLC.

Voya Financial, Inc., Voya Institutional Plan Services, LLC, Voya
Investments Management, LLC & Voya Retirement Advisors, LLC,
Defendants, represented by Robert Wagner Diubaldo --
rdiubaldo@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.,
James F. Jorden -- jjorden@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields
Jorden Burt, PA, Richard D. Euliss -- reuliss@carltonfields.com -
- Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Waldemar J. Pflepsen --
wpflepsen@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.,
pro hac vice & William Glenn Merten -- gmerten@carltonfields.com
-- Jorden Burt LLP, pro hac vice.


WALMART: Block & Leviton Files RICO Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP on April 9 disclosed that it has filed a
nationwide class action lawsuit against Walmart (WMT),
Bloomingdales, DSW (NYSE: DSW), Burlington (NYSE: BURL), and
other leading retailers (the "Retailer Defendants") asserting, on
behalf of its clients, claims under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO").  The suit alleges that the
Retailer Defendants have participated in a long-running
racketeering scheme with a Utah company, Corrective Education
Company ("CEC"), which operates a program that a California court
recently described as "textbook extortion."  The case was filed
in United States District Court for the Northern District of
California and is captioned Doe v. Walmart, et al., No. 5:18-cv-
02125 (N.D. Cal.).

The lawsuit alleges that the Retailer Defendants have been
detaining people at their stores, accusing them of shoplifting,
and then offering a choice: pay $400 to $500 to CEC or be
reported to criminal authorities.

"This case is intended to prove that we are all equal under the
law," said Block & Leviton partner, Jason Leviton --
jason@blockesq.com --  "Our country's racketeering and extortion
laws apply with equal force whether you're a common street
hoodlum or one of the Harvard MBAs who founded CEC. We're trying
to stop these illegal shakedowns and get compensation for
victims."

For more information or to view a copy of the complaint, please
visit http://www.blockesq.com/cec

If you have information relevant to this matter or would like
additional information about your legal rights, please contact
Jason Leviton, Joel Fleming, or Jacob Walker of Block & Leviton
at 617.398.5600.  Confidentiality to whistleblowers or others
with information relevant to this matter is assured.

Based in Boston, Oakland, and Washington, D.C., Block & Leviton
LLP is a class-action law firm, representing consumers,
employees, and investors nationwide. [GN]


WEBSTER INDUSTRIES: Nominee Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM NOMINEE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. WEBSTER INDUSTRIES, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-00910-JZ (N.D. Ohio, April 20, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and the Opt-Ins were "employees" within the
meaning of the FLSA. The Defendant's hourly, non-exempt employees
included Plaintiff and the Opt-Ins. Pursuant to Defendant's
uniform companywide policy, the Defendant does count as hours
worked the time that Plaintiff and the Opt-Ins spend performing
pre-shift work. Such preshift work includes, but is not limited
to, collecting and donning certain clothing and personal
protective equipment.

The Defendant requires that Plaintiff and the Opt-Ins be ready to
start their workday promptly at the beginning of their shifts. To
do so, the Plaintiff and the Opt-Ins must collect and do certain
clothing and personal protective equipment before the start of
their shifts. These pre-shift activities, which were performed
for Defendant's benefit, were an integral and indispensable part
of Plaintiff's and the Opt-Ins' principal activities.

The Defendant arbitrarily failed to count this pre-shift work
performed by Plaintiff and the Opt-Ins as "hours worked." The
Plaintiff and the Opt-Ins performed this unpaid work every
workday, and it constituted a part of their fixed and regular
workday. The Plaintiff estimates that he spent approximately 30-
45 minutes performing this preshift work per week. This unpaid
work performed by Plaintiff and the Opt-Ins was practically
ascertainable to Defendant. The Defendant's practice of not
paying for this pre-shift work results and has resulted in
Plaintiff and the Opt-Ins not being paid all of their overtime on
a nearly daily basis. The Plaintiff and each Opt-In have each
worked a substantial number of uncompensated hours during the
three-year period immediately preceding the filing of this
Complaint, which has resulted in unpaid overtime.

Webster Industries develops and manufactures conveyor chains. It
provides malleable iron castings, cast chains, chain sprockets,
SBR chains, combination chains, elevator buckets, HSB chains, and
mill and drag chains; and steel belt conveyors, such as apron
conveyors and piano hinge conveyors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER, LLC
          7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, Ohio 44646
          Telephone: (330) 470 4428
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


XUNLEI: CEO Says No Basis for Investors' ICO Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
Saheli Roy Choudhury, writing for CNBC.com, reports that the CEO
of Chinese tech company Xunlei said on April 9 there was no basis
for the multiple class action lawsuits his company received from
investors.

That followed an announcement from the firm last year that it
would use blockchain technology and cryptocurrency for its cloud
computing services.  The lawsuits allege that Xunlei -- which is
publicly listed in New York -- knowingly participated in unlawful
initial coin offerings (ICOs), and made false statements about
the legitimacy of those activities that had an impact on the
stock price, according to a report from CoinDesk.

