CAR_Public/180508.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


               Tuesday, May 8, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 92



                            Headlines


AIRCRAFT SERVICE: "Carillo" Suit Seeks OT Pay, Hits Missed Breaks
AIRTEL COMPANY: Ramirez Files New Suit Over Unpaid Settlement
ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Accused by Fisher of Violating TCPA & TCFAPA
ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES: Smith Appeals Ruling to Third Circuit
ALLIANZ LIFE: Faces "Young" Suit Over Blind-Unusable Web Sites

ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: E.D.N.Y. Court Dismisses "Hussain" FDCPA Suit
AMERICAN HONDA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Grodzitsky" Suit
AVIS BUDGET: Venerus Renews Bid to Certify Class of Fla. Renters
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Consolidates "Fernandez" & "Boswell" Suits
BLOOMING DEALS: Fails to Pay Minimum & Straight Wages, Campa Says

BROOME COUNTY, NY: Class of Juveniles Certified in AT and BC Suit
CITY BAKERY: "Tepi" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
COOK COUNTY, IL: Cuevas Disputes Erroneous Realty Tax Assessments
COVINA, CA: "Peterson" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Damages
CROSS COUNTRY: Fails to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages, Salazar Says

DEBORAH LONGWILL: Faces "Secure" Suit Over Telemarketing Text
DISTRICT COWORK: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
EMERSON ELECTRIC: Creech Seeks Certification of Four Classes
EMPIRE PHARMACY: Sued by Nashville Pharmacy for Sending Junk Fax
EURI & NARI: "McDaniel" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA

EUROMARKET DESIGNS: Rayford Sues Over Improper Sales Tax
FACEBOOK INC: Schinder Sues over Massive Data Exfiltration
FORTY NINERS: Nevarez Seeks Cert. of Classes Under ADA, Unruh Act
GNLV CORP: "Webster" Seeks to Recover Fees for Internet Access
GRAND ISLE SHIPYARD: Sandlin Moves for FLSA Class Certification

GRUMA CORP: Underpays Product Distributors, Maravilla Says
HARBOR CARE: "Adolphe" Suit Transferred to NY Sup. Ct. Kings Cty
HENRY POWER: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Under FLSA
HTX GROUP: Fails to Pay Sheetrock Installers' OT, "Roman" Claims
ILLINOIS, USA: Court Certifies Class in "Murphy" Suit

IPH PRIMARY: Underpays Home Care Providers, "Garza" Suit Claims
JOHN DOES: Sanduski Sues over Trading of VIX-Linked Products
JULIAN SPENCE: Sued by Heberle on Behalf of DRIP Token Purchasers
KNORR-BREMSE AG: Lucas Sues over No-Poach Conspiracy
KNORR-BREMSE AG: Stewart Sues over No-Poach Conspiracy

LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: "Raul" Suit Challenges Merger With Granite
LINCOLN NATIONAL: "Knoppe" Suit Moved to W.D. Kentucky
LYFT INC: Vehicles Not Wheelchair Accessible, "Ayres" Suit Says
MARRIOTT HOTEL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Hanna" Suit Claims
MARS WRIGLEY: Alejandro Sues Over False Labels on Snicker's Bars

MAYNE PHARMA: Class Certification Sought in Glen Ellyn Suit
MECTA CORPORATION: Riera Appeals C.D. Cal. Decision to 9th Cir.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Herd Appeals Ruling in "Callaway" to 9th Cir.
METTLER-TOLEDO RAININ: Sued by Bunche for Not Paying Overtime
MICROSEMI CORP: Rosenblatt Balks at Merger Deal with Microchip

MONSANTO CO: Rule 23 Class Certification Sought in "Blitz" Suit
MONSTER BEVERAGE: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Townsend" Suit
MOVE-TASTIC INC: Ragsdale Sues over Misuse of Biometric Info
MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS: Blinds Can't Access Web Site, Lazarev Says
NATIONAL GENERAL: Auto-Debits Insurance Payment, Lares Claims

NEW YORK, NY: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Nnebe" Class Suit
NORTH CAROLINA, USA: Court Refuse to Certify Class in "Dillard"
NY COMMUNITY FINANCIAL: Coty Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
PHH CORPORATION: Smith Balks at Merger Deal with Ocwen Financial
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Faces "Lewis" Suit Over Debt Collection Letters

R.S.T. & ASSOC: Verkhovsky Calls Rent Hike "Illegal"
RESORT AT PELICAN: Violates ADA & Unruh Act, "Filardi" Suit Says
RODAN & FIELDS: Deceptively Marketed Lash Boost, Ryan Claims
RRCTG INC: "Tacuri" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage & OT under FLSA
SAN DIEGO, CA: Charges Inmates for Phone Calls, Suit Claims

SCIENTIFIC DRILLING: "Sizemore" Suit Moved From Penn. to Texas
STATE FARM: Accused by "Behr" Suit of Misrepresenting Repair Cost
SUIT SUPPLY: Sued by Fischler Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
SUNNYGROVE LANDSCAPE: "Vela" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
SYNCHRONY BANKS: Mott Sues over Illegal Telephone Calls

TD BANK: Dorsey Appeals D. South Carolina Decision to 4th Circuit
TGI FRIDAYS: Certification of Class Sought in "Williams" Suit
THUNDERBIRD COLLECTION: "Roberson" Sues Over Collection Letter
TL TRANSPORTATION: Hickman Moves to Certify Class of Associates
TRI-STAR WINDOW: Installers Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages, Penalties

TRIDENT ASSET: Certification of Class Sought in "Olszewski" Suit
UBS SECURITIES: Seeks 7th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Zoller" Suit
UNITED CONTINENTAL: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Neft" Suit
UNITED PARCEL: Accused by "Jackson" of Failing to Pay Full Wages
UNITED STATES: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Smith" Class Suit

UNITED STATES: Seeks Fed. Cir. Review of Ruling in "Haggart" Suit
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Faces "Hatch" Suit Over Destroyed Embryos
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: "Ellis" Sues Over Embryo Storage Mishap
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: "Crissman" Sues Over Embryo Storage Mishap
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: "Zarlenga" Sues Over Embryo Storage Mishap

USHEALTH ADVISORS: Invades Class Members' Privacy, "Hirsch" Says
VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Accused by "Judge" Suit of Violating FDCPA
WASSERSTEIN PA: Accused by "Sabbah" Class Suit of Violating FDCPA
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Abarca"
WESTERN EXPRESS: "Elmy" Suit Stayed Pending Decision in New Prime

WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS: Moreno Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and OT
ZACK PAINTING: "Lengyel" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime, Benefits





                            *********


AIRCRAFT SERVICE: "Carillo" Suit Seeks OT Pay, Hits Missed Breaks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eufrocino Pablo Carrillo, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Aircraft Service
International, Inc., Menzies Aviation (USA) Inc. and Does 1-10,
Inclusive, Case No. CGC-18-564974 (Cal. Super., March 13, 2018)
seeks recovery of unpaid overtime wages and penalties, missed
breaks and vacation leaves compensation, redress for failure to
provide wage statements and late payment of final pay under
California Business and Professions Code, California Labor Code
and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders in
addition to seeking declaratory relief and restitution.

Plaintiff was jointly employed by the Defendants at the San
Francisco International Airport as aircraft service fueler.
Fuelers usually work in excess of eight hours per day, in excess
of forty hours per week and/or worked 7 days in a workweek. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin F. Woodall, Esq.
      WOODALL LAW OFFICES
      100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 413-4629
      Facsimile: (866) 937-4109
      Email: kevin@kwoodalllaw.com


AIRTEL COMPANY: Ramirez Files New Suit Over Unpaid Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE RAMIREZ, individually; and on behalf of all other similarly
situated current and former employees of Airtel Company dba
Airtel Plaza Hotel v. AIRTEL COMPANY DBA AIRTEL PLAZA HOTEL, a
California limited partnership; RCB EQUITIES #2, LLC, a
California limited liability company; CHRISTINE DUNN, an
individual; ANDREW GREY, an individual acting as Trustee of the
James Dunn Trust; and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, Case No.
BC700986 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 5, 2018), is
brought on behalf of a class defined as:

     All current and former non-exempt employees of DEFENDANT
     AIRTEL COMPANY PLAZA DBA AIRTEL PLAZA 11 HOTEL who did not
     request to be excluded from the Class Action Settlement of
     the action entitled Jose Ramirez v. Airtel Company dba
     Airtel Plaza Hotel (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.
     BC553993).

Mr. Ramirez, a former employee of the Defendants, was the class
representative in the Wage and Hour Class Action.  Pursuant to
the parties' Class Action Settlement, Final Approval Order, and
Final Judgment, Airtel was required to pay $150,000 in settlement
of the claims alleged in that action.

Mr. Ramirez alleges that Airtel has failed to obey the Final
Approval Order and the Final Judgment, in contempt of the Court.
To date, he contends, the entirety of Airtel's obligations under
the Settlement, remain due and unpaid, plus such further interest
and may have accrued and continued to accrue.

Airtel Company, doing business as Airtel Plaza Hotel, is a
limited partnership organized and existing under and by virtue of
the laws of the state of California.  Airtel is authorized to
conduct business in California, and maintains offices and
conducts business in the County of Los Angeles.

RCB Equities #2 LLC is a limited liability company organized and
existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of
California and conducts business in Los Angeles.  Christine Dunn
is the owner, president, manager, and managing agent of Airtel.
Andrew Grey is the trustee of the James Dunn Trust.  The true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the
Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Accused by Fisher of Violating TCPA & TCFAPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
NICK FISHER, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a
nationwide class of similarly situated individuals v. ALARM.COM
HOLDINGS, INC., NORTEK SECURITY & CONTROL, LLC, JOHN DOE
ENTITIES, 1-10, Case No. 1:18-cv-02299 (N.D. Ill., March 29,
2018), alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act and the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention
Act.

Mr. Fisher alleges that he was called by one or more of the
Defendants for telemarketing without his consent and the
telemarketing calls utilized prerecorded messages and were placed
with equipment that is prohibited by the TCPA.  The telemarketing
calls also violated various prohibition and regulations set forth
by the TCPA and the TCFAPA, he adds.

Alarm.com is a publicly traded company, incorporated under
Delaware law, and headquartered in Tysons, Virginia.  Alarm.com's
Web site describes itself as the leading cloud-based platform for
the connected home.  Alarm.com provides interactive security,
intelligent automation, video monitoring and energy management
solutions, which delivered exclusively through an established
network of trusted service providers.

Nortek is headquartered in Carlsbad, California.  Nortek
describes itself as "the leader in wireless Security, Home
Automation and Personal Safety systems and devices."  The
identities of the Doe Defendants are unknown.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Vlahakis, Esq.
          Joseph S. Davidson, Esq.
          Omar T. Omar, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 581-5456
          E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com
                  jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com
                  osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com


ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES: Smith Appeals Ruling to Third Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Ralph Smith and Ignatius Harris filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Ralph Smith, et al. v.
Allegheny Technologies Inc., et al., Case No. 2-17-cv-00911, in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs sought conditional certification of a class under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and to facilitate the sending of
written notices, to:

     All hourly employees who were provided by Strom Engineering
     Corporation ("Strom") as a replacement labor force and who
     performed work at any Allegheny Technologies, Inc. ("ATI")
     facility in the United States during the August 15, 2015 to
     March 4, 2016 lockout and labor dispute between ATI and the
     United Steel, Paper, and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing
     Energy Allied Industrial and Service Workers International
     Union, AFL-CIO, CLC ("USW") (the "FLSA Collective" or
     "Replacement Workers").

The appellate case is captioned as Ralph Smith, et al. v.
Allegheny Technologies Inc., et al., Case No. 18-1707, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants RALPH SMITH and IGNATIUS HARRIS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Michaela Wallin, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-4656
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  sschalman-bergen@bm.net
                  mwallin@bm.net

               - and -

          Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
          LEVAN LAW GROUP
          130 North 18th Street
          One Logan Square, 27th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          E-mail: myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com

Defendant-Appellee ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES INC. is represented by:

          David J. Kolesar, Esq.
          Ali J. Parker, Esq.
          K&L GATES
          K&L Gates Center
          210 Sixth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 355-6500
          Facsimile: (412) 355-6501
          E-mail: david.kolesar@klgates.com
                  ali.parker@klgates.com

Defendant-Appellee STROM ENGINEERING CORP is represented by:

          Theodore A. Schroeder, Esq.
          Joshua Vaughn, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          625 Liberty Avenue
          EQT Plaza, 26th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 201-7624
          Facsimile: (412) 456-2377
          E-mail: tschroeder@littler.com
                  jvaughn@littler.com


ALLIANZ LIFE: Faces "Young" Suit Over Blind-Unusable Web Sites
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE YOUNG AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. ALLIANZ LIFE FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC AND ALLIANZ LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 1:18-cv-02809 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 29, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for their
alleged failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their
Web sites -- http://www.allianzusa.com/and
http://www.allianzlife.com/-- to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Defendants' Web sites provide a variety of policies (life
insurance, health and accident insurance), annuities, retirement
and planning tools to assist towards financial independence,
innovative products and services though independent financial
professionals and registered representatives throughout New York.

Allianz Life Financial Services, LLC, is a foreign limited
liability company, with offices and locations throughout New York
State and New York County.  Allianz Life Insurance Company of New
York is a company with offices and locations throughout New York
State and New York County.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
          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


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: E.D.N.Y. Court Dismisses "Hussain" FDCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Allyne R. Ross dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's
complaint in the lawsuit captioned CHOUDRY M. HUSSAIN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL, LP, and URS MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 17-cv-
3571-ARR-CP (E.D.N.Y.).

As the Plaintiff has already declined an opportunity to amend his
complaint with regard to the noted deficiency, granting him leave
to amend would be futile, Judge Ross opines, citing Ellis v.
Chao, 336 F.3d 114, 127 (2d Cir. 2003) ("[L]eave to amend a
complaint need not be granted when amendment would be futile.").

According to the Court's opinion & order, Choudry Hussain brings
this suit against Alltran Financial, LP (a debt collector) and
URS Management, LLC (its general partner).  The Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, by sending him a false and
misleading debt collection letter.

The Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground
that he has failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  They argue that, when a loan
is not accruing interest or fees, a debt collector is not
required to expressly say so in their collection letter.  They
add that the debt at issue here was not accruing interest or
fees, nor does the Plaintiff allege otherwise in his complaint.

Because the Plaintiff has failed to allege a false or deceptive
debt collection practice, his claim under Section 1692e must be
dismissed, Judge Ross opines.

A copy of the Opinion & Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RD2BC3CP


AMERICAN HONDA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Grodzitsky" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Charity Anyiam, Jeremy Bordelon, Phyllis Grodzitsky,
Stephanie Manzo, Dennis Mason, Jonathan Pendarvis, Sohal Shah and
Joyce Young filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit
entitled Phyllis Grodzitsky, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-01142-SVW-PLA, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Phyllis Grodzitsky, et al. v.
American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 18-55417, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs filed an appeal from a court ruling denying their
motion for class certification.  That appellate case is styled
Phyllis Grodzitsky, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
Case No. 17-80238.

Phyllis Grodzitsky, owner of a Honda Odyssey, and Jeremy Bordelon
of Tennessee, owner of a Honda Element, alleged in the original
complaint that they reported repeated failures of window
regulators in their vehicles.  Ms. Grodzitsky further claims that
she contacted her local Honda service manager and was told, "all
[Honda Odysseys] have that problem."

The product defect case against American Honda is for alleged
failure to disclose a material defect in window regulators in a
single vehicle model during certain model years that causes the
windows to fail in ordinary use and creates a safety hazard.  The
affected part is the window regulator -- the vehicle component
that controls and supports glass windows.  The Plaintiffs-
Petitioners allege that these Regulators are not strong and
durable enough to withstand the dynamic vibrational forces --
millions of vibrations equivalent to raising and lowering the
window tens of times per second -- that occur when the vehicle is
driven in ordinary use.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by April 30, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on May 29, 2018;

   -- Appellants Charity Anyiam, Jeremy Bordelon, Phyllis
      Grodzitsky, Stephanie Manzo, Dennis Mason, Jonathan
      Pendarvis, Sohal Shah and Joyce Young's opening brief is
      due on July 9, 2018;

   -- Appellee American Honda Motor Co., Inc.'s answering brief
      is due on August 6, 2018; and

   -- Appellants' optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants PHYLLIS GRODZITSKY, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated; JEREMY BORDELON, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; STEPHANIE MANZO, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; SOHAL
SHAH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated;
JOYCE YOUNG; CHARITY ANYIAM; DENNIS MASON and JONATHAN PENDARVIS
are represented by:

          Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
          Andrew Kaufman, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          222 2nd Avenue South, Suite 1640
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 313-9000
          Facsimile: (615) 313-9965
          E-mail: mchalos@lchb.com
                  akaufman@lchb.com

               - and -

          Annika Martin, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          E-mail: akmartin@lchb.com
                  jselbin@lchb.com

               - and -

          Marc Lawrence Godino, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG, LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: mgodino@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          John Barton Goplerud, Esq.
          HUDSON MALLANEY SHINDLER AND ANDERSON PC
          5015 Grand Ridge Dr., Suite 100
          West Des Moines, IA 50265
          Telephone: (515) 223-4567
          Facsimile: (515) 223-8887
          E-mail: jbgoplerud@hudsonlaw.net

               - and -

          Jon Anders Tostrud, Esq.
          TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1901 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 278-2600
          Facsimile: (310) 278-2640
          E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., is represented
by:

          Paul Gerard Cereghini, Esq.
          Robert Latane Wise, Esq.
          BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
          2901 North Central Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 643-2400
          Facsimile: (602) 248-0947
          E-mail: paul.cereghini@bowmanandbrooke.com
                  rob.wise@bowmanandbrooke.com

               - and -

          Darlene Mi-Hyung Cho, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, 17th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 595-9500
          E-mail: dcho@sidley.com

               - and -

          Michael Lawrence Mallow, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 West 5th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896-6000
          E-mail: mmallow@sidley.com


AVIS BUDGET: Venerus Renews Bid to Certify Class of Fla. Renters
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled HEATHER VENERUS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AVIS BUDGET CAR
RENTAL, LLC and BUDGET RENT-A-CAR SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 6:13-cv-
00921-CEM-GJK (M.D. Fla.), files her renewed motion for
certification of a class for breach of contract and Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act:

     All individuals who (1) rented an Avis or Budget vehicle in
     the State of Florida after June 12, 2008,4 and (2) whose
     Rental Receipt contained the notation "SLI .00/Day Accepted"
     or "ALI .00/Day Accepted."

Excluded from the class are all such renters, who have been
involved in accidents and who have outstanding claims for
liability or uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, as well as
all such renters, who have received benefits under third-party
liability coverage purportedly provided by the Defendants.

Ms. Venerus also asks the Court to certify her as class
representative and to designate Edmund Normand, Esq.,
Jacob Phillips, Esq., and Christopher J. Lynch, Esq., as class
counsel.

On January 25, 2018, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued
its Opinion -- Venerus v. Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC, 2018 U.S.
App. LEXIS 2042 (11th Cir. 2018) and held, among other things,
that the judgment on "the portion of the FDUTPA claim in Count IV
based on the failure to provide SLI/ALI" was reversed and
remanded for further proceedings; Venerus had standing to bring
the breach of contract and FDUTPA claims; the District Court
abused its discretion in rejecting certification of the breach of
contract and FDUTPA claims based on the Defendants' arguments
that the Vouchers "are necessary to a decision to certify a class
on the breach of contract and FDUTPA claims with regard to
questions of commonality and predominance"; and "[t]he district
court also abused its discretion in finding that Venerus did not
show the alleged breach and resulting injuries were uniform."

On appeal, Ms. Venerus challenged the District Court's entry of
summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on the illegal
insurance claims because the Defendants initially filed a notice
of cross-appeal directed to the judgment in favor of her on her
breach of contract claim.

A copy of the Renewed Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PSYtz9eK

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
          Jacob L. Phillips, Esq.
          NORMAND PLLC
          62 W. Colonial Drive, Suite 209
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 603-6031
          E-mail: Jacob@ednormand.com
                  Ed@EdNormand.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Lynch, Esq.
          HUNTER & LYNCH
          6915 Red Road, Suite 208
          Coral Gables, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 443-6200
          E-mail: Clynch@hunterlynchlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Philip Glatzer, Esq.
          MARLOW CONNELL ABRAMS ADLER NEWMAN & LEWIS
          4000 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 570
          Coral Gables, FL 33146
          Telephone: (305) 446-0500
          E-mail: pglatzer@marlowconnell.com

               - and -

          Robert T. Wright, Jr., Esq.
          Brian C. Frontino, Esq.
          Irene Oria, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN, LLP
          200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3100
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358-9900
          E-mail: rwright@stroock.com
                  Bfrontino@stroock.com
                  Ioria@stroock.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Consolidates "Fernandez" & "Boswell" Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Michael W. Fitzgerald grants the Plaintiffs' motions to
consolidate the actions captioned JOSE FERNANDEZ, et al. v. BANK
OF AMERICA, N.A., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-06104-MWF-JCX (C.D.
Cal.), and JOSHUA B. BOSWELL, et al. v. BANK OF AMERICA
CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-06120-MWF-RAO (C.D. Cal.).

The Fernandez action and the Boswell action are consolidated for
all purposes, including pre-trial and trial activities.  Judge
Fitzgerald directs the Clerk of Court to terminate the Boswell
action, and all filings shall only be made in the Fernandez
action.

The Motion to Certify Class filed in the Boswell action is denied
without prejudice, and may be re-filed subject to the schedule
established by the Court.

Pursuant to the transfer, Judge Fitzgerald notes that any
discovery matters that are or may be referred to a Magistrate
Judge shall be directed to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian.
The Court will schedule a Status Conference to discuss scheduling
in the consolidated actions.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=66gl9IVS


BLOOMING DEALS: Fails to Pay Minimum & Straight Wages, Campa Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA CAMPA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ROY HONARYAR, an individual; BLOOMING DEALS, INC., a
California corporation; CHIK ENTERPRISES, a California
corporation; JRH ENTERPRISES, INC., a California corporation; EBI
ENTERPRISES, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. BC700336 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., April 2, 2018), stems from the Defendants' alleged failure
to pay minimum and straight time wages, to provide meal periods,
to authorize and permit rest periods, to maintain accurate
records of hours worked and meal periods, to timely pay all wages
to terminated employees, and to furnish accurate wage statements.

Blooming Deals, Inc., Chik Enterprises, JRH Enterprises, Inc.,
and EDI Enterprises, Inc., are California corporations with their
corporate headquarters and principal place of business in Los
Angeles, California.

Roy Honaryar owned, managed and operated and continues to own,
manage and operate Popeyes Restaurant franchises within the state
of California under various California corporations, including
the Entity Defendants.  The Plaintiff does not know the true
names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          Allen Feghali, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 232-3128
          Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
          E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
                  justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com
                  allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com


BROOME COUNTY, NY: Class of Juveniles Certified in AT and BC Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. David N. Hurd issued a memorandum-decision and order in
the lawsuit entitled A.T., a minor, by and through his parent and
natural guardian Shakeema Tillman, and B.C., a minor, by and
through Kristi Cochardo v. DAVID HARDER, Broome County Sheriff,
in his official capacity, MARK SMOLINSKY, Jail Administrator of
the Broome County Correctional Facility, in his official
capacity, and KEVIN MOORE, Deputy Administrator, in his official
capacity, Case No. 9:17-cv-00817-DNH-DEP (N.D.N.Y.):

   1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;

   2. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
      injunction;

   3. dismissing without prejudice, the official-capacity claim
      against Deputy Administrator Moore;

   4. ruling that the Defendants, their agents, servants,
      employees, and officers, and all other persons in active
      concert or participation with them and who receive actual
      notice of this preliminary injunction, by personal service
      or otherwise, are immediately enjoined and restrained,
      pending the final determination of this action, from
      imposing 23-hour disciplinary isolation on juveniles at the
      Broome County Jail;

   5. ruling that the Defendants shall immediately only lock
      juveniles in their cells for disciplinary purposes if the
      juvenile poses an immediate threat to the safety or
      security of the facility and only after less restrictive
      measures have been employed and found inadequate to address
      the particular threat at issue;

   6. ruling that under no circumstances shall a juvenile be
      locked in their cell for greater than four hours for
      disciplinary purposes;

   7. ruling that if a juvenile remains an immediate threat to
      the safety and security of the facility after four hours, a
      psychiatrist shall be consulted and a plan put in place to
      ensure the juvenile's safe return to the general juvenile
      population;

   8. ruling that the Defendants shall immediately ensure all
      juveniles have access to at least three hours of
      educational instruction each day as well as any
      IDEA-mandated special education and related services; and

   9. ruling that if a juvenile with a mental health or
      intellectual disability will potentially lose access to the
      benefits, services, and programs offered at the facility as
      a result of the disciplinary process, defendants shall
      ensure mental health staff will perform an individualized
      assessment of the juvenile as soon as possible.

This assessment shall at minimum include: (a) a review of the
individual's mental health needs; (b) a determination regarding
whether any reasonable modifications can be made to eliminate
future risk; (c) a determination regarding whether the individual
with a disability continues to pose a risk; and (d) whether
placement in segregation is medically appropriate.

The Plaintiffs have sought to certify (1) a class composed of
"[a]ll 16- and 17-year-olds who are now or will be incarcerated
at the Broome County Correctional Facility"; (2) a subclass of
"[a]ll 16- and 17-year-olds with disabilities, as defined by the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, who are now or will
be incarcerated at the Broome County Correctional Facility, who
are in need of special education and related services"; and (3) a
subclass of "[a]ll 16- and 17-year-olds with psychiatric and/or
intellectual disabilities, as defined by the Americans with
Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, who are now or will be incarcerated at the Broome County
Correctional Facility, who are at risk of being placed in
disciplinary segregation because of their disability."

A copy of the Decision and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DzLf0zqn

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua T. Cotter, Esq.
          Samuel C. Young, Esq.
          Susan M. Young, Esq.
          LEGAL SERVICES OF CENTRAL NEW YORK
          221 South Warren Street, Suite 300
          Syracuse, NY 13202
          Telephone: (315) 703-6500
          Facsimile: (315) 475-2706
          E-mail: jcotter@lscny.org
                  samyoung@lscny.org
                  syoung@lscny.org

               - and -

          George B. Haddad, Esq.
          LEGAL SERVICES OF CENTRAL NEW YORK
          168 Water Street
          Binghamton, NY 13901
          Telephone: (607) 217-5928

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert G. Behnke, Esq.
          BROOME COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          Broome County Office Building
          60 Hawley Street, P.O. Box 1766
          Binghamton, NY 13902
          Telephone: (607) 778-2117
          Facsimile: (607) 778-6122
          E-mail: rbehnke@co.broome.ny.us


CITY BAKERY: "Tepi" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Hermenejildo Tepi on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The City Bakery, LLC, The City Bakery,
Inc. and Maury Rubin, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02233 (S.D.
N.Y., March 13, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and unpaid "spread of hours" premium pursuant to
New York Labor Law.

Defendants operate bakeries under the "City Bakery" and "Birdbath
Neighborhood Green Bakery" with 3 bakeries in New York City. They
also provide full service catering for breakfast and lunch, as
well as various social events. Tepi worked as a non-exempt cook
and food preparer for Defendants' location at 3 West 18th Street,
New York, NY 10011. Plaintiff never received a written wage
notice, and normally worked six days per week, 9-10 hours per day
without being paid overtime, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel. (212) 209-3933
      Fax. (212) 209-7102
      Email: info@jcpclaw.com


COOK COUNTY, IL: Cuevas Disputes Erroneous Realty Tax Assessments
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Cuevas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Joseph Berrios, in his official capacity
as Cook County Assessor, The Department of Erroneous Exemption
Administrative Hearings, an independent department of the Cook
County Assessor's Office, and The Cook County Assessor's Office,
Defendants, Case No. 2018CH03283 (Ill. Cir., March 13, 2018),
seeks relief for Defendants' failure to extinguish a debt from a
tax lien and/or refund the 2007 debt payment applied
retroactively pursuant to the Illinois Property Tax Code.

Cuevas owns various real properties for which he received Notices
of Intent to Record a Tax Lien from the Defendants. On December
4, 2014 an administrative law judge entered an order finding the
Plaintiff liable for all of the aforesaid claimed erroneous
homestead exemptions but on January 25, 2016 Judge Peter Flynn
reversed the Administrative Law Judge and ordered, in part, that
the Assessor could not go back to 2007. Judge Flynn's Order was
affirmed on appeal by the Illinois Appellate Court, First
District on March 31, 2017. Plaintiff challenges the liability,
interest and penalties for the exemption. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Larry D. Drury, Esq.
     LARRY D. DRURY, LTD.
     100 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2200
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: (312) 346-7950

            - and -

     Marshal P. Morris, Esq.
     MARSHAL P. MORRIS LLC
     2519 Live Oak Lane
     Buffalo Grove, IL 60089
     Tel: (847) 634-2211
     Email: Mpm727@aol.com


COVINA, CA: "Peterson" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Damages
----------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Peterson, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, v. City Of Covina, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-02062, (C.D. Cal., March 13, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and other compensation, interest thereon, liquidated
damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a political subdivision of the State of California
and employed the Plaintiff. It failed to include monetary
compensation for those who declined Defendant-provided health
insurance in the regular rate used to calculate the overtime
compensation, notes the complaint. It also paid Peterson monetary
compensation for spending less than the monthly allowance
provided towards health benefits coverage with no condition on
use of these in-lieu payments. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Mastagni, Esq.
      Isaac S. Stevens, Esq.
      Ace T. Tate, Esq.
      Ian B. Sangster, Esq.
      MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
      1912 "I" Street
      Sacramento, CA 95811
      Telephone: (916) 446-4692
      Facsimile: (916) 447-4614
      Email: davidm@mastagni.com
             istevens@mastagni.com
             atate@mastagni.com
             isangster@mastagni.com


CROSS COUNTRY: Fails to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages, Salazar Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO SALAZAR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CROSS COUNTRY LOGISTICS INC., a California
Corporation; HOLLYWOOD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC., a California
Corporation; RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC., a California
Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 3:18-cv-00675-JM-
BLM (S.D. Cal., April 4, 2018), accuses the Defendants of
violating California state wage and hour laws by:

   (a) failing to pay minimum wages;

   (b) failing to provide meal periods;

   (c) failing to authorize and permit paid rest periods;

   (d) failing to pay all wages earned upon separation from
       the Defendants' employ;

   (e) failing to indemnify necessary business expenses;

   (f) violating the California Unfair Competition laws; and

   (g) failing to pay minimum wages, in violation of the Fair
       Labor Standards Act.

Cross Country Logistics, Inc., and Hollywood Delivery Service,
Inc., operate as logistics and delivery companies that service
various retail customers throughout California, including
Defendant Restoration Hardware.  Restoration Hardware, Inc., is a
home furnishing company, which produces and sells various
furniture items to commercial and residential clientele across
the United States.

The Defendants are corporations engaged in the home furnishing
and delivery services business for customers throughout the
United States, including in California.  The Defendants are doing
business in San Diego, California, and operating at various
offices and locations throughout the state of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
          E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com

               - and -

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          Facsimile: (248) 436-8453
          E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                  crash@sommerspc.com


DEBORAH LONGWILL: Faces "Secure" Suit Over Telemarketing Text
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOAN SECURE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DEBORAH LONGWILL, D.O, P.A. d/b/a MIAMI CENTER FOR
DERMATOLOGY, Case No. 1:18-cv-21337-KMW (S.D. Fla., April 4,
2018), arises from the transmission of a telemarketing text
message to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone promoting the
Defendant's medical business.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant violates the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act because it engages in unsolicited
telemarketing directed towards prospective customers, with no
regard for consumers' privacy rights.

The Defendant is a Florida corporation with its principal place
of business located in Pinecrest, Florida.  The Defendant owns
and operates a dermatology center in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DISTRICT COWORK: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO MARTINEZ, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons v. DISTRICT COWORK, LLC, Case No.
1:18-cv-02001 (E.D.N.Y., April 3, 2018), accuses the Defendant of
failing to design, construct, maintain and operate their Web site
-- http://www.Districtcowork.com/-- to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.

District CoWork, LLC, is a New York Domestic Limited Liability
Company with a principal place of business located in New York
City.  Districtcowork.com provides to the public a wide array of
the goods, services, price specials, employment opportunities and
other programs offered by District CoWork.

The Company owns and operates District CoWork Workspaces, which
is a place of public accommodation.  District CoWork Workspaces
provides to the public goods and services, such as spaces, desks,
and offices for doing work and membership, among other
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EMERSON ELECTRIC: Creech Seeks Certification of Four Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled ERNEST MCCOWN CREECH, on
Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. EMERSON
ELECTRIC CO. and WHITE-RODGERS, a division of Emerson Electric
Co., Case No. 3:15-cv-00014-WHR (S.D. Ohio), moves the Court for
an order certifying these classes:

   * Nationwide Consumer Protection Law Class or Alternative
     Multi-State Consumer Protection Law Class:

     During the fullest period allowed by law, all persons within
     the United States who purchased and still possess a
     Thermostat subject to the Recall issued by Defendants on
     April 30, 2014.  The proposed Class includes, without
     limitation, all persons or entities that Defendants have
     identified as owning or possessing Thermostats that are
     subject to the Recall, or who Defendants have otherwise
     determined are entitled to participate in the Recall.  The
     proposed Class also includes, without limitation, all
     persons or entities that own or possess Thermostats that are
     within the applicable warranty period;

   * Express Warranty Class:

     During the fullest period allowed by law, all persons in
     Alaska, California, Colorado, Iowa, Maine, Missouri, New
     Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma and Texas, who purchased
     and still possess a Thermostat subject to the Recall issued
     by Defendants on April 30, 2014.  The proposed Class
     includes, without limitation, all persons or entities that
     Defendants have identified as owning or possessing
     Thermostats that are subject to the Recall, or who
     Defendants have otherwise determined are entitled to
     participate in the Recall. The proposed Class also includes,
     without limitation, all persons or entities that own or
     possess Thermostats that are within the applicable warranty
     period;

   * Consumer Protection Law Class:

     During the fullest period allowed by law, all persons in
     Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware,
     District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois,
     Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New
     York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin
     who purchased and still possess a Thermostat subject to the
     Recall issued by Defendants on April 30, 2014.  The proposed
     Class includes, without limitation, all persons or entities
     that Defendants have identified as owning or possessing
     Thermostats that are subject to the Recall, or who
     Defendants have otherwise determined are entitled to
     participate in the Recall.  The proposed Class also
     includes, without limitation, all persons or entities that
     own or possess Thermostats; and

   * Unjust Enrichment Class:

     During the fullest period allowed by law, all persons in
     Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado,
     Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii,
     Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,
     Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
     Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North
     Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
     Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia,
     Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin who purchased and
     still possess a Thermostat subject to the Recall issued by
     Defendants on April 30, 2014.  The proposed Class includes,
     without limitation, all persons or entities that Defendants
     have identified as owning or possessing Thermostats that are
     subject to the Recall, or who Defendants have otherwise
     determined are entitled to participate in the Recall.  The
     proposed Class also includes, without limitation, all
     persons or entities that own or possess Thermostats.

Excluded from the Classes are the Defendants, their employees,
agents and assigns, and any members of the judiciary to whom this
case is assigned, their Court staff, and the Plaintiff's counsel.
Also excluded from the Classes are any claims for personal
injury, wrongful death or emotional distress.  In addition, the
approximate 1,500 consumers, who received non-defective
thermostats are excluded from the Classes.

Mr. Creech also asks the Court to appoint him as Class
Representative and to appoint Rachel Soffin, Esq., and Jonathan
Cohen, Esq., of Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group as Class
Counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel Soffin, Esq.
          Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 222-2434
          E-mail: rsoffin@forthepeople.com
                  jcohen@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Robert R. Sparks, Esq.
          STRAUSS TROY CO., LPA
          150 East Fourth Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 621-2120
          Facsimile: (513) 241-8259
          E-mail: rrsparks@strausstroy.com


EMPIRE PHARMACY: Sued by Nashville Pharmacy for Sending Junk Fax
----------------------------------------------------------------
NASHVILLE PHARMACY SERVICES, LLC, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. EMPIRE PHARMACY CONSULTANTS
L.L.C. and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 5:18-cv-00050-GNS (W.D. Ky.,
April 3, 2018), challenges Empire's alleged practice of sending
unsolicited facsimiles, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act
of 2005.

Empire Pharmacy Consultants L.L.C. is a Florida limited liability
company with its principal place of business located in Doral,
Florida.  The identities of the Doe Defendants are not presently
known to the Plaintiff.

Empire is a pharmacy staffing and pharmacy consulting firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kendra Samson, Esq.
          Charles Barrett, Esq.
          Benjamin C. Aaron, Esq.
          NEAL & HARWELL, PLC
          1201 Demonbreun Street, Suite 1000
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 244-1713
          E-mail: ksamson@nealharwell.com
                  cbarrett@nealharwell.com
                  baaron@nealharwell.com


EURI & NARI: "McDaniel" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
CLAYTON MCDANIEL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. EURI & NARI, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00226-MW-CAS
(N.D. Fla., May 1, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards.

The Plaintiff worked as an hourly paid kitchen employee for
Defendant in Tallahassee, Florida. The Plaintiff brings this
lawsuit on behalf of himself and all other similarly-situated
employees of Defendant, who performed similar duties to, and who
were allegedly paid in the same illegal manner as Plaintiff.

The Defendant has a policy and practice of failing to pay hourly
paid kitchen employees like Plaintiff full and proper overtime
compensation for all overtime hours worked, based on its common
policy of paying straight time cash for actual overtime hours
worked, and unrecording time worked to avoid the payment of
overtime compensation.

The Defendant operates a well-known buffet in Tallahassee,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah E. Storch, Esq.
          RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Telephone: (866) 344 9243
          Facsimile: (954) 337 2771
          E-mail: Richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com


EUROMARKET DESIGNS: Rayford Sues Over Improper Sales Tax
--------------------------------------------------------
Sony A. Rayford, on behalf of the class of persons who were
improperly charged sales tax on the City of Chicago Checkout Bag
Tax on their purchases at Crate & Barrel stores in Chicago,
Illinois, Plaintiff, v. Euromarket Designs, Inc. (d/b/a Crate and
Barrel), Defendants, Case No. 2018-CH- 03302 (Ill. Cir., March
13, 2018), seeks injunctive relief pursuant to the Chicago
Checkout Bag Tax Ordinance.

On November 9, 2017, Plaintiff purchased items at a Crate &
Barrel store located at 646 N. Michigan Avenue, in Chicago,
Illinois. Crate & Barrel improperly imposed sales tax on the bag
tax, resulting in an overcharge, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
      Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
      Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
      Maebetty Kirby, Esq.
      Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P .C.
      77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 440-0020
      Fax: (312) 440-4180
      Email: amy@attorneyzim.com
             matt@attorneyzim.com
             maebetty@attorneyzim.com
             nick@attorneyzim.com
             sharon@attorneyzim.com


FACEBOOK INC: Schinder Sues over Massive Data Exfiltration
----------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT SCHINDER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK INC., a Delaware
corporation; CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-
cv-02571 (N.D. Cal., May 1, 2018), seeks statutory and punitive
damages caused by grievous and unprecedented breach of trust and
invasion of privacy by which Facebook allowed Cambridge
Analytica, LLC and other unknown third party defendants access
to, and the potential unlimited use of, vast amounts of sensitive
personal information, including names, birthdates, locations,
photos, videos, and likes ("Personal Information") from Facebook
users without their consent.

Facebook operates a social networking platform where its users
provide their Personal Information to Facebook under the belief
and agreement that Facebook will safeguard that information, and
that Facebook will share the information only with the persons,
entities, and groups with whom the user consents. Instead of
safeguarding this sensitive Personal Information, Facebook
provided it to third party application ("app") developers without
user consent. Once the user data was in the possession of the
third party app developers, Facebook exercised no control over
how the app developer used the data.

Cambridge Analytica, through the use of one such third party app
developer, obtained Personal Information from more than 87
million Facebook users which it thereafter used to create
targeted political advertising and messaging in various United
States elections. Moreover, this intentional massive data
exfiltration is not an isolated incident but simply a high
profile exemplar.

While the Cambridge Analytica incident has made the headlines
only in recent months, Facebook has been aware of third party
access, aggregation, distribution, and use of its users'
sensitive Personal Information since at least 2010. In 2011 the
FTC finalized a formal complaint, alleging that Facebook's
policies and practices threatened user privacy. Specifically, the
complaint stated that Facebook's policies regarding third party
developers were misleading and deceptive. Facebook entered into a
settlement with the FTC where Facebook is: 1) barred from making
misrepresentations about the privacy or security of consumers'
personal information; and 2) required to obtain consumers'
affirmative express consent before enacting changes that override
their privacy preferences.

Facebook assures users that they own and control all the
information they post on Facebook -- a false and misleading
statement. Facebook continues to induce its users into giving
up information through its false promises of privacy while
surreptitiously providing that information to third parties to
generate revenue and while failing to take appropriate steps to
safeguard Facebook users' Personal Information from unauthorized
access, aggregation, distribution, and use.

Only after public outcry has Facebook proposed remedial measures.
Yet, these proposed measures remain feeble and hollow. None of
these stopgap measures adequately remedy or prevent the improper
and illegal conduct alleged. In fact, users' data remains
dangerously unprotected and open to further abuse by third party
app developers and anyone to whom these third party app
developers distribute the users' data. Defendants' disregard for
the protection of Plaintiff's and class members' Personal
Information has led Plaintiff to bring this suit to protect their
privacy interests and those of the class.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
          Matthew S. Weiler, Esq.
          BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
          555 12th Street, Suite 1600
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (415) 445 4003
          Facsimile: (415) 445 4020
          E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com
                  mweiler@bfalaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333 8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339 6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                  jbourne@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Joseph Goldberg, Esq.
          Vincent J. Ward, Esq.
          FREEDMAN BOYD HOLLANDER
          GOLDBERG URIAS & WARD P.A.
          20 First Plaza, Suite 700
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 842 9960
          Facsimile: (505) 842 0761
          E-mailk: jg@fbdlaw.com
                   vjw@fbdlaw.com


FORTY NINERS: Nevarez Seeks Cert. of Classes Under ADA, Unruh Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled ABDUL NEVAREZ, PRISCILLA
NEVAREZ, and SEBASTIAN DEFRANCESCO, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. FORTY NINERS FOOTBALL COMPANY,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, et al., Case No. 5:16-
cv-07013-LHK (N.D. Cal.), move the Court for an order granting
certification of three classes:

   1. All persons with mobility disabilities who use wheelchairs,
      scooters, or other mobility aids who will attempt to
      purchase accessible seating for a public event at Levi's
      Stadium and who will be denied equal access to the
      Stadium's facilities, services, accessible seating,
      parking, amenities, and privileges, including ticketing,
      during the three years prior to the filing of the Complaint
      herein through the conclusion of this action;

   2. All persons who are companions of persons with mobility
      disabilities who use wheelchairs, scooters or other
      mobility aids and who have used or will use companion
      seating for public events located at Levi's Stadium during
      the three years prior to the filing of the Complaint herein
      through the conclusion of this action; and

   3. All persons with mobility disabilities who use wheelchairs,
      scooters or other mobility aids who have purchased,
      attempted to purchase, or for whom third parties purchased
      accessible seating and who have been denied equal access to
      Levi's Stadium's facilities, services, accessible seating,
      parking, amenities, and privileges during the three years
      prior to the filing of the Complaint herein through the
      conclusion of this action.

The first two classes seek declaratory and injunctive relief only
under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
the third class seeks statutory minimum and treble damages
pursuant to the Unruh Act under Rule 23(b)(3).

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have violated the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Unruh Civil
Rights Act by failing to make Levi's Stadium and the parking
lots, pedestrian right of way and shuttles that serve it readily
accessible to persons with mobility disabilities and their
nondisabled companions.

The Court will commence a hearing on June 14, 2018, at 1:30 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4iwB2bbx

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Guy B. Wallace, Esq.
          Sarah Colby, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS, LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: gwallace@schneiderwallace.com
                  scolby@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Adam B. Wolf, Esq.
          Catherine Cabalo, Esq.
          PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE, APLC
          4 Embarcadero Center, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 766-3592
          Facsimile: (415) 403-0058
          E-mail: awolf@prwlegal.com
                  ccabalo@prwlegal.com

               - and -

          Linda M. Dardarian, Esq.
          Andrew P. Lee, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN BORGEN DARDARIAN & HO
          300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 835-1417
          E-mail: ldardarian@gbdhlegal.com
                  alee@gbdhlegal.com


GNLV CORP: "Webster" Seeks to Recover Fees for Internet Access
--------------------------------------------------------------
RHONDA WEBSTER, an individual; MEGHAN PALLANSCH (formerly known
as Meghan Hennessey), an individual; on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. GNLV CORP., a Nevada Corporation
d/b/a GOLDEN NUGGET HOTEL & CASINO; GOLDEN NUGGET, INC., a Nevada
Corporation; and, LANDRY'S, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case
No. 2:18-cv-00576-KJD-PAL (D. Nev., March 29, 2018), seeks
damages and restitution for the total amount of taxes the
Defendants unlawfully charged and collected on the portion of
their Resort Fees that constitutes charges for Internet access.

The Defendants charge overnight guests a mandatory, per-night
Resort Fee which includes wired and wireless Internet access, an
in-room coffee and tea maker, and all local phone calls ("Resort
Fee"), the Plaintiffs contend.  The Plaintiffs argue that despite
the Internet Tax Freedom Act's prohibition on the taxation of
Internet access, the Defendants improperly and illegally charged
their overnight guests the Clark County Combined Transient
Lodging Tax on the entire Resort Fee, including the portion of
the Resort Fee that constitutes charges for Internet access.

GNLV Corp. is a Nevada corporation doing business in Clark
County, Nevada.  GNLV is a subsidiary of Landry's, Inc., and, in
conjunction with the Defendants, operates the property commonly
known as the Golden Nugget Hotel & Casino (located at 129 E.
Freemont Street, in Las Vegas, Nevada).

Golden Nugget, Inc., is a Nevada corporation doing business in
Clark County, Nevada.  Golden Nugget is a subsidiary of Landry's,
Inc., and owns and operates the Golden Nugget Hotel & Casino in
conjunction with the Defendants.  Landry's, Inc., is a Delaware
corporation authorized to conduct business in Clark County,
Nevada.  Landry's owns and operates the Golden Nugget Hotel &
Casino in conjunction with the Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Don Springmeyer, Esq.
          Jordan J. Butler, Esq.
          WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP
          3556 E. Russell Road, 2nd Floor
          Las Vegas, NV 89120-2234
          Telephone: (702) 341-5200
          Facsimile: (702) 341-5300
          E-mail: dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com
                  jbutler@wrslawyers.com

               - and -

          Mark Suter, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: msuter@bm.net

               - and -

          Nina L. Rifkind, Esq.
          MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
          P.O. Box 2294
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (855) 467-0451
          Facsimile: (662) 368-1506
          E-mail: nrifkind@mcculleymccluer.com


GRAND ISLE SHIPYARD: Sandlin Moves for FLSA Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled WESLEY SANDLIN, Individually
and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. GRAND ISLE
SHIPYARD, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-10083-LMA-DEK (E.D. La.), moves
for conditional certification and to issue notice under Section
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AhiwN6Hv

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
          TRAN LAW FIRM
          2537 S. Gessner Road, Suite 104
          Houston, TX 77063
          Telephone: (713) 223-8855
          Facsimile: (713) 623-6399
          E-mail: Ttran@tranlawllp.com

               - and -

          Scott Webre, Esq.
          WEBRE AND ASSOCIATES
          2901 Johnston Street, Suite 307
          Lafayette, LA 70503
          Telephone: (337) 237-5051
          Facsimile: (337) 237-5061
          E-mail: scott@webreandassociates.com


GRUMA CORP: Underpays Product Distributors, Maravilla Says
----------------------------------------------------------
JESUS MARAVILLA, the Plaintiff, v. GRUMA CORPORATION, d/b/a
MISSION TORTILLAS, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01309 (S.D.
Tex., April 26, 2018), alleges that the Defendant employed
"distributors" to deliver tortillas, tortilla chips and other
food products to their customers (primarily grocery stores, mass
retailers, and fast food chains). In addition to delivering
Gruma's products to Defendant's customers, the distributors stock
the products on store shelves, retrieve outdated product, and
assemble promotional displays designed and provided by Defendant.
The Defendant regularly permitted and required Plaintiffs and
members of the proposed Federal Collective Group to work more
than 40 hours per week without overtime compensation. The
Defendant knew that Plaintiffs and all similarly situated
individuals performed work that required overtime pay. The
Defendant operated under a scheme to deprive Plaintiffs and
members of the proposed Federal Collective Group of overtime
compensation by failing to promptly compensate them for all time
worked.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq.
          Yanice Colon-Pol, Esq.
          KENNARD RICHARD P.C.
          Southern District No. 713316
          2603 Augusta Drive, 14th Floor
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (713) 742 0900
          Facsimile: (713) 742 0951
          E-mail: alfonso.kennard@kennardlaw.com
                  Yanice.Colon@kennardlaw.com


HARBOR CARE: "Adolphe" Suit Transferred to NY Sup. Ct. Kings Cty
----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit entitled FRIDANE ADOLPHE,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated who were employed by HARBOR CARE, LLC, along with other
entities affiliated or controlled by HARBOR CARE, LLC v. HARBOR
CARE, LLC and/or any other related entities, Case No.
151146/2018, was transferred on April 5, 2018, from the New York
Supreme Court, New York County, to the New York Supreme Court,
Kings County.

The Kings County Court assigned Case No. 506822/2018 to the
proceeding.

The action is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a putative
class of individuals, who are citizens of the state of New York
and are presently or were formerly employed by Harbor Care, LLC
and/or other entities affiliated or controlled by the Defendant,
to provide personal care, assistance, health-related tasks and
other home care services to the Defendant's clients within the
state of New York.

Ms. Adolphe seeks to recover wages and benefits, which she was
statutorily and contractually entitled to receive pursuant to New
York Labor Law, New York Public Health Law and Title 6, Section
6-109 of the New York City Administrative Code.

The Defendant is a domestic limited liability company
incorporated under the laws of the state of New York, with a
principal location in Brooklyn, New York.  HCL is primarily
engaged in providing nursing and home health aide services at the
residences of its clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
          Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
          E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com

               - and -

          Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
          NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1517 Voohies Ave, 2nd Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11235
          Telephone: (212) 808-2224
          Facsimile: (866) 261-5478
          E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


HENRY POWER: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDY ESTEBAN LOPEZ HERNANDEZ, Individually and On Behalf of All
Similarly Situated Persons v. HENRY POWER ELECTRIC, LLC And HENRY
CASTILLO, Case No. 4:18-cv-01054 (S.D. Tex., April 3, 2018),
seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and attorney's fees owed to the Plaintiff and other
employees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Henry Power Electric, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company.
Henry Castillo is the owner of Henry Power Electric, LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., Esq.
          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX 77018
          Telephone: (713) 868-3388
          Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
          E-mail: tpadgett@buenkerlaw.com
                  jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com


HTX GROUP: Fails to Pay Sheetrock Installers' OT, "Roman" Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS MIGUEL ROMAN on behalf of himself individually, and ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. HTX GROUP, LLC, Case No. 4:18-cv-
01060 (S.D. Tex., April 4, 2018), alleges that HTX does not pay
its Sheetrock Installers overtime as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

HTX Group, LLC, is a Domestic Limited Corporation with locations
throughout Texas.  HTX is a full service commercial and
residential painting company based in the Houston, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ILLINOIS, USA: Court Certifies Class in "Murphy" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Virginia M. Kendall granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and for appointment of class counsel in the
lawsuit titled Paul Murphy, et al. v. Lisa Madigan, et al., Case
No. 1:16-cv-11471 (N.D. Ill.).

The class consists of "all individuals sentenced to serve 'three-
years-to-life' on MSR currently detained in the Illinois
Department of Corrections ("IDOC") who have been approved for
release on MSR by the PRB but have been denied release from IDOC
custody because of their inability to obtain an approved host
site."

Lisa Madigan is the Attorney General of Illinois.

Plaintiffs Paul Murphy, Stanley Meyer, J.D. Lindenmeyer, and
Jasen Gustafsen are putative class representatives, who sued
Defendants Lisa Madigan and John Baldwin, in their official
capacities, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment civil rights violations under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983.  Each named Plaintiff has completed a
criminal sentence for sex-related crimes and the Illinois Prison
Review Board ("PRB") granted each of them release from
incarceration along with mandatory supervised release ("MSR")
ranging from three-years to life.

Instead, however, each Plaintiff is still incarcerated and they
allege this is a result of "unmeetable restrictions on where [the
Plaintiffs] can live that must be satisfied in order for such
individuals to be released on MSR," according to the Order.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yLhVm4Ew


IPH PRIMARY: Underpays Home Care Providers, "Garza" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARMEN GARZA, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. IPH PRIMARY HOME CARE, INC., IRENE HUERTA and
PABLO HUERTA, the Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-00138 (S.D. Tex.,
May 1, 2018), contends that the Plaintiff worked for the
Defendants as a home care provider in Hidalgo County, Texas. The
Plaintiff brings her claims individually and on behalf of a group
of similarly situated former and current employees of Defendants
against Defendants for failing to pay overtime pay to workers. As
such, Plaintiff seeks all unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and
attorney's fees and expenses for herself and for similarly
situated workers who join this action.

According to the complaint, from January 2013 until October 2017,
the Plaintiff worked as home care provider for Defendants. The
Defendants hired and employed Plaintiff and the Group Members to
perform home care service duties in and around Hidalgo County,
Texas. The Plaintiff and Group Members performed home care
service work for the Defendants in and around Hidalgo County,
Texas. The Defendants assigned Plaintiff and Group Members to
patients' homes and monitored the performance of Plaintiff and
Group Members.

The Defendants paid Plaintiff regular hourly rates between $8.50
and $9.35 per hour. Throughout their employment with the
Defendants, the Plaintiff and Group Members regularly worked more
than 40 hours per workweek. The Defendants did not pay overtime
rates equal to one and one-half times Plaintiff's and Group
Member's regular hourly rates of pay in the workweeks in which
Plaintiff and Group Members worked more than 40 hours. Instead,
until September 15, 2017, the Defendants compensated Plaintiff
and Group members at their regular, non-overtime hourly rates of
pay for all of the hours that they worked in each workweek.

IPH is a home health agency in Mcallen, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lakshmi Ramakrishnan
          Kathryn J. Youker
          TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID, INC.
          301 S. Texas Ave.
          Mercedes, Texas 78570
          Telephone: (956) 447 4850
          Facsimile: (956) 825 7035
          E-mail: lramakrishnan@trla.org
                  kyouker@trla.org


JOHN DOES: Sanduski Sues over Trading of VIX-Linked Products
------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS J. SANDUSKI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL THOSE
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOES, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-03715-UA (S.D.N.Y., April 26, 2018), alleges
that the Defendants, directly and through their agents, engaged
in activities affecting all states, to restrict output and fix,
raise, maintain and/or stabilize prices in the United States for
VIX-linked products, which unreasonably restrained trade and
adversely affected the markets for VIX-linked products.  The
Complaint alleges the Defendants' violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, Section 4 of the Clayton Act, the Commodity Exchange
Act, and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

VIX is a widely used measure of the stock market's expectations
as to volatility, derived from the market prices of certain S&P
500 index options. Since investors cannot invest directly in VIX,
interest in financial instruments related to expected market
volatility spawned the creation of VIX-linked futures in 2004 and
VIX-linked options in 2006. VIX Options trade on the CBOE. VIX
Futures trade on the CBOE Futures Exchange.

The Complaint notes that, during the relevant period, trading in
VIX Futures and VIX Options grew exponentially, such that the
daily trading volume for each is in the hundreds of thousands of
contracts.  There has also been a proliferation of trading in
VIX-linked Exchange Traded Products, a category that includes
products such as exchange-traded funds and exchange-traded notes,
which are instruments that track VIX futures but are traded on
public exchanges. VIX estimates expected volatility in the S&P
500 by averaging the weighted prices of SPX Options over a wide
range of strike prices. SPX Options are correlated with
volatility. As investors' expectation of volatility in the near
future change, the price of SPX Options correspondingly change to
reflect the risk of those options due to the size of expected
fluctuations in the S&P 500.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Linda P. Nussbaum
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10036-8718
          Telephone: (917) 438 9189
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

               - and -

          Michael C. Dell'Angelo, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
                  mdellangelo@bm.net


JULIAN SPENCE: Sued by Heberle on Behalf of DRIP Token Purchasers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN HEBERLE, individually and On behalf of others similar
situated v. JULIAN SPENCE a/k/a JUVANE BRYAN SPENCE, Case No.
1:18-cv-02288 (N.D. Ill., March 29, 2018), is brought on behalf
of all purchasers of the DRIP token from the Defendant.

Mr. Heberle alleges that the Defendant created an illusory and
ostensibly fake "Initial Coin Offerings" as a mere artifice to
convert and steal his cryptocurrency.  He contends that he first
came to know Julian Spence during the Class Period when the
Defendant sought to promote the Defendant's alleged new
cryptocurrency -- "Dark Ripple" or "DRIP."

Only a mere few days following the last payment for DRIP was
received, the Defendant disappeared and with it took great
lengths to scrub the Internet or any claims or evidence of
existence of DRIP or the sale of DRIP tokens, Mr. Heberle
alleges.

Julian Spence is a resident of Cook County, Illinois, and the
lone architect and promoter of the DRIP initial coin offering.
Mr. Spence held himself out to be a successful venture capitalist
and blockchain technology entrepreneur.  He further claimed that
he was a successful cryptocurrency trader, often posting fake
images of substantial trading accounts to social media in an
attempt to garner further confidence from his prospective
victims, says the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam S. Tracy, Esq.
          THE TRACY FIRM, LTD.
          141 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 2172
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 754-9499
          Facsimile: (630) 689-9471
          E-mail: at@tracyfirm.com


KNORR-BREMSE AG: Lucas Sues over No-Poach Conspiracy
----------------------------------------------------
JOHN W. LUCAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. KNORR-BREMSE AG; KNORR BRAKE COMPANY
LLC; NEW YORK AIR BRAKE LLC; WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; WABTEC PASSENGER TRANSIT; WABTEC RAILWAY
ELECTRONICS; FAIVELEY TRANSPORT, S.A.; FAIVELEY TRANSPORT NORTH
AMERICA, INC.; DOES 1-50, Inclusive; and DOES 51-100, Inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01280-CCB (D. Md., May 1, 2018),
alleges that, from 2009 to the present, the Defendants, along
with other unnamed individuals and entities acting as co-
conspirators, conspired not to recruit, solicit, or hire without
prior approval each other's personnel.  The No-Poach Conspiracy,
which is a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15
U.S.C. section 1, limited Plaintiff's and Class members' job
mobility and, in turn, suppressed their compensation below the
levels that would have been available absent the Conspiracy.

On April 3, 2018, Knorr and Wabtec announced their agreement to
settle charges brought by the Department of Justice, after the
DOJ's lengthy investigation of the No-Poach Conspiracy. The DOJ
found that Defendants' agreements that formed the No-Poach
Conspiracy were per se violations of the Sherman Act. The DOJ
stated these agreements "were facially anticompetitive because
they eliminated a significant form of competition to attract
skilled labor in the U.S. rail industry." Specifically, the DOJ
said further that "these agreements denied employees access to
better job opportunities, restricted their mobility, and deprived
them of competitively significant information that they could
have used to negotiate for better terms of employment."

Although the DOJ and Defendants have reached a settlement,
pursuant to which Defendants have agreed to certain ongoing
conduct remedies, the DOJ settlement does not provide relief for
those who were injured by the No-Poach Conspiracy. Without this
class action, Plaintiff and the Class will not receive
compensation for their injuries, and Defendants will continue to
retain the benefits of their unlawful collusion.

Knorr-Bremse is a manufacturer of braking systems for rail and
commercial vehicles that has operated in the field for over 110
years.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Paul Mark Sandler, Esq.
          Eric R. Harlan, Esq.
          SHAPIRO SHER GUINOT & SANDLER
          250 West Pratt Street, Suite 2000
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 385 0202
          Facsimile: (410) 539 7611
          E-mail: pms@shapirosher.com
                  erh@shapirosher.com

               - and -

          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
          Karissa Sauder, Esq.
          Daniel Walker, Esq.
          BERGER &MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875 3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875 4604
          E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
                  mdellangelo@bm.net
                  ksauder@bm.net
                  dwalker@bm.net

               - and -

          Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
          KEHOE LAW FIRM
          Two Penn Center Plaza
          1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1020
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 792 6676
          E-mail: myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Steve N. Williams, Esq.
          Jiamie Chen, Esq.
          Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
          601 California Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 500 6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395 9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
                  jchen@saverilawfirm.com
                  kgibboney@saverilawfirm.com


KNORR-BREMSE AG: Stewart Sues over No-Poach Conspiracy
------------------------------------------------------
SLOAN STEWART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. KNORR-BREMSE AG; KNORR BRAKE COMPANY
LLC; NEW YORK AIR BRAKE LLC; WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE; TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; WABTEC PASSENGER TRANSIT; FAIVELEY TRANSPORT, S.A.;
FAIVELEY TRANSPORT NORTH AMERICA, INC.; DOES 1-50l and DOES 51-
100, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01275-ELH (D.
Md., May 1, 2018), alleges that, from 2009 to the present, the
Defendants, along with other unnamed individuals and entities
acting as co-conspirators, conspired not to recruit, solicit, or
hire without prior approval each other's personnel.  The No-Poach
Conspiracy, which is a per se violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1, limited Plaintiff's and Class
members' job mobility and, in turn, suppressed their compensation
below the levels that would have been available absent the
Conspiracy.

On April 3, 2018, Knorr and Wabtec announced their agreement to
settle charges brought by the Department of Justice, after the
DOJ's lengthy investigation of the No-Poach Conspiracy. The DOJ
found that Defendants' agreements that formed the No-Poach
Conspiracy were per se violations of the Sherman Act. The DOJ
stated these agreements "were facially anticompetitive because
they eliminated a significant form of competition to attract
skilled labor in the U.S. rail industry." Specifically, the DOJ
said further that "these agreements denied employees access to
better job opportunities, restricted their mobility, and deprived
them of competitively significant information that they could
have used to negotiate for better terms of employment."

Although the DOJ and Defendants have reached a settlement,
pursuant to which Defendants have agreed to certain ongoing
conduct remedies, the DOJ settlement does not provide relief for
those who were injured by the No-Poach Conspiracy. Without this
class action, Plaintiff and the Class will not receive
compensation for their injuries, and Defendants will continue to
retain the benefits of their unlawful collusion.

Knorr-Bremse is a manufacturer of braking systems for rail and
commercial vehicles that has operated in the field for over 110
years.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Paul Mark Sandler, Esq.
          Eric R. Harlan, Esq.
          SHAPIRO SHER GUINOT & SANDLER
          250 West Pratt Street, Suite 2000
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 385 0202
          Facsimile: (410) 539 7611
          E-mail: pms@shapirosher.com
                  erh@shapirosher.com

               - and -

          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
          Karissa Sauder, Esq.
          Daniel Walker, Esq.
          BERGER &MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875 3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875 4604
          E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
                  mdellangelo@bm.net
                  ksauder@bm.net
                  dwalker@bm.net

               - and -

          Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
          KEHOE LAW FIRM
          Two Penn Center Plaza
          1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1020
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 792 6676
          E-mail: myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Steve N. Williams, Esq.
          Jiamie Chen, Esq.
          Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
          601 California Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 500 6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395 9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
                  jchen@saverilawfirm.com
                  kgibboney@saverilawfirm.com


LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: "Raul" Suit Challenges Merger With Granite
-------------------------------------------------------------
MALKA RAUL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. LAYNE CHRISTENSEN COMPANY, DAVID A.B. BROWN, J.
SAMUEL BUTLER, MICHAEL J. CALIEL, ROBERT R. GILMORE, JOHN T.
NESSER III, NELSON OBUS, ALAN P. KRUSI, GRANITE CONSTRUCTION
INCORPORATED, and LOWERCASE MERGER SUB INCORPORATED, Case No.
4:18-cv-01056 (S.D. Tex., April 3, 2018), is brought on behalf of
the public shareholders of Layne Christensen against the
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed merger of
the Company in a stock-for-stock transaction with Granite
Construction Incorporated.

On February 13, 2018, Layne Christensen entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger with Granite and Lowercase Merger Sub
Incorporated, a wholly owned subsidiary of Granite, pursuant to
which Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, and the
Company will be the surviving corporation in the merger and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Granite.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, each share of the
Company's common stock issued and outstanding (other than shares
(1) held in treasury of the Company or (2) directly or indirectly
owned by Granite, Merger Sub or a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Company) will be cancelled and converted into 0.27 (the "Exchange
Ratio") validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable shares of
Granite's common stock.  No fractional shares of Granite's common
stock will be issued in the Merger, and the Company's
stockholders will receive cash in lieu of any fractional shares.
According to the Company, the Proposed Transaction is valued at
$565 million.

Layne Christensen is a Delaware corporation with its principal
executive offices located in The Woodlands, Texas.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Layne Christensen is a global water management, construction, and
drilling company providing solutions for water, mineral, and
energy challenges around the world.  The Company operates
throughout North America, as well as Africa, Australia, Europe,
Brazil, and through its affiliates in other South American
countries.

Granite is a Delaware Corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Watsonville, California.  Merger Sub is a
Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Granite.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
          THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
          700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 227-7720
          Facsimile: (713) 227-9404
          E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com

               - and -

          Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
          LIFSHITZ & MILLER LLP
          821 Franklin Avenue, Suite 209
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 493-9780
          Facsimile: (516) 280-7376
          E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com


LINCOLN NATIONAL: "Knoppe" Suit Moved to W.D. Kentucky
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Charles A. Knoppe, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company; Kentucky Department of
Insurance; and Nancy G. Atkins, the Defendants, Case No. 18-CI-
00190, was removed from the Nelson County Circuit Court, to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
(Louisville) on April 26, 2018. The Western District of Kentucky
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00264-RGJ to the
proceeding.

Lincoln National provides insurance services. The Company focuses
on life insurance, annuities, accident, health, dental, accident,
critical illness, group benefits, individual and group retirement
plans. Lincoln National Life Insurance serves customers in the
United States.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Andrew M. Grabhorn, Esq.
          Michael D. Grabhorn, Esq.
          GRABHORN LAW OFFICE, PLLC
          2525 Nelson Miller Parkway, Suite 107
          Louisville, KY 40223
          Telephone: (502) 244 9331
          Facsimile: (502) 244 9334
          E-mail: a.grabhorn@grabhornlaw.com
                  m.grabhorn@grabhornlaw.com

Attorneys for Lincoln National Life Insurance Company:

          Edmund S. Sauer, Esq.
          BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP - NASHVILLE
          1600 Division Street, Suite 700
          P.O. Box 340025
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 252 2374
          Facsimile: (615) 252 6374
          E-mail: esauer@bradley.com

Attorneys for Kentucky Department of Insurance and Nancy G.
Atkins:

          Carmine G. Iaccarino, Esq.
          WALTERS MEADOWS RICHARDSON, PLLC - LEXINGTON
          771 Corporate Drive, Suite 900
          Lexington, KY 40503
          Telephone: (859) 219 9090
          Facsimile: (859) 219 9292
          E-mail: carmine@wmrdefense.com

               - and -

          Heather L. Becker, Esq.
          Michael R. Wilson, Esq.
          WILSON & WILSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC
          10355 Linn Station Road
          Louisville, KY 40223
          Telephone: (502) 899 4725
          Facsimile: (502) 899 4732
          E-mail: Michael.Rollin.Wilson@hotmail.com


LYFT INC: Vehicles Not Wheelchair Accessible, "Ayres" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Ayres and Judith Smith, individuals, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated and Independent Living Resource
Center of San Francisco, Plaintiffs, v. Lyft Inc. and Does 1-20,
Defendants, Case No. RG18896443, (Cal. Super., March 13, 2018),
seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for violation of the
Unruh Civil Rights Act and the California Disabled Persons Act.

LYFT provides a transport service that allows drivers to sign up
as drivers using their privately owned cars, to pick up and drive
passengers for a fee using a mobile technology. Plaintiffs use
motorized wheelchairs and require an accessible vehicle in order
to ride. However, Plaintiffs claim that Lyft's vehicles cannot
accommodate motorized wheelchairs.

Independent Living Resource Center of San Francisco and Community
Resources for Independent Living are disability rights advocacy
and support organizations. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sidney Wolinsky, Esq.
      Melissa Riess, Esq.
      DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
      112001 Center Street, Fourth Floor
      Berkeley, CA 94704-1204
      Telephone: (510) 665-8644
      Facsimile: (510) 665-8511
      Email: swolinsky@dralegal.org
             mriess@dralegal.org

             - and -

      Mark A. Chavez, Esq.
      Nance F. Becker, Esq.
      CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP
      42 Miller Avenue
      Mill Valley, CA 94941
      Telephone: (415) 381-5599
      Facsimile: (415) 381-5572
      Email: mark@chavezgertler.com
             nance@chavezgertler.com


MARRIOTT HOTEL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Hanna" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
SAMEH HANNA, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, INC., MARRIOTT
INTERNATIONAL, INC., and OPRYLAND HOSPITALITY, LLC, Case No.
3:18-cv-00325 (M.D. Tenn., March 29, 2018), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act to redress the Defendants' alleged
failure to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated employees for overtime work.

Marriott Hotel is a foreign for-profit corporation, engaged in
substantial and not isolated business activities within the state
of Tennessee.  Marriott International is a foreign for-profit
corporation, engaged in substantial and not isolated business
activities within Tennessee.  Opryland is a limited liability
company licensed and located and conducting business activities
within Tennessee.

The Defendants are employers of the Plaintiff and the class.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rocky McElhaney, Esq.
          Steven Fifield, Esq.
          ROCKY McELHANEY LAW FIRM, P.C.
          475 Saundersville Road
          Hendersonville, TN 37075
          Telephone: (615) 425-2500
          Facsimile: (615) 425-2501
          E-mail: rocky@rockylawfirm.com
                  Steven@rockylawfirm.com


MARS WRIGLEY: Alejandro Sues Over False Labels on Snicker's Bars
----------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL ALEJANDRO, FAUSTO FERNOS, each individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. MARS WRIGLEY CONFECTIONERY
US, LLC, Case No. 2018-CH-04439 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., April
5, 2018), is a consumer class action brought on behalf of
consumers, who purchased the Defendant's Snicker's Protein Bars.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant has engaged in unfair
and deceptive business practices by misrepresenting the nature
and quality of its Snickers Protein Bars and has been unjustly
enriched at the expense of Illinois consumers, including the
Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant makes
false and misleading claims on the labels of its Snickers Protein
Bars.  They assert that the Defendant's consumers pay an inflated
price for the Snickers Protein Bars, which deliver less actual
and quality protein than they reasonably expect to receive.

Mars Wrigley Confectionery US, LLC, is a Delaware corporation
with a principal place of business in Mt. Olive, New Hampshire.
Mars designed, manufactured, warranted, advertised, and sold the
Snickers Protein Bars throughout the United States, including the
state of Illinois, and continues to do so.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
          PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE, APLC
          818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
          St. Louis, MO 63104
          Telephone: (314) 833-4825
          E-mail: bwise@prwlegal.com
                  plesko@prwlegal.com


MAYNE PHARMA: Class Certification Sought in Glen Ellyn Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled GLEN ELLYN PHARMACY, INC,
Individually and on behalf of of all others similarly situated v.
MAYNE PHARMA, INC., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-06654 (N.D. Ill.),
asks the Court to enter an order determining that its action may
proceed as a class action against the Defendant.

In its amended motion for class certification, the Plaintiff
defines the class as:

     All entities and individuals, who on or about June 16, 2016,
     were sent faxes by or on behalf of Mayne Pharma, Inc.
     promoting its goods or services for sale.

The Plaintiff further asks that it be appointed class
representative and that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC,
be appointed counsel for the class.

A copy of the Amended Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5ADSdHkt

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          Dulijaza (Julie) Clark, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jclark@edcombs.com


MECTA CORPORATION: Riera Appeals C.D. Cal. Decision to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jose Riera, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in their lawsuit titled Jose Riera, et al. v.
Mecta Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-06686-RGK-PJW, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs sought certification of these classes:

   (1) All individuals in the United States who received ECT
       treatment in California, and suffered resulting injuries
       from May 28, 1982 through to the date of judgment, where
       such treatment was administered by an ECT device
       manufactured, sold, and/or distributed by either
       Defendant, Mecta or Somatics, after May 28, 1982; and

   (2) The spouses of the patients who have suffered related loss
       of consortium damages.

The appellate case is captioned as Jose Riera, et al. v. Mecta
Corporation, et al., Case No. 18-80043, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners JOSE RIERA, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; MICHELLE HIMES, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated; DIANE SCURRAH,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated;
DEBORAH CHASE, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; MARCIA BENJAMIN, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated; and DANIEL BENJAMIN,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          David M. Karen, Esq.
          DK LAW GROUP LLP
          3155 Old Conejo Road
          Thousand Oaks, CA 91320
          Telephone: (805) 498-1212
          Facsimile: (805) 498-3030
          E-mail: dk@dk4law.com

Defendant-Respondent MECTA CORPORATION is represented by:

          Ian A. Stewart, Esq.
          WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
          555 S. Flower Street, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2407
          Telephone: (213) 443-5100
          E-mail: ian.stewart@wilsonelser.com

Defendant-Respondent SOMATICS, LLC, is represented by:

          David Sean Poole, Esq.
          POOLE & SHAFFERY, LLP
          25350 Magic Mountain Parkway
          Valencia, CA 91355
          Telephone: (213) 439-5390
          Facsimile: (213) 439-0183
          E-mail: dpoole@pooleshaffery.com


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Herd Appeals Ruling in "Callaway" to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Mattie R. Herd filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled William Callaway v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
Case No. 8:14-cv-02011-JVS-DFM, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises out of the seat heaters defects of 2000 through 2014
Mercedes Benz models.

The appellate case is captioned as William Callaway v. Mercedes-
Benz USA, LLC, Case No. 18-55418, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by April 30, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on May 29, 2018;

   -- Appellant Mattie R. Herd's opening brief is due on July 9,
      2018;

   -- Appellees William S. Callaway and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC's
      answering brief is due on August 6, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Objector-Appellant MATTIE R. HERD is represented by:

          Michael D. Luppi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL D. LUPPI
          1818 W Beverly Boulevard, Suite 102
          Montebello, CA 90640-3967
          Telephone: (818) 897-3344
          Facsimile: (323) 726-3106
          E-mail: luppiacct@gmail.com

Plaintiff-Appellee WILLIAM S. CALLAWAY, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          John P. McNicholas, III, Esq.
          MCNICHOLAS & MCNICHOLAS LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90024-4338
          Telephone: (310) 474-1582
          Facsimile: (310) 475-7871
          E-mail: john@McNicholasLaw.com

               - and -

          Scott H. Sims, Esq.
          EAGAN O'MALLEY & AVENATTI LLP
          450 Newport Center Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-7000
          E-mail: ssims@lawfss.com

               - and -

          Eric Francis Yuhl, Esq.
          YUHL CARR, LLP
          4676 Admiralty Way
          Marina del Rey, CA 90292
          Telephone: (310) 827-2800
          E-mail: eyuhl@yuhlcarr.com

Defendant-Appellee MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, is represented by:

          Eric J. Knapp, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
          275 Battery Street, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 989-5900
          Facsimile: (415) 989-0932
          E-mail: Eric.Knapp@squirepb.com


METTLER-TOLEDO RAININ: Sued by Bunche for Not Paying Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
MAURICE BUNCHE, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. METTLER-TOLEDO RAININ,
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. RG18899279 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda
Cty., April 2, 2018), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay
overtime wages to the Plaintiff and the other class members for
all hours worked.

Mettler-Toledo Rainin, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability
company and is based in Oakland, California.  Mettler-Toledo
manufactures pipettes.  The Company also provides electronic and
ergonomic single and multichannels featuring tip ejection system;
tips, featuring environmental tip-rack refills and aerosol
resistant tips; and pipette service, including express repair,
onsite repair, and performance verification with preventive
maintenance.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants
are unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          Daniel J. Park, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
          E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
                  statavos@justicelawcorp.com
                  dpark@justicelawcorp.com


MICROSEMI CORP: Rosenblatt Balks at Merger Deal with Microchip
--------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN ROSENBLATT, On Behalf of Himself and 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-00724 (C.D. Cal., April 26, 2018), seeks to
enjoin a proposed merger transaction announced on March 1, 2018,
pursuant to which Microsemi will be acquired by Microchip
Technology Incorporated and Maple Acquisition Corporation under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On March 1, 2018, the Board caused Microsemi to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger with Microchip. Pursuant to the
terms of the Merger Agreement, stockholders of Microsemi will
receive $68.78 in cash each share of Microsemi stock they own. On
April 19, the defendants filed a Definitive Proxy Statement with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement
omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading.

Microsemi offers a comprehensive portfolio of semiconductor and
system solutions for aerospace and defense, communications, data
center, and industrial markets. Products include high-performance
and radiation-hardened analog mixed-signal integrated circuits,
FPGAs, SoCs, and ASICs; power management products; timing and
synchronization devices and precise time solutions; voice
processing devices; RF solutions; discrete components; enterprise
storage and communication solutions, security technologies, and
scalable anti-tamper products; Ethernet solutions; Power-over-
Ethernet ICs, and midspans; and custom design capabilities and
services.

On March 1, 2018, the Individual Defendants caused Microsemi to
enter into the Merger Agreement.  Pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, stockholders of Microsemi will receive $68.78
in cash each share of Microsemi stock they own.

On April 19, 2018, defendants filed the Proxy Statement with the
SEC in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy
Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading. The Proxy Statement omits material information
regarding the Company's financial projections and the analyses
performed by the Company's financial advisor, Qatalyst Partners
LP.

With respect to the Company's financial projections, the Proxy
Statement fails to disclose: (i) the line items used to calculate
unlevered free cash flow; and (ii) a reconciliation of all non-
GAAP to GAAP metrics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Schumacher, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          155 Jackson Street, No. 1903
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 855-8995
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: ms@rl-legal.com


MONSANTO CO: Rule 23 Class Certification Sought in "Blitz" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Blitz moves the Court for an order certifying the case
titled THOMAS BLITZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 3:17-cv-00473-
wmc (W.D. Wisc.), as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5osWLBOe

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kim E. Richman, Esq.
          RICHMAN LAW GROUP
          81 Prospect Street
          Brooklyn, NY
          Telephone: (212) 687-8291
          E-mail: krichman@richmanlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Mary C. Turke, Esq.
          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson Street #209
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 237-1775
          E-mail: mary@turkestrauss.com
                  sam@turkestrauss.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Baum, Esq.
          R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
          BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C.
          12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207-3233
          E-mail: mbaum@baumhedlund.com
                  bwisner@baumhedlund.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Gabrielli, Esq.
          GABRIELLI LEVITT LLP
          2426 Eastchester Rd., Suite 103
          Bronx, NY 10469
          Telephone: (718) 708-5322
          E-mail: michael@gabriellilaw.com

               - and -

          Aimee H. Wagstaff, Esq.
          ANDRUS WAGSTAFF LLP
          7171 West Alaska Drive
          Lakewood, CO 80226
          Telephone: (720) 208-9414
          E-mail: aimee.wagstaff@andruswagstaff.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Miller, Esq.
          MILLER FIRM LLC
          108 Railroad Avenue
          Orange, VA 22960
          Telephone: (540) 672-4224
          E-mail: mmiller@millerfirmllc.com

               - and -

          Robin L. Greenwald, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG P.C.
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 558-5500
          E-mail: rgreenwald@weitzlux.com

               - and -

          Robert F. Kennedy, Esq.
          KENNEDY & MADONNA, LLP
          48 Dewitt Mills Road
          Hurley, NY 12443
          Telephone: (845) 481-2622


MONSTER BEVERAGE: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Townsend" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Matthew Townsend and Ted Cross filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit titled Matthew Townsend, et al. v.
Monster Beverage Corporation, et al., Case No. 5:12-cv-02188-VAP-
KK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Riverside.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs sought certification of these classes:

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

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

The Plaintiffs assert that Defendants Monster Beverage
Corporation and Monster Energy Company made uniform
misrepresentations on the Monster Drink cans.

The appellate case is captioned as Matthew Townsend, et al. v.
Monster Beverage Corporation, et al., Case No. 18-80044, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners MATTHEW TOWNSEND and TED CROSS, on Behalf
of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, are represented
by:

          Azra Zahoor Mehdi, Esq.
          THE MEHDI FIRM, PC
          One Market
          Spear Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94115
          Telephone: (415) 293-8039
          Facsimile: (415) 293 8001
          E-mail: azram@themehdifirm.com

Defendants-Respondents MONSTER BEVERAGE CORPORATION and MONSTER
ENERGY COMPANY are represented by:

          Dan Marmalefsky, Esq.
          David Frank McDowell, Jr., Esq.
          Purvi Govindlal Patel, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 6000
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 892-5809
          E-mail: dmarmalefsky@mofo.com
                  dmcdowell@mofo.com
                  ppatel@mofo.com


MOVE-TASTIC INC: Ragsdale Sues over Misuse of Biometric Info
------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN RAGSDALE, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. MOVE-TASTIC,
INCORPORATED, an Illinois corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
2018CH05421 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., April 26, 2018), seeks to
stop the Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and
dissemination of individuals' biometric identifiers and/or
biometric information in violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act, and to obtain redress for all persons
injured by its conduct.  According to the lawsuit, the Defendant
implemented a biometric timetracking regime without first
obtaining the informed consent of its workers, as required by
law, and all while disregarding the relevant Illinois law and the
privacy interests it protects. The Defendant's conduct is
particularly unsettling considering the economic benefit and
fraud-prevention it obtains from its biometric timetracking
system while wholly avoiding any costs associated with
implementing such systems in compliance with the law. This
cognizable benefit is not only to the detriment of its workers,
but to its competitors as well.

Move-tastic is a Chicago moving company specializing in
residential and business moves.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
          William Kingston, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893 7002
          E-mail: emeyers@mcgpc.com
                  wkingston@mcgpc.com


MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS: Blinds Can't Access Web Site, Lazarev Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DMITRIY LAZAREV, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-02454 (E.D.N.Y., April 26, 2018), complains that
the Defendant is denying blind individuals throughout the United
States equal access to the goods and services the Defendant
provides to non-disabled customers through http://www.mfa.org.
The Website provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, and other programs offered by Defendant. Yet, the
Website contains access barriers that make it difficult, if not
impossible, for blind customers to use the Website. The Defendant
thus excludes the blind from the full and equal participation in
the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental
part of the common marketplace and daily living.

The MFA is one of the most comprehensive art museums in the
world; the collection encompasses nearly 450000 works of art.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

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


NATIONAL GENERAL: Auto-Debits Insurance Payment, Lares Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
DANIELLE LARES, on behalf of herself and all individuals
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00025-JLK (W.D. Va.,
April 26, 2018), alleges that in May 2017, Ms. Lares received a
notice notifying her that her auto insurance policy with her
current insurer, Nationwide, was expiring and offering her a
replacement policy with National General. The replacement policy
from National General would be effective July 10, 2017. She also
received a "New Business bill" from National General which
encouraged her to call National General to complete the
"Automatic Payments authorization."

Ms. Lares subsequently accepted the insurance policy with
National General and enrolled in automatic payments with National
General to be deposited from her bank account. In October 2017,
Ms. Lares received an "Automatic Payment Schedule" from National
General, indicating National General would debit $85.97 from her
bank account on November 13, 2017. Ms. Lares made sure to deposit
the necessary money into her account to cover all her expenses,
including the scheduled withdrawal from National General.

However, without notice to or permission from Ms. Lares, National
General withdrew the money from her account four days early, on
November 9, 2017. On November 14, Ms. Lares discovered that
National General had debited $85.97 from her account on November
9, causing her to overdraft her account and incur overdraft fees.
Ms. Lares went to her bank and spoke with a representative of the
bank who informed her that National General requested the payment
on November 9. The bank reversed the unauthorized charge and
directed Ms. Lares to National General to pay her November bill
by other means.

Ms. Lares paid National General the November payment over the
phone on or around November 14, 2017. Shortly thereafter, Ms.
Lares received a notice from National General dated November 15,
which included an "Automatic Payments Schedule." The Automatic
Payments Schedule indicated that she would be charged her normal
monthly premium of $85.97 on December 11, 2017, in addition to a
late fee of $35.00. National General refused to waive the late
fee even though it was incurred because of National General's
unauthorized charge to her account four days before the scheduled
withdrawal. Again, even though her December payment and the late
fee were not scheduled to be withdrawn from her account until
December 11, National General initiated the transfer on her
account four days early on December 7.

Again, the unauthorized charge caused Ms. Lares to overdraft her
account and incur overdraft charges. National General charged
late fees to Ms. Lares' insurance account and sent her a notice
threatening to cancel her insurance plan if it did not receive
the amounts due on her account. National General refused to
refund her for the late fees that were incurred because of
National General's premature transfers from her account.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
          Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
          Casey S. Nash, Esq.
          KELLY &CRANDALL, PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424 7572
          Facsimile: (703) 591 0167
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
                  aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com
                  casey@kellyandcrandall.com


NEW YORK, NY: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Nnebe" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Kharirul Amin, Eduardo Avenaut, New York Taxi Workers
Alliance and Jonathan Nnebe filed an appeal from the District
Court's amended opinion, order, and judgment entered on March 27,
2018, in their lawsuit titled Nnebe, et al. v. Daus, et al., Case
No. 06-cv-4991, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York City).

Matthew Daus was the chairperson of the NYC Taxi and Limousine
Commission.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission's
policy of suspending taxi drivers upon notification of their
arrest violates the United States Constitution, New York state
law, and New York City municipal law.

The appellate case is captioned as Nnebe, et al. v. Daus, et al.,
Case No. 18-866, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Jonathan Nnebe, Kharirul Amin, Eduardo
Avenaut and New York Taxi Workers Alliance, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Daniel L. Ackman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL ACKMAN
          222 Broadway
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (917) 282-8178
          Facsimile: (888) 290-3481
          E-mail: dan@danackmanlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees Matthew Daus, Joseph Eckstein, Elizabeth
Bonina, The New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, The City
of New York and Charles Fraser are represented by:

          Zachary W. Carter, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-1000
          E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov


NORTH CAROLINA, USA: Court Refuse to Certify Class in "Dillard"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Louise W. Flanagan denies the Plaintiff's motion to
certify class in the lawsuit captioned THOMAS T. DILLARD, JR. v.
FRANK PERRY, W. DAVID GUICE, GEORGE SOLOMON, BELINDA DUDLEY,
GWENDOLYN SCOTT, REGINALD MEWBORN, E.W. WALLACE, THOMAS E.
ASBELL, II, CYNTHIA O. THORNTON, PAULA S. PAGE, C. HERNANDEZ, D.
GIBBS, JOE SOLANO, M. SLAGLE, LAUREN HARRELL, JASON PENLAND, TIM
JONES, G. GARNER, TOMMY L. PAGE, JR., CAPTAIN MILLIS, JAMES C.
MARLOWE, P.G. CHRISAWN, CHAD GREEN, MIKE BALL, LIEUTENANT
PHILLIPS, SARGEANT DAWSON, MARY E. WILLIAMS, RASHIA L. NORMAN,
SCARLETT R. ASWELL, CRISSY H. SMITH, NICKI A. WEBB, ASHLEY WELCH,
MONICA BOND, DAVID MAY, JR., JOHN DOE 1-3, LEMMIE SMITH, MATTHEW
DELBRIDGE, KRISTIE STANBACKBENNETT, NICOLE SPRUELL, CAPTAIN CAIN,
RANDY A. MARKHAM, PATRICIA BLACKBURN, PROGRAM SUPERVISOR STEWART,
E. WHITTED, GEORGIA S. BRYANT, K. FAIRLEY, CUSTODY OFFICER
BARCINAS, KENNETH E. LASSITER, ERIK A. HOOKS, KRISTY NEWTON, G.
CRUTCHFIELD, JEFFREY FIELDS, MARSHALL PIKE, and HAROLD BELK, Case
No. 5:16-ct-03329-FL (E.D.N.C.).