The company sells a device called OneThing Cloud that lets users
share idle computing resources such as bandwidth and storage in
exchange for a digital token called LinkToken.  Those digital
assets can be redeemed for other services from the company, it
says.

Xunlei uses the spare bandwidth and storage to create enterprise-
level cloud computing services that are sold to other firms. The
company claims its model means cloud services at a relatively
lower cost.

The Chinese tech company announced its cryptocurrency project
last October after Beijing banned firms from raising new funds by
issuing virtual coins.

Xunlei CEO Lei Chen told CNBC's Akiko Fujita and Martin Soong
that his company did not break any rules with the cryptocurrency
project.

"We didn't make a public offering of a coin," Chen said at the
annual Boao Forum for Asia on April 10. "By making a public
offering, really you need to use it to raise money. We have never
used a coin to raise any money at all, that's never our
intention."

He explained that the digital token would allow transparent
bookkeeping for the computing resources that users share on the
company's cloud platform.

"We are a small capital company, so our stock price does
fluctuate, but I don't think there's any basis for the lawsuit
because we're operating in China and it is the Chinese law and
regulations that we need to observe," Mr. Chen said.

"So the definition of ICO has to be interpreted in the Chinese
market," he added.

Xunlei's board also said in an open letter last year that it
would require the real identities of participants in its
cryptocurrency project and measures would be taken to stop
illegal transactions, according to local media reports.

But plaintiffs in the lawsuits allege that the tokens are like an
ICO because the company requires users to first buy the hardware
before they can receive the tokens, according to the CoinDesk
report.

Still, Xunlei's stock price has suffered: Shares fell nearly 21
percent in March. [GN]


* Lawyers Prepare Class Action in Victoria v. Construction Cos.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Duncan Hughes, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that a $4.2 billion class action on behalf of about 250,000
owners and residents of about 1400 apartments is being planned in
Victoria as the first stage in a national campaign against
construction companies to compensate for the costs of replacing
combustible cladding.

Law firm Adley Burstyner and Roscon Property Services are
preparing the first round of legal actions on behalf of Victorian
owners that is expected to roll on to NSW, non-residential
buildings, then other states and territories.  The law firm is
seeking registrations of interest to establish whether there is
enough backing to make the case worthwhile.

"Urgency is needed.  But the tragedy is that it can take all too
long," said Adley Burstyner's principal lawyer, David Burstyner
-- dburstyner@adleyburstyner.com.au -- about the risk to owners
and occupants of high-rise towers that have been fitted with
flammable cladding.

They are targeting large building companies including Hickory
Building, Hamilton Marino, LU Simon Builders and Probuild.

"A group claim -- or class action -- is superior because not only
does it give the claim group enough legal and financial muscle
for court proceedings against powerful and aggressive opponents,
it also it enables a single settlement and ends the uncertainty
caused by the potential for multiple actions to be spread over
years," Mr Burstyner said.

"Architects may want to blame engineers, the engineers may blame
building surveyors, who may want to blame the builders.  This
settles all claims in one go with a court order prohibiting
future claims -- a builder will not have to hold back out of fear
of copycat claims."

In Melbourne, a fire in 2014 raced up 13 floors of the Lacrosse
building in Docklands in about 10 minutes, leading to the
evacuation of more than 450 people.  Apartment owners are
fighting LU Simon over who should pay the costs of replacing the
cladding in the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal in a
case due to start in September.  It is unclear how the class
action bid will be affected by this case.

Mr Burstyner estimated a class action seeking rectification and
compensation for losses caused by defective cladding could take
between one and three years.

The firm is considering no-win, no-fee payment as a way of
securing outcomes for the owners' corporation without them having
to bring a special resolution with a 75 per cent majority, which
is difficult to achieve because of high numbers of detached and
passive investors.

NSW has identified 1000 buildings with potentially dangerous
combustible cladding, and Victoria has drawn up a list of 1400.

About 96 per cent of building permits in Victoria are not
compliant, according to an Auditor-General's investigation.

More than eight in 10 NSW apartments have defects, according to a
University of NSW report in 2012.

The average cost of cladding replacement on a high-rise building
is between $40,000 and $60,000 per unit, according to building
specialists.

"We have tried relentlessly to civilly resolve cladding matters
with builders without any luck for stakeholders, so this is the
next logical step," said Sahil Bhasin, Roscon's national general
manager.

"Each owners' corporation should not have to spend $100,000-plus
in the legal system to achieve an outcome; this will be a great
result for stakeholders."

Mr Bhasin warned that outer-suburban buildings under seven floors
are "ticking time bombs" because they generally do not have
sprinkler systems installed.

The planned action follows a Victorian Supreme Court ruling that
the Victorian Building Authority, a government agency, no longer
has authority to order builders to rectify cladding defects.

That means it is individual apartment owners -- or the owners'
corporations -- that need to ensure their buildings are safe from
serious fire risks.