Frank Perry is the secretary of the North Carolina Department of
Public Safety.

The Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that the Defendants subjected
him to unlawful punitive measures/punishments, denied him full
and fair access to the courts, and failed to provide protection
from assaults.

Judge Flanagan explains that the Plaintiff is an incarcerated
inmate proceeding pro se in this matter, and Fourth Circuit
precedent forecloses him from acting as a class representative.
Thus, the Plaintiff cannot satisfy prerequisites under Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for certifying a class.

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


NY COMMUNITY FINANCIAL: Coty Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
YATSHUKOVICHKA N. COTY, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. NY COMMUNITY
FINANCIAL, LLC, and other affiliated entities that employed
Plaintiff and members of the putative class, the Defendant, Case
No. 153891/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 26, 2018), seeks to recover
wages and benefits which Plaintiffs were statutorily entitled to
receive pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked in several of
Defendant's check-cashing stores located in New York City. The
Plaintiff worked for Defendant from November 2016 to April 12,
2018. The Defendant required Plaintiff to wear a uniform in the
performance of her job duties. The uniform Plaintiff was required
to wear was red and had a CFSC logo on it. The Plaintiff was paid
at the minimum wage rate during her employment with Defendant.
The Plaintiff was paid $11.00 per hour in 2017. The Plaintiff was
paid by check. The Plaintiff normally worked shifts of 7-8 hours,
five days per week. During the months of January to May, the
Plaintiff would occasionally work a double shift per week,
sometimes more. When Plaintiff worked a double shift, she worked
more than 10 hours in a day. When Plaintiff worked in excess of
10 hours in a day, she did not receive an additional one hour of
pay at the minimum wage rate. The Defendant did not launder or
otherwise maintain the uniforms of Plaintiff and members of the
putative class. The Defendant also did not provide Plaintiff with
the weekly uniform maintenance allowance. Like Plaintiff, members
of the putative class were also not provided with the uniform
allowance. Like Plaintiff, members of the putative class were
also required to wear a uniform as a condition of their
employment.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative class:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          Jack L. Newhouse, Esq.
          Joel L. Goldenberg, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080
          E-mail: jnewhouse@vandallp.com


PHH CORPORATION: Smith Balks at Merger Deal with Ocwen Financial
----------------------------------------------------------------
GREG SMITH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. PHH CORPORATION, JAMES O. EGAN, JANE
D. CARLIN, JAMES C. NEUHAUSER, CHARLES P. PIZZI, KEVIN STEIN,
CARROLL R. WETZEL, JR., and ROBERT B. CROWL, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-08396 (D.N.J., April 26, 2018), seeks to enjoin
Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with the shareholder vote on a proposed merger or
consummating the Proposed Merger, unless and until the Company
discloses material information which has been omitted from Proxy.

This action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf
of himself and the other public holders of the common stock of
PHH Corporation against the Company and the members of the
Company's board of directors for their violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with proposed merger between PHH and Ocwen Financial
Corporation.

On February 27, 2018, the Board caused the Company to enter into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which Company
shareholders will receive $11.00 per share in cash for each share
of Company common stock they own, a deal valued at $360 million.
On April 6, 2018, to convince PHH shareholders to vote in favor
of the Proposed Merger, the Board authorized the filing of a
materially incomplete and misleading PREM 14A Preliminary Proxy
Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
materially incomplete and misleading Proxy independently violates
both Regulation G (17 C.F.R. section 244.100) and SEC Rule 14a-9
(17 C.F.R. 240.14a-9), each of which constitutes a violation of
Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the
Company's shareholders in the Proxy, the Defendants have failed
to disclose certain material information that is necessary for
shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Merger, thereby violating SEC rules and regulations and rendering
certain statements in the Proxy materially incomplete and
misleading. In particular, the Proxy contains materially
incomplete and misleading information concerning the financial
projections for the Company that were prepared by the Company and
relied upon by the Board in recommending that Company
shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Merger. The financial
projections were also utilized by PHH's financial advisor, Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, in conducting the valuation analyses
in support of its fairness opinion that the consideration to be
received by PHH via the Proposed Merger was fair from a financial
point of view to the Company. Further, the Proxy omits material
information regarding the Company's confidentiality agreements it
reached with strategic parties during the sales process.

The PHH Corporation is an American financial services corporation
headquartered in Mount Laurel, New Jersey which provides mortgage
services to some of the world's largest financial services
firms.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Innessa Melamed Huot, Esq.
          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq..
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983 9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983 9331
          E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com
                  nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com


PHILLIPS & COHEN: Faces "Lewis" Suit Over Debt Collection Letters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALYSSA LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PHILLIPS & COHEN ASSOCIATES, LTD. and JOHN DOES 1-25,
Case No. 2:18-cv-04731 (D.N.J., March 29, 2018), is brought on
behalf of those to whom the Defendants sent a collection letter
attempting to collect a consumer debt that included alleged
deceptive and misleading disclosures regarding the requirements
for reporting a discharge of indebtedness.

Headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware, Phillips & Cohen
Associates, Ltd., is a "debt collector" as the phrase is defined
in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  The Defendant is a
company that uses the mail, telephone, and facsimile and
regularly engages in business the principal purpose of which is
to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another.  The
identities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the
Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          RC LAW GROUP, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          E-mail: ysaks@rclawgroup.com


R.S.T. & ASSOC: Verkhovsky Calls Rent Hike "Illegal"
----------------------------------------------------
IRINA VERKHOVSKY, on Behalf of Herself and all Persons Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. R.S.T. & ASSOC.; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC703980 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
April 26, 2018), seeks monetary relief, specific performance and
declaratory relief resulting from the actions of Defendants in
the ownership and/or management and rental and/or leasing of
residential properties located in the Los Angeles area.

The Plaintiff was legal tenant at 1530 Corinth Ave., Unit No. 06
in the city of Los Angeles, California, a property owned and/or
managed by Defendant R.S.T. & ASSOC. Since 2009, the Defendants
have had a consistent policy of, towards the end of each calendar
year, informing tenants in rent-controlled units of the new "base
rent" allowable under Los Angeles rent control laws for the
upcoming calendar year and informing them of what the actual
charged rent will be, all the while purporting to "reserve the
right to raise your rent up to the base (legal) rent if we deem
necessary." Until 2012 (when occupancy in Defendant's properties
was relatively low), the yearly increases of the actual charged
rent did not exceed the maximum allowable by law.  However,
beginning in 2013, Defendant began increasing rents beyond the
percentage allowable by law, presumably exercising its purported
rights "reserved" in previous years. However, the Los Angeles
Municipal Code does not allow landlords to defer increases and
apply them in later years.

The Plaintiff contends that any notice of a rental increase
beyond that allowable by law is improper and cannot be enforced.
Accordingly, the maximum legal rent today is the last legally
noticed rent, to wit, the rent noticed in late 2011 for the 2012
calendar year, and the Plaintiff and the plaintiff class are
therefore entitled to a refund of all rents illegally collected.

Alternatively, if Defendants' notices of illegal rent increases
are interpreted by the courts to be notices of the maximum
increase allowed by law, Plaintiff and the plaintiff class are
entitled to a refund of the difference between all rents
collected and the legal rent for that period. Furthermore,
illegal increases on top of illegal increases are doubly
improper. Therefore, if a landlord or manager increases the rent
in a particular year above the allowable increase, subsequent
years' rents should be calculated based upon last year's legal
rent, not the illegal rent actually charged.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan C. Altman, Esq.
          Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
          THE ALTMAN LAW GROUP
          6300 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 980
          Los Angeles, CA 90048
          Telephone: (323) 653 5581
          Facsimile: (323) 653 5542


RESORT AT PELICAN: Violates ADA & Unruh Act, "Filardi" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA FILARDI, an individual; JAMES RUTHERFORD, an individual;
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE RESORT AT
PELICAN HILL LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES
1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 8:18-cv-00560-CJC-KES (C.D. Cal.,
April 3, 2018), accuses the Defendants of violating the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 and under the California Unruh
Civil Rights Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Company maintains its reservations
systems, including to those offered to the public on its Web site
-- http://PelicanHill.com/-- in such a way that the Web site
contains access barriers preventing them, and other mobility-
impaired individuals, from gaining full, equal and independent
access to the reservations services offered by the Company.  The
Plaintiffs contend that they have each visited the Web site and
were unable to locate any information regarding the accessibility
of the hotel and guest rooms by the mobility impaired, any
accessible features of accessible rooms, or the accessibility of
any aspect of the resort by the mobility impaired.

The Resort at Pelican Hill LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company with its principal office located in Newport Beach,
California.  The Company owns and operates the hotel known as The
Resort at Pelican Hill.  The identities of the Doe Defendants are
currently unknown to the Plaintiffs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph R. Manning, Jr., Esq.
          Michael J. Manning, Esq.
          MANNING LAW, APC
          4667 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 150
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 200-8755
          Facsimile: (866) 843-8308
          E-mail: joe@manninglawoffice.com
                  mike@manninglawoffice.com

               - and -

          Marc E. Dann, Esq.
          Emily White, Esq.
          THE DANN LAW FIRM CO., LPA
          P.O. Box 6031040
          Cleveland, OH 44103
          Telephone: (216) 373-0539
          Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
          E-mail: mdann@dannlaw.com
                  ewhite@dannlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 W. Washington St., Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
          E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
                  sharon@attorneyzim.com


RODAN & FIELDS: Deceptively Marketed Lash Boost, Ryan Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA RYAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. RODAN & FIELDS, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:18-cv-02505 (N.D. Cal., April 26, 2018), seeks
injunctive, declaratory and compensatory relief for violation of
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violation of the California
consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment.

This action arises out of Defendant's illegal and deceptive
practice of promoting, marketing, distributing and/or selling the
product, Lash Boost, an over-the-counter cosmetic serum that the
Defendant advertises as improving the appearance of lash volume
and length without any significant side effects. However, Lash
Boost contains isopropyl cloprostenate, a drug that the Food and
Drug Administration has determined is associated with several
serious adverse effects including: dry eye, eye irritation, eye
inflammation, eye redness, iris color change, macular edema, low
intraocular pressure, among other side effects.

Despite being FDA-approved for usage in prescription drugs,
isopropyl cloprostenate is not approved as a cosmetic additive.
At the time Plaintiff purchased and used Lash Boost, she and
other similarly situated individuals were unaware isopropyl
cloprostenate was actually a drug and/or its serious potential
side effects. On April 18, 2011, the FDA issued a warning letter
to Lifetech Resources LLC, which also manufactures lash enhancing
products containing isopropyl cloprostenat. The warning letter
stated that Lifetech Resources LLC violated provisions of the FDA
because its lash enhancing products containing isopropyl
cloprostenat were considered unapproved new drugs in violation of
sections 505(a) and 301(d) of the Act (21 U.S.C. sections 355(a)
and 331(d)) and misbranded drugs in violation of section 502 (21
U.S.C. sections 352) of the Act. The FDA warning letters also
advised isopropyl cloprostenate may cause the following injuries:
ocular irritation, hyperemia, iris color change, macular edema,
ocular inflammation, and interference with intraocular pressure
reduction therapy. In addition, women of childbearing age are
considered at risk for injury.

Rodan & Fieldsis an American manufacturer and multi-level
marketing company specializing in skincare products.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Marc L. Godino, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201 9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201 9160
          E-mail: mgodino@glancylaw.com
                  info@glancylaw.com

               - and -

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


RRCTG INC: "Tacuri" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage & OT under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
JUAN JOSE TOBO TACURI (A.K.A. MARCO GUAMAN), individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RRCTG,
INC. (D/B/A GUY & GALLARD), SHAYAN HOLDING, CORP. (D/B/A GUY &
GALLARD), TAREQ AHMED, and GUY TEREQ, the Defendants, Case No.
(S.D. Fla., April 26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own, operate, or control two American restaurants,
located at 120 East 34th street. New York, NY 10016 and at 180
Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 under the name "Guy &
Gallard." The Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants employed as
a salad preparer at the restaurants located at 120 East 34th
street, New York, NY 10016 and at 180 Madison Avenue, New York,
NY 10016. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40
hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and
spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked.
Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping
of the hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for
any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to
pay Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in
which he had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants' conduct
is extended beyond Plaintiff to all other similarly situated
employees. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of
requiring Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40
hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime
compensation required by federal and state law and
regulations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAN DIEGO, CA: Charges Inmates for Phone Calls, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
JEROME MOORE, REBECCA FLOHS, MARY ANITA GLOVER, and ANTWONE
GLOVER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND DOES 1-50,
18 ET AL., the Defendant, Case No. 37-2018-00020856-CU-CR-CTL
(Cal Super. Ct., April 26, 2018), alleges that the Defendants are
carrying out a scheme to deliberately collect unlawful but small
sums of money from large numbers of Call Recipient Class Members
and Inmate Class Members.  Call Recipient Class Members are
individuals who accept calls from the incarcerated inmate and set
up an account with the third-party phone providers. Inmate Class
Members are the incarcerated individuals who use the telephone to
contact the Call Recipient Class Members.  The Defendants conduct
unlawfully burden Class Members' ability to communicate with
loved ones, friends, associates or persons important to their or
their loved ones' legal situation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barrett S. Litt, Esq.
          Ronald O. Kaye, Esq.
          KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT, LLP
          975 East Green Street
          Pasadena, CA 91106
          Telephone: (626) 844 7660
          Facsimile: (626) 844 7670
          E-mail: blitt@kmbllaw.com
                  rok@kmbllaw.com

               - and -

          MICHAEL S. RAPKIN, Esq.
          SCOTT B. RAPKIN, Esq.
          RAPKIN & ASSOCIATES, LLP
          11543 W. Olympic Blvd., 2nd FI.
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 319 5465
          Facsimile: (310) 319 5355
          E-mail: msrapkin@gmail.com
                  scottrapkin@rapkinesq.com

               - and -

          Eugene Iredale, Esq.
          Julia Yoo, Esq.
          Lauren Freidenberg, Esq.
          IREDALE & YOO, APC
          105 West F Street, 4th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233 1525
          Facsimile: (619) 233 3221
          E-mail: eiredale@iredalelaw.com
                  jyoo@iredalelaw.com
                  lfriedenberg@iredalelaw.com


SCIENTIFIC DRILLING: "Sizemore" Suit Moved From Penn. to Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled BRUCE SIZEMORE, TYLER BEYER, KORY GAUSEN and
JOHN MONICA individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. SCIENTIFIC DRILLING INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No.
2:15-cv-00426, was transferred on April 4, 2018, from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston).

The Texas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-01061 to
the proceeding.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs contend that despite the fact
that they spend the vast majority of their time performing non-
exempt tasks and do not have responsibilities that bring them
within any exemption, the Defendant willfully misclassifies them
as exempt, and fails to pay them overtime compensation when they
work over 40 hours in a workweek, as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the laws of the states of Pennsylvania,
Illinois, Kentucky, New York, Ohio, West Virginia, Colorado and
North Dakota.  The Plaintiffs seek relief to remedy the
Defendant's alleged willful failure to pay all wages due, and
failure to pay appropriate overtime compensation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Alexandra L. Koropey, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  sschalman-bergen@bm.net
                  akoropey@bm.net

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          James A. Jones, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
                  jjones@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          David A. Hughes, Esq.
          HARDIN & HUGHES, LLP
          2121 14th Street
          Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
          Telephone (205) 344-6690
          Facsimile (205) 344-6188
          E-mail: dhughes@hardinhughes.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kurt A. Miller, Esq.
          CLARK HILL PLC
          301 Grant Street
          One Oxford Centre, 14th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222-4895
          Telephone: (412) 394-2363
          E-mail: kmiller@clarkhill.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Woodson, Esq.
          Marlene C. Williams, Esq.
          Scott Robert McLaughlin, Esq.
          EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
          1001 Fannin, Suite 3700
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 470-6100
          Facsimile: (713) 654-1301
          E-mail: michaelwoodson@eversheds-sutherland.com
                  marlenewilliams@eversheds-sutherland.com
                  ScottMcLaughlin@eversheds-sutherland.com


STATE FARM: Accused by "Behr" Suit of Misrepresenting Repair Cost
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS BEHR, an individual v. STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, an Illinois corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case
No. BC700997 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 5, 2018),
is a class action for breach of contract, insurance bad faith,
and unfair business practices against the Defendant, arising out
of its alleged unlawful conduct of misrepresenting the cost of
repair on claims involving damage to structures caused by smoke
and ash from wildfires.

Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges, State Farm unlawfully
altered and reduced the Xactimate pricing for HEPA vacuuming in
connection with its adjustment of wildfire smoke, soot, and ash
claims, to his and other insureds' detriment.  State Farm uses
Xactimate, a computer software program, to calculate the cost of
repairing structures.  Xactimate provides templates for
information pertaining to a loss, as well as databases containing
pricing information based on surveys of contractors in local
geographical areas.

State Farm General Insurance Company is an insurance corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the state of Illinois,
authorized to transact the business of insurance in the state of
California, and transacting insurance business in California,
County of Los Angeles.  The Plaintiff is currently ignorant of
the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Neil R. Anapol, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NEIL R. ANAPOL
          2550 Hollywood Way, Suite 202
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (818) 566-7355
          Facsimile: (818) 566-7875
          E-mail: neilanapol@gmail.com


SUIT SUPPLY: Sued by Fischler Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN FISCHLER, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. SUIT SUPPLY (U.S.A.), INC., Case No. 1:18-
cv-02807 (S.D.N.Y., March 29, 2018), arises from the Defendant's
alleged failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
Web site, http://www.suitsupply.com/,to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans With
Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York
City Human Rights Law.

Suit Supply is a foreign-based corporation that is organized
under Delaware law, authorized to do business in the state of New
York, and has its U.S. headquarters in New York City.  Suit
Supply owns and operates stores throughout the United States.
The Company sells suits, jackets, shoes, ties, socks, belts,
sweaters and related items.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUNNYGROVE LANDSCAPE: "Vela" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosa Vela, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Sunnygrove Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00165 (M.D. Fla., March 13, 2018),
seeks overtime compensation for hours rendered in excess of forty
hours per work week with corresponding liquidated damages,
reasonable attorney's fees and costs and expenses of the
litigation, prejudgment interest and any other further relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Vela performed lawn maintenance for the Defendants from March 14,
2017 to February 5, 2018. She was automatically deducted 30
minutes for lunch breaks that she never enjoyed and she claims to
have worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek without being paid
overtime pay, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bill B. Berke, Esq.
      BERKE LAW FIRM, P.A.
      4423 Del Prado Blvd. S.
      Cape Coral, FL 33904
      Telephone: (239) 549-6689
      Email: berkelaw@yahoo.com


SYNCHRONY BANKS: Mott Sues over Illegal Telephone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA MOTT, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SYNCHRONY BANK, the Defendant, Case
No. 3:18-cv-00221-GCM (M.D. Fla., April 26, 2018), seeks to
recover damages caused by Defendant's violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant offers financing products including credit, to
consumers. The Defendant it its agent regularly attempts to
collect debts associated with Defendant's financing products, on
a nationwide basis. The Defendant or its agent has used, and
continues to use, an automatic telephone dialing system to make
calls to cellular telephones to collect on debts without the
prior express written consent of the cellular telephone owner.
The Defendant or its agent failed to cease illegal calls even
after having been expressly asked not to call by the telephone
owner.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Murphy, Esq.
          1212 S.E. 2nd Avenue
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 763 8660
          Facsimile: (954) 763 8607
          E-mail: rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com
                  rphyu@aol.com

               - and -

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, Washington 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816 6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319 5450
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                  amcentee@terrellmarshall.com


TD BANK: Dorsey Appeals D. South Carolina Decision to 4th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Shaina Dorsey filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Shaina Dorsey v. TD Bank, N.A., Case No.
6:17-cv-01432-BHH, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina at Greenville.

The appellate case is captioned as Shaina Dorsey v. TD Bank,
N.A., Case No. 18-1356, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 11, 2018, Judge
Bruce Howe Hendricks granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the case, IN RE: TD BANK, N.A. DEBIT CARD OVERDRAFT FEE
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2613.  This order relates only to: Dorsey v.
TD Bank, N.A. D.N.J. Case No. 1:17-cv-00074 D.S.C. Case No. 6:17-
cv-01432, Civil Action No. 6:15-MN-2613-BHH (D. S.C.).

In the litigation, a collective group of the Plaintiffs challenge
the manner in which the Defendant assessed overdraft fees, posted
debit transactions, and assessed "sustained" overdraft fees.
Eight putative class actions were filed against TD in various
federal district courts.

On April 2, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
centralized these actions and assigned them to the Court.  On
April 15, 2015, the MDL Panel transferred an additional putative
class action, Robinson v. TD Bank, N.A., S.D. Fla. C.A. No. 15-
cv-60469 ("Robinson I"), to this Court for inclusion in this
litigation, MDL 2613.  The MDL Panel also conditionally
transferred a second additional suit, Robinson v. TD Bank, N.A.,
S.D. Fla. C.A. No. 15-cv-60476 ("Robinson II"), which transfer
Plaintiff Robinson opposed at that time.  The sole theory in
Robinson II involved a usury claim under the National Bank Act
("NBA").  On Aug. 7, 2015, the MDL Panel resolved Plaintiff
Robinson's motion to vacate the Panel's conditional transfer of
Robinson II, and transferred the case to the Court for inclusion
within MDL 2613.

The Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
("CAC") was filed on June 19, 2015.  Though it was filed prior to
final transfer of Robinson II into the litigation, the CAC
asserted the same usury claim under the NBA that Robinson II
asserted, on behalf of the same putative nationwide class of TD
Bank customers.

In summary, Judge Hendricks finds that Plaintiff Dorsey's
reworked arguments are no more persuasive than Plaintiff
Robinson's previous attempts to cram a square peg into the
proverbial round hole.  He finds that the Plaintiff's argument
that the law of the case doctrine only applies in the instance of
an appellate ruling binding a trial court on the same issue in
the same case is unavailing.  It ignores the obvious import of
the Court reaching consistent results on identical issues in
multidistrict litigation, and asks the Court to turn a blind eye
to one of the fundamental purposes of a consolidated proceeding.
He says application of the doctrine by a trial court to its own
interlocutory rulings is discretionary, and the Court exercises
its discretion to reach the only rational conclusion here.
Accordingly, the Dorsey Complaint is subject to dismissal by
application of the law of the case.

The Judge agrees with the majority of federal courts that have
considered these issues and finds that the sustained overdraft
fee is not interest within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. Section 85
and 12 C.F.R. Section 7.4001.  As such, the Dorsey Complaint
fails to state a plausible claim for relief.  But assuming
arguendo that additional services are necessary to justify the
fee as a non-interest charge, the Judge says he needs not become
too imaginative to identify services rendered by the Bank for
which the sustained fee, but not initial overdraft fees, provides
compensation.

For these reasons, Judge Hendricks concludes that the Dorsey
Complaint fails to state a claim, and is therefore dismissed.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant SHAINA DORSEY, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Stephen Patrick Denittis, Esq.
          DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC
          5 Greentree Center
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 797-9951
          E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com

               - and -

          Robert C. Gilbert, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT, PA
          2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 384-7270
          E-mail: gilbert@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
          Jonathan Marc Streisfeld, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT, PA
          1 West Las Olas Boulevard
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  streisfeld@kolawyers.com

Defendant-Appellee TD BANK, N.A., is represented by:

          Joshua Dale Dunlap, Esq.
          PIERCE ATWOOD LLP
          254 Commercial Street
          Portland, ME 04101
          Telephone: (207) 791-1100
          E-mail: jdunlap@pierceatwood.com

               - and -

          Susan M. Leming, Esq.
          BROWN & CONNERY, LLP
          360 Haddon Avenue
          Westmont, NJ 08108
          Telephone: (856) 854-8900
          E-mail: sleming@brownconnery.com

               - and -

          Thomas William McGee, III, Esq.
          NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP
          P. O. Box 11070
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Telephone: (803) 255-9431
          E-mail: billy.mcgee@nelsonmullins.com


TGI FRIDAYS: Certification of Class Sought in "Williams" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tonya O'Donovan, one of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled
GABRIELLE WILLIAMS and TONYA O'DONOVAN, on behalf of themselves
and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v.
TGI FRIDAYS, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-04286 (N.D. Ill.), renews her
motion to certify a class of:

     all individuals employed by Defendant on an hourly basis in
     Illinois who separated from employment between March 1, 2006
     and November 2015 who worked at least 1,300 hours in their
     final anniversary or vacation year but who did not receive
     vacation pay as part of their final compensation.

The Plaintiff also seeks an order authorizing the sending of
notice to each putative class member, and requiring the Defendant
to provide the names, last known addresses, phone numbers and e-
mail addresses of all putative class members.  The Plaintiff
further asks the Court to appoint her as Class Representative and
to appoint Douglas M. Werman, Esq., and Sarah J. Arendt, Esq., as
class counsel.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
          Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 W. Washington, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  msalas@flsalaw.com
                  sarendt@flsalaw.com
                  zflowerree@flsalaw.com


THUNDERBIRD COLLECTION: "Roberson" Sues Over Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rayshonda Roberson (a/k/a Roseshonda Roberson), individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v.
Thunderbird Collection Specialists, Inc. and John Does 1-25,
Defendant(s), Case No. 18-cv-00815, (D. Ariz., March 13, 2018),
seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief resulting
from violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Thunderbird Collection Specialists, Inc. is a debt collection
agency with address at 3200 N. Hayden Rd., Ste. 110, Scottsdale,
AZ 85251. It attempted to collect a consumer debt allegedly owed
by Roberson to Bellridge Apartments. On or around May 9, 2017,
Defendant sent a collection letter threatening to post negative
information on her credit files for 7 years in order to coerce
her to pay, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Avraham Zvi Cutler, Esq.
      Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler
      729 7th Ave., 17th Fl.
      New York, NY 10019
      Tel: (718) 578-7711
      Fax: (212) 764-5060
      Email: avicutler@gmail.com


TL TRANSPORTATION: Hickman Moves to Certify Class of Associates
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled TYHEE HICKMAN and SHANAY
BOLDEN, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. TL TRANSPORTATION, LLC, SCOTT FOREMAN, HERSCHEL LOWE,
AMAZON.COM, LLC, and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-
01038-GAM (E.D. Pa.), move the Court to enter an order
conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act collective
composed of, and facilitating the sending of written notices to:

     all current and former Delivery Associates who were paid by
     TL Transportation, LLC to deliver packages for Amazon in the
     United States between [insert date three years prior to the
     date that the Court issues an Order granting Conditional
     Certification] and the present (the "FLSA Collective").

The Plaintiffs also seek expedited treatment of the Motion, as
prompt judicial notice will provide the Delivery Associates the
opportunity to participate in this action while they still have
claims that are not time-barred.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=x1yx1yPW

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Lane Vines, Esq.
          Camille Fundora, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  sschalman-bergen@bm.net
                  lvines@bm.net
                  cfundora@bm.net

               - and -

          Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq.
          Bruce Ludwig, Esq.
          WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
          1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 656-3600
          Facsimile: (215) 567-2310
          E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com
                  bludwig@wwdlaw.com


TRI-STAR WINDOW: Installers Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages, Penalties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Navarro and Jose Zuniga as individuals and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tri-Star Window
Coverings, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No.
BC697813 (Cal. Super., March 13, 2018), seeks recovery of unpaid
wages and penalties, reimbursement of business-related expenses,
missed breaks compensation and redress for failure to provide
wage statements under California Business and Professions Code,
California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders in addition to seeking declaratory relief
and restitution.

Plaintiffs worked as carpet installers for the Defendant's
business. They claim to have worked through lunch breaks, been
denied overtime pay and wage statements and used their personal
vehicles going to jobsites without being reimbursed to vehicle
mileage. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
      PACHAINES LAW GROUP, APC
      2274 East Maple Ave.
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Tel: (424) 292-2350
      Fax: (424) 292-2355
      Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
             tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com

             - and -

      Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
      Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
      LIDMAN LAW, APC
      222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
      El Segunao, CA 90245
      Tel: (424) 322-4772
      Fax: (424) 322-4775
      Email: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
             enguyen@lidmanlaw.com


TRIDENT ASSET: Certification of Class Sought in "Olszewski" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Ann Olszewski moves the Court to certify the class described
in the complaint of the lawsuit styled MARY ANN OLSZEWSKI,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
TRIDENT ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, and ORION PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00545 (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the
Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant
her (and the Defendants) relief from the Local Rules setting
automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting
material to be filed with the motion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UBS SECURITIES: Seeks 7th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Zoller" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants UBS Americas Inc., UBS Financial Services,
Incorporated, and UBS Securities, LLC, filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit titled Shannon Zoller, et al. v. UBS
Securities, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-11277, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought against the Defendants for allegedly forfeiting
terminated employees' incentive and deferred compensation.

The Defendants provide financial and wealth management services
to their clients.

The appellate case is captioned as Shannon Zoller, et al. v. UBS
Securities, LLC, et al., Case No. 18-1692, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript information sheet was due by April 12, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before May 8, 2018, for UBS
      Americas Inc., UBS Financial Services, Incorporated and UBS
      Securities, LLC.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees SHANNON ZOLLER and ALEXANDER BEIGELMAN, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Matthew J. Singer, Esq.
          STOWELL & FRIEDMAN, LTD.
          303 W. Madison Street
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 431-0888
          Facsimile: (312) 431-0228
          E-mail: msinger@sfltd.com

Defendants-Appellants UBS SECURITIES, LLC, UBS FINANCIAL
SERVICES, INCORPORATED, and UBS AMERICAS INC. are represented by:

          Eugene Scalia, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036-5306
          Telephone: (202) 955-8500
          Facsimile: (202) 467-0539
          E-mail: escalia@gibsondunn.com


UNITED CONTINENTAL: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Neft" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Howard S. Neft filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Howard Neft v. UAL, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-
00765, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.

The appellate case is captioned as Howard Neft v. UAL, et al.,
Case No. 18-1712, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 9, 2018, the
District Court granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment in the case.

Plaintiff Howard Neft brings this proposed class action on behalf
of himself and similarly situated plaintiffs against Defendants
United Continental Holdings, Inc. (UCH) and United Airlines, Inc.
(United), for their alleged breach of contract arising out of
their failure to provide bargained-for benefits to their Silver
Wings discount program lifelong members.

In this lawsuit, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other
lifetime members of Silver Wings, seeks to recover the one-time
$225 fee that he paid to join Silver Wings, plus attorneys' fees
and costs.  His complaint contains one count, for breach of
contract.  The complaint alleges that he and other members of the
class entered into a contractual relationship with the Defendants
when they signed up to become Silver Wings lifetime members.  The
complaint further alleges that while the Plaintiff no longer has
copies of the documents from United which describe Silver Wings
and its benefits, these documents are (on information and belief)
in the Defendants' exclusive custody and control.

According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants breached their
obligations to lifetime members of Silver Wings and failed to
honor their obligation of good faith and fair dealing, by: (1)
failing to provide zones air fares, either over the phone or
online; (2) representing in bad faith that Silver Wings members
have access to zoned fares, when in fact that is not the case;
and (3) failing to refund membership fees when United ceased
offering zoned fares.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript information sheet was due by April 17, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before May 14, 2018, for
      Howard S. Neft.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant HOWARD S. NEFT, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Anthony S. DiVincenzo, Esq.
          DIVINCENZO SCHOENFIELD SWARTZMAN
          33 N. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60602-0000
          Telephone: (312) 334-4800
          E-mail: asdlawyer@aol.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Stein, III, Esq.
          DIVINCENZO SCHOENFIELD SWARTZMAN
          3 Park Plaza
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (714) 881-7002
          E-mail: rob@dss.law

Defendants-Appellees UNITED AIRLINES, INC., and UNITED
CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS, INC., are represented by:

          Tal C. Chaiken, Esq.
          RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP
          70 W. Madison Street
          Three First National Plaza
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 471-8725
          E-mail: tchaiken@rshc-law.com


UNITED PARCEL: Accused by "Jackson" of Failing to Pay Full Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
JARRELL JACKSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE GENERAL SERVICES, INC., d/b/a
UPS, Case No. 604296/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., April 2,
2018), accuses the Defendant of failing to pay the Plaintiff his
full wages, in violation of the New York Labor Law and the
supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations.

UPS is a corporation organized pursuant to the laws of the state
of Delaware with its principal place of business located in
Atlanta, Georgia, and has various places of business throughout
the state of New York.  UPS is a wholly owned subsidiary of
United Parcel Service.  UPS provides letter and package delivery,
specialized transportation, logistics, and financial
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Bouklas, Esq.
          BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
          400 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 226
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Telephone: (516) 742-4949
          Facsimile: (516) 742-1977
          E-mail: james@bglawny.com


UNITED STATES: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Smith" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff David Lee Smith filed an appeal from a court ruling in
his lawsuit entitled David L. Smith, On behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. United States District Court, State
of North Carolina, and Bryan K. Wells, Case No. 5:16-ct-03291-D,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina at Raleigh.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on October 31, 2016, and assigned to the Hon. Chief
Judge James C. Dever, III.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: David Smith, Case No.
18-1359, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit.

Plaintiff David Lee Smith, at Pender Correctional Center, in
Burgaw, North Carolina, appears pro se.[BN]


UNITED STATES: Seeks Fed. Cir. Review of Ruling in "Haggart" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant United States of America filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled Haggart, et al. v. U.S., Case No.
1:09-cv-00103-CFL, in the United States Court of Federal Claims.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 20, 2018, Judge
Charles F. Lettow granted the Class Counsel's Motion for Approval
of the Settlement.  He directed the Clerk to enter judgment in
the total amount of $159,636,521, consisting of $110,000,000 in
principal and $49,636,521 in interest as of December 18, 2017,
for prevailing class members.  Interest continues to accrue at
the rate of 4.2%, compounding annually from the dates of the
taking, Oct. 27, 2008, and Nov. 25, 2008, until the date of
payment by the government.  The judgment is payable to the class
counsel for distribution to the class according to the terms of
the Settlement Agreement and the Opinion and Order.

The action concerns land previously held as a right-of-way by
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company in the State of
Washington.  That right-of-way was converted into a recreational
trail pursuant to Section 208 of the National Trails System Act
Amendments of 1983.  In February 2009, the Plaintiffs filed a
complaint alleging that this conversion constituted a taking of
their property without just compensation.

A class of 521 members, owning 659 parcels of land, was initially
certified, and then split into six subclasses.  The Court then
ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment, finding the
government liable to certain class members within Subclass Two
and Categories A through D of Subclass Four while also granting
the government summary judgment as to class claimants in Subclass
Four, Category E.  In all other respects, summary judgment was
denied: The Court reserved some questions of ownership for trial,
did not address liability for Subclasses One, Three, Five, or
Six, and did not address issues of valuation.

The appellate case is captioned as Haggart, et al. v. U.S., Case
No. 18-1757, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Entry of Appearance was due on April 16, 2018;
   -- Certificate of Interest was due on April 16, 2018;
   -- Docketing Statement was due on May 2, 2018; and
   -- Appellant's brief is due on June 1, 2018.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees DANIEL HAGGART and KATHY HAGGART, et al.,
For Themselves and As Representatives of a Class of Similarly
Situated Persons, are represented by:

          Thomas Scott Stewart, Esq.
          STEWART WALD & MCCULLEY, LLC
          2100 Central
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 303-1500
          Facsimile: (816) 527-8068
          E-mail: Stewart@swm.legal

Defendant-Appellant UNITED STATES is represented by:

          Lucinda J. Bach, Esq.
          COMMERCIAL LITIGATION BRANCH
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          PO Box 480
          Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 616-9663
          Facsimile: (202) 305-0275
          E-mail: lucinda.bach@usdoj.gov


UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Faces "Hatch" Suit Over Destroyed Embryos
---------------------------------------------------------------
VICKI L. HATCH and KEVIN M. HATCH, On Behalf of Themselves and
All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS OF
CLEVELAND, UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., UNIVERSITY
HOSPITALS FERTILITY CENTER and UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS AHUJA MEDICAL
CENTER, INC., Case No. CV 18 895554 (Ohio Com. Pleas, Cuyahoga
Cty., April 2, 2018), accuses the Defendants of negligence and
breach of contract arising from the destruction of the
Plaintiffs' fertilized embryo stored at UH's facilities.

On March 3-4, 2018, the Plaintiffs' fertilized human embryo was
destroyed by a malfunction at UH's facility that caused a
temperature fluctuation in the liquid nitrogen cryopreservation
system.

UH provided for-profit and assisted reproduction services to the
Plaintiffs, including cryogenic preservation and storage
facilities at Ahuja Medical Center, among other locations.  These
fertility services are designed to assist married couples like
the Plaintiffs, unmarried couples and unmarried single persons,
who desire to become pregnant by increasing the likelihood of
pregnancy.

UH is a corporation or related groups of corporations organized
under the laws of the state of Ohio and had its principal places
of business in Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric H. Zagrans, Esq.
          ZAGRANS LAW FIRM LLC
          6100 Oak Tree Boulevard, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44131
          Telephone: (216) 771-1000
          Facsimile: (866) 261-2008
          E-mail: eric@zagrans.com

               - and -

          Steven M. Goldberg, Esq.
          GOLDBERG LAW FIRM CO., L.P.A.
          Solon Business Campus
          31300 Solon Road, Suite 12
          Solon, OH 44139
          Telephone: (440) 519-9900
          E-mail: steven@smglegal.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey R. Wahl, Esq.
          JEFFREY R. WAHL CO., L.P.A.
          30799 Pinetree Road, Suite 241
          Cleveland, OH 44124
          Telephone: (216) 308-1401
          E-mail: jeffwahl@mindspring.com

               - and -

          Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
          Beau D. Hollowell, Esq.
          KARON LLC
          700 West St. Clair Avenue, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 999-7576
          Facsimile: (216) 241-8175
          E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com
                  dhollowell@karonllc.com


UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: "Ellis" Sues Over Embryo Storage Mishap
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christina and Marc Ellis, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. University Hospitals Cleveland
Medical Center and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. CV-18-894480
(Ohio Comm. Pleas, March 13, 2018), seeks compensatory and
property damages, emotional damages, attorney's fees, costs of
suit, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such further
relief resulting from breach of contract and negligence.

Plaintiffs husband and wife Christina and Marc Ellis trusted the
University Hospitals Fertility Center to safeguard their embryos
in the hope of having children and starting a family. Christina
Ellis had an in-vitro fertilization performed and was able to
have four high graded viable embryos created, of which two were
frozen with intent to plant in 2018. In March 2018, the storage
bank suffered a significant temperature fluctuation and 700
frozen eggs were damaged.

University Hospitals operated the Ahuja Medical center in
Beachwood, Ohio and specializes in in-vitro fertilization along
with other unique medical and surgical fields as well at their
fertility center. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce D. Taubman, Esq.
      TAUBMAN LAW
      1826 West 25th Street
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Tel: (216) 621-0794
      Fax: (216) 621-8886
      Email: brucetaubman@taubmanlaw.net


UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: "Crissman" Sues Over Embryo Storage Mishap
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica and William Crissman, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated Plaintiff, v. University Hospitals
Cleveland Medical Center, v. University Hospitals Ahuja Medical
Center, Inc., University Hospitals Medical Group, Inc. and
University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Defendants, Case
No. CV-18-894473 (Ohio Comm. Pleas, March 13, 2018), seeks
compensatory and property damages, emotional damages, attorney's
fees, costs of suit, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and
such further relief resulting from breach of contract and
negligence.

Jessica and William Crissman trusted the University Hospitals
Fertility Center to safeguard their embryos in the hope of having
children and starting a family. In March 2018, the storage bank
suffered a significant temperature fluctuation and 700 frozen
eggs were damaged.

University Hospitals Group operated the Ahuja Medical center in
Beachwood, Ohio and specializes in in-vitro fertilization along
with other unique medical and surgical fields as well at their
fertility center. The Crissmans had 11 embryos stored with them.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Megan J. Frantz Oldham, Esq.
      TZANGAS PLAKAS MANNOS, LTD
      106 S Main Street #2500
      Akron, Ohio 44308
      Telephone: (330) 455-6112
      Facsimile: (330) 455-2108
      Email: mfrantzoldham@lawlion.com

             - and -

      Lee E. Plakas, Esq.
      Edmond J. Mack, Esq.
      Maria C. Klutinoty Edwards, Esq.
      TZANGAS PLAKAS MANNOS, LTD
      220 Market Avenue South, Eighth Floor
      Canton, Ohio 44702
      Telephone: (330) 455-6112
      Facsimile: (330) 455-2108
      Email: lplakas@lawlion.com
             emack@lawlion.com
             mklutinotyedwards@lawlion.com

             - and -

      Christopher L. Parker, Esq.
      RODERICK, LINTON, BELFANCE, LLP
      50 South Main Street, 10th Floor
      Akron, Ohio 44308
      Telephone: (234) 281-4949
      Facsimile: (330) 434-9220


UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: "Zarlenga" Sues Over Embryo Storage Mishap
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marla Zarlenga, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. University Hospitals Cleveland Medical
Center, v. University Hospitals Ahuja Medical Center, Inc. and
University Hospitals Medical Group, Inc. and University Hospitals
Cleveland Medical Center, Defendants, Case No. CV-18- 894456
(Ohio Comm. Pleas, March 13, 2018), seeks compensatory and
property damages, emotional damages, attorney's fees, costs of
suit, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such further
relief resulting from breach of contract and negligence.

In April, 2015, Zarlenga preserved six frozen embryos at
University Hospitals Ahuja Medical Center, Inc. Fertility Center.
In March 2018, the storage bank suffered a significant
temperature fluctuation thereby damaging her embryos. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Eric Kennedy, Esq.
      Daniel P. Goetz, Esq.
      WEISMAN, KENNEDY & BERRIS CO., L.P.A.
      1600 Midland Building
      101 Prospect Ave., W.
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Phone: (216)781-1111
      Fax: (216)781-6747
      Email: ekeuuedv@weismanlaw.com
             dgoetz@weismanlaw.com

             - and -

      Andrew A. Kabat, Esq.
      HABER POLK KABAT, LLP
      1300 E. 78th Street, Suite 305
      Cleveland, OH 44102
      Tel: (216) 241-0700
      Fax: (216) 241-0739
      Email: akabat@haberpolk.com


USHEALTH ADVISORS: Invades Class Members' Privacy, "Hirsch" Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
AARON HIRSCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. USHEALTH ADVISORS, LLC and USHEALTH GROUP, INC., Case
No. 4:18-cv-00245-Y (N.D. Tex., March 29, 2018), accuses the
Defendants of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and
the Maryland Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and invaded the
Plaintiff's privacy by causing unsolicited calls to be made to
him, as well as to members of the Classes, through the use of an
auto-dialer and artificial or prerecorded voice message.

USHealth Group, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws
of Delaware and maintains its principal place of business in Ft.
Worth, Texas.  USHealth Group is an insurance holding company
that purports to focus on providing innovative health coverage
for self-employed individuals and small business owners.
USHealth Group sells insurance from its wholly-owned subsidiary
health insurance, Freedom Life Insurance Company of America and
National Foundation Life Insurance Company, through its wholly-
owned subsidiary USHealth Advisors LLC.

USHealth Advisors, LLC, is a limited liability company organized
under the laws of Texas and maintains its principal place of
business in Ft. Worth.  USHealth Advisors is a wholly-owned
national health insurance distribution arm of USHealth Group that
sells individual health coverage and supplementary products
underwritten by The Freedom Life Insurance Company of America and
National Foundation Life Insurance Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Warren T. Burns, Esq.
          Daniel Charest, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST LLP
          900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (469) 904-4550
          Facsimile: (469) 444-5002
          E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
                  dcharest@burnscharest.com

               - and -

          Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
          Arthur Stock, Esq.
          Lane L. Vines, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: mdellangelo@bm.net
                  astock@bm.net
                  lvines@bm.net

               - and -

          Max F. Maccoby, Esq.
          Thomas Bick, Esq.
          BUTZEL LONG, P.C.
          1909 K Street, NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 454-2800
          Facsimile: (202) 454-2805
          E-mail: maccoby@butzel.com
                  bick@butzel.com


VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Accused by "Judge" Suit of Violating FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ebony Judge, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Valentine & Kebartas, LLC, LVNV Funding LLC and John
Does 1-25, Case No. 1:18-cv-02780 (S.D.N.Y., March 29, 2018),
alleges that the Defendants' debt collection efforts attempted or
directed towards the Plaintiff violated various provisions of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Valentine & Kebartas, LLC, is a "debt collector" with an address
at 15 Union Street, in Lawrence, Massachusetts.  LVNV Funding,
LLC, is a "debt collector" with an address for service in Albany,
New York.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants
are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Kohn, Esq.
          RC LAW GROUP, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          E-mail: dkohn@rclawgroup.com


WASSERSTEIN PA: Accused by "Sabbah" Class Suit of Violating FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DALIA SABBAH, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. WASSERSTEIN, P.A., Case No. 0:18-cv-60720-CMA (S.D. Fla.,
April 4, 2018), is brought under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act for the alleged benefit of Florida consumers, who
have been the subject to the Defendant's debt collection efforts,
which violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Wasserstein, P.A., is a law firm based in Boca Raton, Florida.
The Defendant is a "debt collector" that is engaged, by use of
the mails and telephone, in the business of collecting or
attempting to collect debts owed or due, or asserted to be owed
or due, another.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          Alexander D. Kruzyk, 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
                  akruzyk@gdrlawfirm.com


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Abarca"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Werner Enterprises, Inc., and Drivers Management, LLC,
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled
Ezequiel Olivares Abarca, et al. v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., et
al., Case Nos. 8:14-cv-00319-JFB and 8:15-cv-00287-JFB, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha.

The appellate case is captioned as Ezequiel Olivares Abarca, et
al. v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-8003, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 11, 2018,
Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson recommended that (i) the
Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification be granted,
and (ii) the Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Exhibits
Offered in Support of Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class
Certification be denied.

On June 4, 2014, Antonia Russell filed a putative class action
against Werner in California state court for violations of
California wage and hour laws.  On Aug. 25, 2014, Werner removed
the case to the Northern District of California.  On Oct. 6,
2014, the case was transferred to the district.

On March 30, 2015, an amended complaint was filed by Russell,
Abarca, Alesna, Cagle, Davis, Eads and Surman against Werner and
Drivers Management.  By joint stipulation of the parties, Russell
was dismissed as a party on April 24, 2015, and on Sept. 17,
2015, the Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint adding
claims under Nebraska wage and hour laws.

On May 12, 2015, Smith filed a putative class action against
Werner in California state court for violations of California
wage and hour laws.  On June 26, 2015, Werner removed the case to
the Northern District of California.  On July 31, 2015, the case
was transferred to the district.

On Nov. 19, 2015, the captioned cases were consolidated for all
purposes, including trial, and Case No. 8:14cv319 was deemed the
Lead Case.  The Court set March 1, 2016, as the deadline to
complete discovery limited to class certification and April 1,
2016, as the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file a motion to
certify a class.

On May 26, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the instant renewed motion
to certify a California Class and Nebraska Class.  They seek to
certify the California and Nebraska classes as defined by their
fourth amended complaint.  They state in their brief that the
proposed California Class asserts claims "for work performed in
California" regardless of a driver's residency.  They also
alternatively suggest that the Court certify a more narrowly
defined California Class limited to Werner drivers who were
California residents.  They further request that the Court
appoints the individually named Plaintiffs in Case No. 8:14cv319
as the class representatives and to appoint the class
counsel.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents Ezequiel Olivares Abarca, individually and
on behalf of all those similarly situated; Alfredo Alesna, Jr.,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated; David
Cagle, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated; Stephen Davis, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated; Frank Eads, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated; Kenneth J. Surman, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated; and William Smith, on
behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf
of the general public, are represented by:

          David Borgen, Esq.
          Laura L. Ho, Esq.
          Raymond A. Wendell, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN LAW FIRM
          300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763-9800
          E-mail: dborgen@gbdhlegal.com
                  lho@gbdhlegal.com
                  rwendell@gbdhlegal.com

               - and -

          James Sitkin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES M. SITKIN,
          225 California Street, 10th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 318-1048
          E-mail: jsitkin@sitkinlegal.com

               - and -

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

Defendants-Petitioners Werner Enterprises, Inc., and Drivers
Management, LLC, are represented by:

          Brandon J. Crainer, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Culhane, Esq.
          Kathryn Dittrick, Esq.
          Joseph Edward Jones, Esq.
          FRASER STRYKER PC LLO
          409 S 17th St., #500
          Omaha, NE 68102
          Telephone: (402) 341-6000
          Facsimile: (402) 341-8290
          E-mail: bcrainer@fraserstryker.com
                  eculhane@fraserstryker.com
                  kdittrick@fraserstryker.com
                  jjones@fraserstryker.com


WESTERN EXPRESS: "Elmy" Suit Stayed Pending Decision in New Prime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William L. Campbell, Jr., grants the supplemental motion
to stay pending the decision in New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira filed
by the Defendants in the lawsuit titled JOHN ELMY, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons v. WESTERN
EXPRESS, INC., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01199 (M.D. Tenn.).

Through the Supplemental Motion, the Defendants request that the
Court stay this case pending the decision of the Supreme Court in
New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira, 2018 WL 1037577 (Order granting
certiorari on Feb. 26, 2018).  In New Prime, the Court is
expected to review a decision of the First Circuit Court of
Appeals which held that: (1) the applicability of the Federal
Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1, et seq. ("FAA") is a threshold
question for the court to determine before compelling arbitration
under the Act; and (2) transportation-worker agreements that
establish or purport to establish an independent-contractor
relationship fall within the FAA exemption for contracts of
employment of transportation workers.  Oliveira v. New Prime,
Inc., 857 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2017).  There is currently a circuit
split on these issues. Cf. Oliveira, supra, with Green v.
SuperShuttle International, Inc., 653 F.3d 766 (8th Cir. 2011).

The Court concludes that a stay is appropriate in this case.  The
issues raised by the parties relating to arbitration appear to be
the same as those at issue in New Prime, and a decision by the
Supreme Court, which will be binding on this Court, will likely
settle or clarify those issues, Judge Campbell notes.

Therefore, Judge Campbell says, staying this case until a
decision is issued will promote judicial efficiency and
conservation of resources for both the parties and the Court.

In order to alleviate prejudice to the potential opt-in
plaintiffs, the Court concludes that the statute of limitations
should be equitably tolled as of March 15, 2018, the date the
Plaintiff filed the motion for class certification.  In the event
class certification is ultimately granted, the tolling period
shall be extended until 90 days after issuance of Court-approved
notice to potential plaintiffs.  In the event the motion is
denied, the issue of equitable tolling may be raised again in an
appropriate motion.

Judge Campbell referred the case to the Magistrate Judge to
determine what, if any, discovery should be conducted to
alleviate any loss of evidence during the period of the stay,
which may include discovery of the contact information of
potential class members and witnesses.

The other pending motions in the case are denied, without
prejudice to refiling after the Supreme Court issues its opinion
in New Prime.  The parties shall file a notice with the Court
within 10 days after issuance of the New Prime opinion.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6SrOnWPd




WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS: Moreno Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO MORENO, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS & ALMONDS LLC; and
DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, Case No. BC701028 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty., April 5, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid
wages/overtime, accurate itemized wage statements, other
penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.

Wonderful Pistachios is a Delaware corporation operating within
the state of California with a corporate address in Los Angeles.
The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently
unknown to the Plaintiff.

Wonderful Pistachios grows, processes, and markets almonds and
pistachios for a range of consumer and industry markets in the
United States and internationally.  The Company offers a line of
in-shell and shelled pistachio products, as well as a complete
line of almond products for food manufacturers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
          E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
                  kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com


ZACK PAINTING: "Lengyel" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime, Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL LENGYEL, and similarly situated individuals v. ZACK
PAINTING CO., INC., NORTHEAST CONTRACTING SERVICES, LLC, ROBERT
ZACK, individually, DAVID ZACK, individually, and JOHN PREGO,
individually, Case No. 3:18-cv-04765 (D.N.J., March 29, 2018),
seeks to recover statutory wage and overtime payments, and
payment for unpaid supplemental benefits that the Plaintiff and
the members of the putative class were statutorily and
contractually entitled to receive for work they performed on
numerous privately financed projects and publicly financed
projects pursuant to contracts with various government entities.

Headquartered in Fords, New Jersey, ZPC owns and maintains a
painting and fire proofing business throughout the states of New
Jersey, Pennsylvania and New York.  NCS owns and maintains a
painting and fire proofing business throughout New Jersey,
Pennsylvania and New York.  The Zack Defendants are officers or
shareholders of ZPC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: Aglenn@JaffeGlenn.com
                  Jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com
















                            *********


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  * * *