Fears have been heightened by last year's fire in the 24-storey
Grenfell Tower, in east London, which killed 71 people.

Government inquiries have made extensive recommendations about
lowering the risk of fire and improving building materials. [GN]


* New Class-Action Created in Montreal Judicial District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Cardwell, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that the
creation of a new class-action division in the Montreal judicial
district that will be devoted to hearing all authorization
demands is expected to both speed up and improve the management
of cases by a select group of judges who are experienced and
interested in that area of law.

But it is also expected to change the way lawyers prepare and
practise in the filtering phases of the highly popular civil
lawsuits in a jurisdiction that is widely seen as class-action
friendly.

Announced by Superior Court of Quebec Chief Justice Jacques
Fournier and co-ordinating Judge Pierre-C. Gagnon at a standing-
room-only meeting organized by the Barreau du Quebec's decade-old
committee on class actions in the provincial regulator's offices
on Jan. 12, the new division will feature a group of 10 judges
who will collectively handle all class action filings as of
Sept. 1.

If and when filings are authorized, they will be reassigned to
the other 63 Superior Court judges who work in Montreal for
litigation management.

In a presentation on the new group presented by Justice Gagnon,
the justices list a series of motivating factors for introducing
the new class action management framework.

Chief among them is the increased workload related to class
action suits in Quebec since the enactment of the new Code of
Civil Procedure in 2016.

According to the data provided by the justices, 65 new class
actions were filed in Montreal in 2017, bringing the total number
of active cases (including pre- and post-authorization and at the
liquidation stage) to 338.

Of those 338 cases, 155 are in the pre-authorization phase, 100
are in post-authorization, 16 are in appeal, 40 are in
liquidation, 37 are suspended and 56 were orphaned.

On average, the 73 Superior Court justices in Montreal handle
four or five cases each.  However, the varied nature and
complexity of those cases, together with regular events among the
justices such as retirements, nominations to the Court of Appeal
of Quebec and special assignments, have resulted in some cases
taking two years or more in the pre-authorization stage.

Adding to the delays is the fact that the justices were dealing
with these cases on judge days, which created work overloads,
scheduling challenges and limited opportunities to hear from
parties.

Those delays in today's post-Jordan legal environment have drawn
sharp criticism from other justices.  Court of Appeal of Quebec
Judge Marie-France Bich slammed the Superior Court of Quebec's
handling of class action pre-authorization filings in a six-
paragraph rebuke in paragraph 69-75 in the 2016 decision in
Charles v. Boiron.

To accelerate matters, the group of 10 judges in the new division
will take all cases in which authorization has not been decided,
which is estimated to be an annual average of 15 or 16 each.

The other group of 63 judges will then manage litigation in one
or two authorized cases a year.

"The goal is to streamline the process and point cases to judges
who are most comfortable with class actions," says Jean Saint-
Onge, senior counsel with Borden Ladner Gervais LLP and moderator
of the January meeting.

He also chairs the Barreau's committee on class actions, which
has been quietly lobbying for the creation of the new division,
and organizes Canada's most high-profile annual conference on the
subject, which took place in March in Montreal.

According to Mr. Saint-Onge, the 10 judges who have been tapped
for the new group are the most experienced Superior Court
justices in class action cases in Montreal.

He says several of them, including Donald Bisson, Chantal
Chatelain, Gary Morrison and Chantal Tremblay, also worked
extensively in class actions before being named to the bench.

"They are the most comfortable with class actions," says
Mr. Saint-Onge.  The new division, he adds, will help the 10
judges deal with the specific rules of procedure that make the
first certification or authorization stage a complex area of law
in of itself.

"The growing number and complexity of cross-border and multi-
jurisdictional cases means case law is evolving all the time,"
says Mr. Saint-Onge.  "We need judges with an up-to-date, overall
picture of class actions and who know the players."

He says a letter sent to the justices in early February by Quebec
Barreau president Paul-Matthieu Grondin that praises the
initiative and offers the regulator's "collaboration to help
ensure its success" also reflects the positive reactions he's
heard from Quebec lawyers in the field of class action.  "I
haven't heard anything negative," says Mr. Saint-Onge.

For Vincent de l'Etoile -- vincent.deletoile@langlois.ca -- a
partner in Langlois's litigation group, who works almost
exclusively defending class actions for large corporate clients
in Quebec and across Canada, the new division will almost
certainly help the system deal more efficiently and predictably
with the increasing number of cases.

But he says there is a risk that over time the 10 judges could
develop a stringent jurisprudence that could "do away with the
legal intricacies of cases and formulate an approach that will
not be applicable to all cases."

He also believes the advent of the new division -- and the fact
that the judge will change if and when authorization is granted -
- means lawyers will likely change their courtroom approach in
the pre-authorization stage.

"I think lawyers will feel less a need to build relationships
with judges from day one and educate the court by explaining what
the case is all about," says Mr. de l'Etoile.  "Arguments will
likely become more succinct." [GN]




                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.
Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche
Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G.
Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter A.
Chapman at 215-945-7000.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *