CAR_Public/180509.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Wednesday, May 9, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 93



                            Headlines


1 PERSON AT A TIME: Seeks Approval of Settlement in "White" Suit
8POINT3 ENERGY: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action Suit
ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Gross Moves to Certify Two Classes Under FCRA
AESOP USA: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Olsen Claims
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Renvall Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages

ALEC MITCHELL: Hernandez Sues over Unsolicited Fax Advertisement
ALLEN & MILLER: Prendergast Sues over Debt Collection Practices
ALPINE SITE: O'Loughlin Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
AMCO INSURANCE: Thorpe Sues over Spam Text Messages
APEX HEALTHCARE: Karon Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls

APPLE INC: Shegerian & Associates Files Class Action Lawsuit
ARSTRAT COLLECTIONS: Saget Sues over Debt Collection Practices
AUTOMOTIVE PARTS: August 1 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
BARNES & NOBLE: 7th Cir. Reinstates Data Breach Class Action
BC LIBERAL PARTY: Judge Strikes Down Proposed Class Action Suit

BIDDING UNLIMITED: Payton Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
BIG CHIEF: Misclassified Welders, "Young" Suit Claims
BILLY REID: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Fischler Claims
BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: "Mayes" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
CALIF OFF TRACK WAGERING: Fails to Pay Straight-Time & OT Wages

CAPITAL ONE: Faces "Figueroa" Suit in California Over ATM Fees
CAREFIRST INC: SCOTUS Denies Petition for Writ of Certiorari
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Class Cert. Bid Deadline Moved to Aug. 6
CBOE EXCHANGE: Manipulated VIX Trading, Siegel Alleges
CBOE GLOBAL: Manipulated VIX Trading, Terwilliger Claims

CENTURY FENCE: Fails to Pay Legally Required Wages, Reilly Says
CHEROKEE ROCK: Strickland Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
CHICAGO, IL: Judge Throws Out Lead Pipes Class-Action Lawsuit
COCA-COLA COMPANY: "Robles" Suit Moved to C.D. California
COLONY NORTHSTAR: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action

COMMERCEHUB INC: Gordon Balks at GTCR LLC Merger Deal
COMMUNITY INSURANCE: Denied Health Plan Benefits, A.G. Suit Says
DEVILLE ASSET: Green Sues over Debt Collections Practices
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Filed
DOORDASH INC: Sahito Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages

DR. PEPPER SNAPPLE: "Margaryan" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
DUPONT: Plaintiffs Respond to Bid to Dismiss GenX Suit
DUKE UNIVERSITY: Workers Get Class Status in Retirement Challenge
EMERGENCY CONSULTANTS: Keller Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Renewed Class Cert. Bid in "Johnson" Okayed

EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Inscho Sues over Background Check
ERICSSON: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
EVANGELINE PARISH: Settlements Resolve Investigative Holds Suits
EXTRUDEX ALUMINUM: Martin Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
FACEBOOK INC: Skotnicki Sues over Illegal Access of User Data

FAIRMOUNT SANTROL: Klein Balks at Unimin Corp. Merger Deal
FOCUS RECEIVABLES: Bond Seeks to Certify Class in Robocalls Suit
FULFILLMENT LAB: Malet-Jowett Asks Court to Certify Class
FUN EATS: Lopez Sues over "Tip Credit" System
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Tarkowskis Sue over Zofran's Side Effects

GLAZE DONUTS: Underpays Bakers, "Tapia" Suit Claims
GOOGLE INC: Female Engineer's Fight for Equal Pay
GOPRO INC: July 27 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
GRAND ISLE: "Sandlin" Suit Has Conditional Class Certification
GUARDIAN LIFE: Web Sites Are Blind-Inaccessible, Young Says

HEALTHCARE SERVICE: Terrys Sue over Air Transport Ambulance Fee
HOMELAND SECURITY: Parton Sues over Gov't Employees Data Breach
HYO DONG GAK: "Zhinin" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum & OT Wages
IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Class Certification Denied without Prejudice
IRON CONTAINER: Rodriguez-Tellez Seeks Unpaid OT Wage under FLSA

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Mihalich" Suit Moved to S.D. Illinois
JUST BORN: Escobar Seeks to Certify Hot Tamales Purchasers Class
KOHN LAW: Stanaszak Files Placeholder Bid for Class Certification
KRATON CORP: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action Lawsuit
KRISPY KREME: Faces Another Lawsuit Over Fruit-Flavored Doughnuts

LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: October 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
LEXINGTON INSURANCE: "Franklin" Suit Moved to W.D. Missouri
LIBERTY STUDENT: Sadrarhami Sues over Marketing Phone Calls
LORALI BUILDING: Acceptance Distances from Tenancy Class Suit
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Reetz Sues over 401(k) Plan Investment Losses

LTI TRUCKING: "Ratliff" Suit Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
LUX VENDING: Accused by "Dunleavey" Class Suit of Violating TCPA
MACY'S FLORIDA: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Haynes Claims
MASSACHUSETTS: Bell Sues over Assaults & Inhumane Treatment
MDL 2804: Trial Date Set for Opioid Class-Action

MDLIVE INC: "Mezzasalma" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Jones et al. Sue over Inflated DRAM Prices
MEDCARE INVESTMENT: Certification of Employees Class Sought
MESILLA VALLEY TRANS: "Ratliff" Suit Dismissed
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Steamfitters Alleges Securities Violations

MONAT GLOBAL: Hair Care Products Have Harmful Effects, Row Claims
MONSANTO COMPANY: Caminiti Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Bradleys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Harleys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Johnson Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Torres Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MUZZY'S DAY: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage and OT, Knight Says
MY FINANCIAL: Karon Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
NANO: "Brola" Suit Seeks to Recover Purchases, Investments in XRB
NARS COSMETICS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Olsen Says

OAK LODGE: Settlement Reached in "Jenkins" Class Suit
OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Scott+Scott Files Class Action Lawsuit
OMEGA PROJECT: Schubert Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
PATTERSON COS: May 29 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
PERSONAL HOME: "Fayer" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA

PETROFORCE ENERGY: Brooking, et al. Sue over Securities Fraud
PHYSICIANS LABORATORIES: "Rivas" Suit Moved to C.D. California
PLAZA SERVICES: Reddick Sues over Debt Collections Practices
PLY GEM: Court Dismisses Stockholder Litigation Suit
QUALITY INTEGRATED: McElveen Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA

QUINSTREET INC: Reed Alleges Misleading Financial Statements
QWEST CORPORATION: Seiffert Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
RAINBOW SHOPS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Fischler Says
RED PAYMENTS: Roller Sues over Phony Customer Accounts
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Failed to Honour Terms, Franchisee Claims

ROUND ROCK: Stone Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA
RSP PERMIAN: "Murphy" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
RUSSO BROTHERS: Guzman Seeks Payment of Overtime & Earned Wages
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Bivens" Suit
SOLID BIOSCIENCES: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

T-MOBILE US: Pritchett Sues over Unsolicited Text Ads
TALLGRASS ENERGY: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
TERRA'S KITCHEN: Lopez Sues over Auto-Renewal of Services
TOOTSIE ROLL: Lawsuit Asks Junior Mints to Fill Box
TOUCHPOINT 360: Arugu Seeks to Certify Class of Unpaid Workers

TRUECAR INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Fridman Files 1st Suit over Spam Text Messages
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Fridman Files 2nd Suit over Spam Text Messages
UNITED OF OMAHA: "Bentley" Suit Granted Class Certification
WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Placeholder Class Certification Bid Filed

WALGREENS.COM: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Haynes Claims
WIRELESSPCS CHICAGO: "Hunter" Class Suit Underway
XSPORT FITNESS: Motion to Certify Class Continued, Court Says





                            *********


1 PERSON AT A TIME: Seeks Approval of Settlement in "White" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit styled MARK WHITE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. 1 PERSON AT A TIME,
LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-01047-NBF (W.D. Pa.), jointly move the
Court for an order:

   -- certifying the proposed class;

   -- preliminarily approving the terms of the proposed class
      action settlement agreement;

   -- approving the form and method of providing notice of the
      settlement to the members of the class; and

   -- scheduling a final fairness hearing in this matter.

A copy of the Joint Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NVHom6sb

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
          Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  jetzel@carlsonlynch.com
                  kabramowicz@carlsonlynch.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Marla N. Presley, Esq.
          Joanna M. Rodriguez, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          1001 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1000
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 232-0404
          Facsimile: (412) 232-3441
          E-mail: Marla.Presley@jacksonlewis.com
                  Joanna.Rodriguez@jacksonlewis.com


8POINT3 ENERGY: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Notice is hereby given that Monteverde & Associates PC has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
The Northern District of California, case no. 3:18-cv-01989-SI,
on behalf of shareholders of 8point3 Energy Partners LP,
("8point3 Energy " or the "Company") (NasdaqGS: CAFD) who held
8point3 Energy securities and have been harmed by 8point3 Energy
and its board of directors' (the "Board") for alleged violations
of Sections 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the sale of the
Partnership to Capital Dynamics.

Under the terms of the agreement each common share of 8point3
Energy will be converted into the right to receive $12.35 per
share. The complaint alleges that this offer is inadequate and
alleges that the proxy statement (the "Proxy") provides
materially incomplete and misleading information about the
Company's financials and the transaction, in violation of
Sections 14(a), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from today. Any member of the putative
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain
an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action, or
have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact:

         Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
         MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
         The Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Ave, Suite 4405
         New York, NY 10118
         United States of America
         Telephone:: (212) 971-1341
         E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN]


ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Gross Moves to Certify Two Classes Under FCRA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled THOMAS GROSS, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
ADVANCED DISPOSAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 8:17-cv-01920-CEH-TGW
(M.D. Fla.), moves the Court to certify this Fair Credit
Reporting Act case as a class action for two distinct national
classes of consumers:

   (1) Background Check Class:

       All ADS Inc. employees and job applicants in the United
       States who were the subject of a consumer report that was
       procured by ADS Inc. within two years of the filing of
       this complaint through the date of final judgment in this
       action as required by 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(2)(A) and
       as to whom ADS Inc. used the purported disclosure and
       authorization form, or substantially similar forms,
       attached hereto as Exhibit A; and

   (2) Adverse Action Class:

       All ADS Inc. employees and prospective employees in the
       United States against whom adverse employment action was
       taken by ADS based, in whole or in part, on information
       contained in a consumer report obtained within two years
       of the filing of this complaint through the date of final
       judgment in this action, and who were not provided the
       proper pre-adverse notice as required under 15 U.S.C.
       Section 1681b(b)(3)(A).

The Defendant is a solid waste company that provides services to
residential, commercial, and industrial consumers.  As do many
employers, the Plaintiff contends, ADS obtains employment-purpose
consumer reports (commonly known as "background checks") for use
in its hiring process.  He alleges that, among other things, ADS
unlawfully obtained his consumer report because ADS never had his
lawful authorization to do so.

Mr. Gross also asks the Court to designate him as Class
Representative, to appoint his counsel and their firm and members
as class counsel, to and allow them to notify the Class members.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OAem2Bvr

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          201 N. Franklin Street, #700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 257-0572
          E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          P.O. Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 33802
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
          E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Andrew Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          600 North Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) WORKERS
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
          E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jacqueline Simms-Petredis, Esq.
          BURR & FORMAN LLP
          201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 3200
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 367-5751
          E-mail: jsimms-petredis@burr.com

               - and -

          K. Bryance Metheny, Esq.
          Hilson H. Carlton, Esq.,
          Burr & Forman LLP
          420 North 20th Street, Suite 3400
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 458-5178
          E-mail: Bmetheny@burr.com
                  Hcarlton@burr.com


AESOP USA: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Olsen Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS J. OLSEN, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AESOP USA, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03792-VSB (S.D.N.Y., April 27, 2018),
seeks permanent injunction to cause Aesop to change its corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will
become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.

The Plaintiff, who is legally blind, brings this civil rights
action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.aesop.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Olsen and
other blind or visually-impaired people. Aesop denies full and
equal access to its Website. The Plaintiff, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, asserts claims under the
Americans With Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights
Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law against Aesop.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Renvall Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KATIE RENVALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00809-H-NLS (S.D. Cal., April 27,
2018), seeks to recover legal and equitable remedies resulting
from the illegal actions of Albertsons Companies LLC in
negligently, knowingly, or willfully transmitting unsolicited,
autodialed SMS or MMS text messages, en masse, to Plaintiff's
cellular device and the cellular devices of numerous other
individuals across the country, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant directed an unsolicited
text message to Plaintiff's cellular device by transmitting the
message to a cellular telephone number that bears an area code
(619) corresponding to a location in Southern District of
California.  The Plaintiff became distracted and aggravated as a
result of receiving Defendant's unsolicited text message
advertisement.

The Defendant operates and maintains numerous brick-and-mortar
grocery stores, and is the second-largest supermarket chain in
North America.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          David W. Hall, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 766 3534
          Facsimile: (415) 402 0058
          E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
                  dhall@hedinhall.com

               - and -

          Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
          Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
          BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914 2001
          Facsimile: (858) 914 2002
          E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
                  achang@bottinilaw.com
                  ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com


ALEC MITCHELL: Hernandez Sues over Unsolicited Fax Advertisement
----------------------------------------------------------------
OREN HERNANDEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALEC MITCHELL, the
Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-60989-BB (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2018),
seeks to recover statutory damages against Defendant for
unsolicited facsimile advertisement promoting its goods and/or
services that was negligently sent to a telephone facsimile
machine that did not contain a Telephone Consumer Protection Act
compliant opt-out notice.

This is a class action alleging that the Defendant violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and implementing regulations by
sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements to persons and
entities that do not contain the legally required opt-out
language. On April 4, 2018, the Plaintiff received the Facsimile
Advertisement, which indicates that the sender purchases trucks,
cargo vans, sprinters, and pick-up trucks. An investigation
revealed that the contact information provided on the Facsimile
Advertisement is linked to Defendant Mitchell. The Defendant
caused and authorized a third-party to transmit the Facsimile
Advertisement promoting Defendant Mitchell's goods and/or
services to Plaintiff's telephone facsimile machine at 954-753-
2063. The Advertisement failed to contain an opt-out notice
stating that the recipient may make a request to the sender not
to send any future faxes and that failure to comply with the
request within 30 days is unlawful. The Defendant sent similar
unsolicited facsimile advertisements without compliant opt-out
notices to the telephone facsimile machines of other persons and
entities. By sending the Facsimile Advertisement, the Defendant
harmed the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class by shifting the cost
of adverting to the consumer in violation of the TCPA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
          Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
          SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
          974 Howard Ave.
          Dunedin FL 34698
          Telephone: (305) 323 6433
          E-mail: shawn@sjlawcollective.com
                  josh@sjlawcollective.com

               - and -

          Peter Bennett, Esq.
          Richard Bennett, Esq.
          BENNETT & BENNETT
          1200 Anastasia Ave., Ofc 360
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 444 5925
          E-mail: peterbennettlaw@gmail.com
                  richardbennett27@gmail.com


ALLEN & MILLER: Prendergast Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
KENICKAY PRENDERGAST, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLEN, MILLER & GREENE,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-60972-UU (S.D. Fla., April
29, 2018), seeks redress for unlawful conduct of Defendant
relating to dispatching thousands of unlawful collection letters
to Florida consumers, whereby such letters in violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The FDCPA "is a consumer protection statute that 'imposes open-
ended prohibitions on, inter alia, false, deceptive, or unfair'"
debt-collection practices. Congress enacted the FDCPA after
noting abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and
unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors." The
Defendant has allegedly dispatched thousands of unlawful
collection letters to Florida consumers in an attempt to collect
consumer debts while neglecting to adequately provide consumers
with information guaranteed to them under the FDCPA. The debt at
issue (consumer debt) is the amount Plaintiff allegedly owes the
current creditor, whoever that may be. The consumer debt is a
"debt governed by the FDCPA. See 15 U.S.C section 1692a(5). The
Plaintiff is a "consumer" within the meaning of the FDCPA. The
Defendant is a "debt collector" as defined by the FDCPA.

On February 12, 2018, the Defendant sent a collection letter to
Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the Consumer Debt. Section
1692g of the FDCPA requires debt collectors to make certain
disclosures, and/or provide consumers with certain information,
depending on the circumstances. In the second sentence of the
excerpt depicted above from the Collection Letter, Defendant
omits material language that it is required to include pursuant
to the FDCPA. Defendant has a duty to adequately advises
Plaintiff and members of the class of their rights under section
1692g of the FDCPA. Here, in the Collection Letter, the Defendant
states: "If you notify this office in writing within 30 days from
receiving this notice, this office will obtain verification of
the debt or obtain a copy of a judgment and mail you a copy of
judgment or verification." The Defendant failed to inform
Plaintiff and members of the class that Plaintiff would need to
notify Defendant "that the debt, or any portion thereof, is
disputed" in order to invoke her rights under Sec. 1692g(a)(4) of
the FDCPA. See 15 U.S.C section 1692g(4). Furthermore, nowhere in
the Collection Letter does it state who the current creditor of
the debt is as Defendant is required to clearly and effectively
disclose pursuant to 15 U.S.C section 1692g(a)(2) of the
FDCPA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954 907 1136
          Facsimile: 855 529 9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


ALPINE SITE: O'Loughlin Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
JEFF T. O'LOUGHLIN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALPINE SITE SERVICES, INC.,
the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01346 (S.D. Tex., April 27,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act, the New Jersey Wage & Hour Law, the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act of 1968, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law.

According to its website, Alpine tests and installs engineered
screwpiles for commercial construction projects, including power
stations, oil and gas refineries and natural gas plants. Alpine
employed O'Loughlin as a laborer, machine operator and welder
during the last three years.  During O'Loughlin's employment with
Alpine, he worked in Texas, Louisiana, Ohio, New Jersey and
Pennsylvania. Alpine paid O'Loughlin on an hourly basis. During
O'Loughlin's employment with Alpine, he regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.  Alpine, though, allegedly did not
pay O'Loughlin for all of the hours that he worked, and it did
not count all of the hours that O'Loughlin worked towards its
obligation to pay overtime. Alpine knew or reasonably should have
known that O'Loughlin worked in excess of forty hours per week.
Alpine did not pay O'Loughlin overtime as required by 29 U.S.C.
section 207(a)(1) for the hours he worked in excess of 40 per
week. Instead, Alpine failed to pay for all of the hours that
O'Loughlin worked and to count all of the hours that O'Loughlin
worked towards its obligation to pay overtime.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Center
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222 6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222 6739


AMCO INSURANCE: Thorpe Sues over Spam Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------
CHRIS THORPE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMCO INSURANCE AGENCIES, INC.,
a Texas corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01393 (S.D.
Tex., May 1, 2018), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of
sending unwanted autodialed text messages to cellular telephones
without consent, and to obtain redress, including injunctive
relief, for all persons injured by its conduct.

The Defendant is an insurance agency that provides consumers with
various choices of insurance plans and provides guidance to
consumers on which insurance option to choose. Unsolicited
telemarketing is a common practice among companies trying to
increase their customer base. Text message marketing has become
more common in recent years as cell phone use increases.
Unfortunately for consumers, the Defendant sends text messages to
consumers who have not signed up for Defendant's services. That
is, in an attempt to solicit a response from consumers who have
not signed up for Defendant's services, and to ultimately
increase Defendant's revenue by encouraging consumers to purchase
its services, the Defendant conducted (and continues to conduct)
a wide-scale solicitation campaign that features the sending of
unsolicited text messages to consumers' cellular telephones --
without consent, all in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Accordingly, by sending the unsolicited text messages, Defendant
caused Plaintiff and the other members of the Class actual harm
and cognizable legal injury. This includes the aggravation and
nuisance, and invasions of privacy that result from the sending
and receipt of such text messages, a loss of value realized for
the monies consumers paid to their carriers for the receipt of
such text messages, and a loss of the use and enjoyment of their
phones, including wear and tear to the related data, memory,
software, hardware, and battery components, among other
harms.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative Class:

          Jason Johnson, Esq.
          TERREL LAW GROUP
          8303 Southwest Freeway #450
          Houston, TX 77074
          Telephone: (346) 718 8286
          E-mail: Jjohnson@terrellawgroup.com

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 23rd floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333 9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498 8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

               - and -

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (305) 469 5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


APEX HEALTHCARE: Karon Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL KARON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. APEX HEALTHCARE ADVISORS, INC.,
a Florida corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00999
(N.D. Ohio, May 1, 2018), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice
of placing calls using "an artificial or prerecorded voice" to
the telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior
express written consent; stop the Defendant from calling
consumers who are registered on the National Do Not Call
Registry; and obtain redress for all persons injured by its
conduct.

Apex Healthcare, both directly and through unincorporated alter-
egos, purports to be a broker for consumer's seeking health
insurance.  In reality, Apex Healthcare is a lead generation
business, obtaining and selling consumer leads to brokers and
agents. For example, on a call with Plaintiff, Defendant's agent
referred to the entity calling as "Health Registration Center."
Health Registration Center appears to be the operator of six call
centers in South Florida, one of which shares the same address,
down to the suite number, as Apex Healthcare.

The Complaint notes that in recent years, insurance firms such as
Apex Healthcare have turned to unsolicited telemarketing as a way
to increase its customer base. Widespread telemarketing is a
primary method by which Apex Healthcare solicits new customers.
The TCPA prohibits companies, such as Apex Healthcare, from
placing calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice when
making calls to residential telephones without first obtaining
consent. Apex Healthcare has violated, and continues to violate,
the TCPA and its implementing regulations by placing prerecorded
calls to residential telephone subscribers (a) who have not
expressly consented to receiving such calls and/or (b) who have
expressly requested not to receive such calls.

Despite the FCC's ruling, the industry guidelines, and the
commercial availability of programs that help callers filter out
non-consenting numbers, Apex Healthcare fails to take the
necessary steps to ensure that its prerecorded calls are placed
only to consenting recipients. Rather, in an effort to increase
revenue and skirt additional costs, Apex Healthcare simply
ignores the law when contacting individuals via prerecorded calls
to their residential telephones.

Apex Healthcare knows or should know that its prerecorded calls
are placed to non-consenting residential telephone subscribers.
Ultimately, Apex Healthcare is responsible for verifying
telephone number ownership and obtaining consent before placing
prerecorded calls to residential telephone subscribers Apex
Healthcare was, and is, aware that its unsolicited prerecorded
calls were, and are, unauthorized as it fails to obtain prior
express written consent before placing those calls to consumers.
Ultimately, consumers are forced to bear the costs of receiving
these unsolicited prerecorded calls. Telemarketers can easily and
inexpensively avoid calling consumers who are registered on the
National Do Not Call Registry by "scrubbing" their call lists
against the National Do Not Call Registry database. The scrubbing
process identifies those numbers on the National Do Not Call
Registry, allowing telemarketers to remove those numbers and
ensure that no calls are placed to consumers whom opt-out of
telemarketing calls. To avoid violating the TCPA by calling
registered numbers, telemarketers must scrub their call lists
against the Registry at least once every 31 days.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Adam T. Savett, Esq.
          SAVETT LAW OFFICES LLC
          2764 Carole Lane
          Allentown, PA 18104
          Telephone: (610) 621 4550
          Facsimile: (610) 978 2970
          E-mail: adam@savettlaw.com


APPLE INC: Shegerian & Associates Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Carney Shegerian, Esq. -- cshegerian@shegerianlaw.com -- trial
lawyer and founder of the Los Angeles-based employment
discrimination firm Shegerian & Associates, recently announced a
class action lawsuit against Apple, Inc. alleging that Apple has
and continues to violate the California Equal Pay Act and the
Fair Employment and Housing Act by paying women Experts less than
it pays men for equal or similar work.

In June 2011, Shegerian & Associates client Camille Wade began
working for Apple as a specialist at the Apple Store in Los
Angeles, California, and was thereafter promoted to the position
of "Expert". From then until January 2017, Wade was a full-time
employee, at which point she inquired about moving to a part-time
Expert position due to family matters. Her supervisor expressed
two part-time Expert openings, and assured Wade that male Experts
who switched from full-time to part-time were able to maintain
their current pay rate.

In March 2017, Wade was offered a part-time Expert position,
however unlike male employees, her hourly rate was decreased by
$2.00 per hour from her full-time hourly rate. She accepted the
position working at the reduced rate performing the same or
similar work to her male Expert counterparts until December 2017.
"The treatment of long time Apple Expert Camille Wade and all of
her female counterparts is not only morally wrong but is
illegal," said Carney Shegerian. "Regardless of gender, all
employees should be treated fairly and equally."

"Apple didn't just violate Camille's legal rights, but they have
violated the rights of potentially hundreds of other female
employees. We are urging anyone who feels they were treated
similarly to come forward and join the class action suit to bring
justice to women who were not paid the same as their male
counterparts."

Shegerian & Associates is urging other Apple employees who were
treated similarly to contact our offices to determine if they may
be eligible to join the class.[GN]


ARSTRAT COLLECTIONS: Saget Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOANNE SAGET, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ARSTRAT COLLECTIONS, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 0:18-cv-60970-CMA (S.D. Fla., April 28,
2018), seeks redress for the Defendant's unlawful conduct in
dispatching thousands unlawful collection letters to Florida
consumers, whereby the letters violate the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant was acting as a debt
collector in respect to the collection of Plaintiff's debts.
The debt at issue is the amount Plaintiff allegedly owes the
current creditor for medical services on March 29, 2016. The
current creditor of the Consumer Debt is Quest Diagnostics. The
Consumer Debt is a "debt" governed by the FDCPA.  According to
the lawsuit, the Defendant's Collection Letter omits material
language that is required to be included pursuant to the
FDCPA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907 1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529 9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


AUTOMOTIVE PARTS: August 1 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
If You Bought or Leased a New Vehicle, or Bought Certain
Replacement Parts for a Vehicle Since 1995

You Could Get Money From Settlements Totaling Approximately $1.04
Billion

Fifty-six defendant groups and their affiliates have agreed to
Settlements resolving claims that they fixed the price of certain
vehicle components.  This may have caused individuals and
businesses to pay more for certain new vehicles and replacement
parts.  These Settling Defendants deny any claims of wrongdoing.

Am I included?

You may be included if, from 1995 to 2018, you: (1) bought or
leased a qualifying new vehicle in the U.S. (not for resale) or
(2) bought a qualifying vehicle replacement part (not for resale)
from someone other than the manufacturer of the part.  In
general, qualifying vehicles include four-wheeled passenger
automobiles, cars, light trucks, pickup trucks, crossovers, vans,
mini-vans, and sport utility vehicles.  Visit the website or call
for a full list of Settling Defendants and applicable time
periods and to determine whether you are included.

What do the Settlements provide?

The Settlements, totaling $432, 823, 040, are being presented to
the Court for approval.  The court previously approved
settlements totaling $604,069,618.  The Settlement Funds (minus
expenses, attorney fees, and other costs) will be used to pay
consumers and businesses in 30 states and the District of
Columbia.  The Settlements also include non-monetary relief,
including cooperation, and agreements by certain Settling
Defendants not to engage in certain conduct for a period of 24
months.

The 30 states are: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida,
Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,
New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont
West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

How can I get a payment?

You must submit a Claim Form online or by mail.  There is no
deadline yet to submit a claim.  If you already filed a claim,
you do not need to submit another claim for the same vehicle or
part.  You can get a Claim Form at the website or by calling the
toll-free number below.  At this time, it is unknown how much
each Class member who submits a valid claim will receive.
Payments will be based on the proposed Plan of Allocation
(available at the website).

What are my rights?

Even if you do nothing, you will be bound by the Court's
decisions.  If you want to keep your right to sue, you must
excluded yourself by July 13, 2018.  If you do not exclude
yourself, you may object to one or more of the Settlements
applicable to the Settlement Class in which you remain by
July 13, 2018.  Visit the website for important information.

The Court will hold a hearing on August 1, 2018, to consider
whether to approve the Settlements.  Settlement Class Counsel may
also request reimbursement of costs and expenses as well as
attorneys' fees of up to 25% of the Settlement Funds (minus costs
and expenses).  You or your own lawyer may appear and speak at
the hearing at your own expense.

For More Info or to File a Claim: 1-877-940-5043
www.AutoPartsClass.com

This litigation is known as In re: Automotive Parts Antitrust
Litigation.


BARNES & NOBLE: 7th Cir. Reinstates Data Breach Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Review reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit has reinstated a data breach class action
filed against Barnes & Noble (B&N).  The litigation, styled as
Dieffenbach v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., now heads back to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which
previously dismissed the complaint three times for lack of
standing and/or failure to state a claim.

The lawsuit stems from a September 2012 data breach in which
"skimmers" gained access to the payment card readers in B&N
stores and siphoned off customer names, payment card numbers,
expiration dates, and PINs.  "Skimming" is an 'old school'
hacking technique involving tampering with the PIN pad terminals
to exfiltrate the payment card data that runs through them when a
card is swiped.  Payment card data was skimmed from PIN terminals
in 63 B&N stores, located in 9 states.

The plaintiffs filed a putative class action in March 2013, five
months after B&N disclosed the breach (again, 'old school'  --
it is now standard practice for class actions to be filed within
hours of the public announcement of a major data breach).  As
relevant here, they alleged claims for:  (1) breach of implied
contract (to secure payment card data); (2) violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud & Deceptive Practices Act (ICFA); (3)
violation of the California Security Breach Notification Act
(DBNA); and (4) violation of the California Unfair Competition
Act (UCA).  In September 2013, the district court dismissed the
original complaint without prejudice for lack of standing,
holding that the plaintiffs alleged no economic loss tied to the
breach.

The district court entertained a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint in October 2016. In between these two motions to
dismiss, the Seventh Circuit decided Remijas v. Neiman Marcus
Group, 794 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2015), reversing the dismissal of a
payment card data breach class action on standing grounds. (See
our Alert here.)  In light of this new circuit precedent, the
district court held that the B&N plaintiffs satisfied the
standing requirement, based on allegations of future substantial
risk of identity theft and their lost time and money spent to
protect against it.  The district court nonetheless again
dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a
claim because the plaintiffs did not allege "any cognizable
damages," a required element of each claim.

A different judge of the same district court subsequently
dismissed a second amended complaint in June 2017, again
concluding that the plaintiffs failed to allege any "economic or
out of pocket damages caused by the data breach."  The district
court rejected, as legally insufficient, alleged injuries
including diminution in value of the plaintiffs' personal
information, the lost value of their time and cell phone minutes
spent rectifying fraudulent charges (later reimbursed), and the
cost of credit monitoring renewed "in part" because of the
breach.

The Seventh Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal order,
holding that the second amended complaint satisfied federal
pleading standards as to the alleged injuries resulting from the
data breach.  At least at the pleading stage and under the
particular claims asserted, the Court saw no real distinction
between alleging a cognizable injury for standing and for Rule
12(b)(6) purposes.  Instead, the Court characterized the
dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for lack of injury -- instead of
under Rule 12(b)(1) for no standing -- as simply "a new label for
an old error."

In the Seventh Circuit's view, alleging an injury-in-fact for
standing purposes will also satisfy the requirement of alleging a
cognizable injury and entitlement to damages - at least under the
substantive claims presented in the B&N case.  The Court
explained that "the federal rules [of civil procedure] do not
require plaintiffs to identify items of loss (except for special
damages)."  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(3) does not
require a plaintiff to allege the details of the injury.  Rule
54(c) entitles a plaintiff to any relief available under law,
regardless of whether such relief is pled in a complaint.
Although Rule 9(g) requires specific allegations about the
details of "special damages," neither party alleged that the
identified losses were such.

Turning to the facts and the state law claims, the Court noted
the following injuries alleged by the two named plaintiffs: (1) a
3-day delay in restoration of one plaintiff's bank account funds
and loss of access to her funds during this period; (2) time
spent with police and the bank to mitigate the actual and
prospective fraud; (3) deactivation of the other plaintiff's
credit card for several days; (4) a $17.99 per month charge for
credit monitoring one plaintiff renewed as a result of the
breach; and (5) one plaintiff's failure to receive the benefit of
her bargain with B&N.

These alleged injuries were sufficient under the DBNA claim,
because that law creates a statutory right to damages for its
violation.  The first two injuries likewise sufficiently pled the
statutory injury of "lost money or property" under the UCA claim.
The monthly credit monitoring charge was "a form of actual
damages," as required by the Illinois CFA.

There are at least a few silver linings in the decision for data
breach defendants.

Perhaps most importantly, the Court recognized that a failure to
receive the full benefit of a bargain (or alleged diminution in
the value of a good or service due to failed data security) is
not a "loss" that can support damages, at least where there is no
"defect" alleged in the purchased goods, and no alleged promises
of "a particular level of security, for which [the plaintiff]
paid."  This statement should help defendants defeat the
"diminished value" arguments that are now very popular with the
plaintiff's bar in similar circumstances. (See, e.g., our recent
post on car hacking litigation.)

The Court also was careful to note that its decision was founded
on the liberal pleading requirements that must be applied at the
Rule 12(b)(6) stage, and that it had not considered the merits of
the claims.  It likewise expressed doubt as to whether that the
suit should be certified as a class action, because both the
state laws and potential damages "are disparate."

Finally (FINALLY!), the Court noted that "Barnes & Noble was
itself a victim" that suffered economic injuries, and that
"Plaintiffs may have a difficult task showing an entitlement to
collect damages from a fellow victim of the data thieves."  In
the end, the Court noted, none of the state laws at issue
expressly make "merchants liable for failure to crime-proof their
point-of-sale systems."

As we have noted in the past, different courts across the country
are reaching different conclusions about whether data breach
class actions are sufficiently pled to proceed beyond the initial
motions to dismiss under both Rule 12(b)(1) (standing) and Rule
12(b)(6) (judgment as a matter of law).  As it has been since
Remijas, the Seventh Circuit remains the friendliest circuit for
data breach class action plaintiffs  --  but it's company is
quickly growing.  What remains to be seen is whether other courts
will follow the Seventh Circuit's lead in rejecting motions to
dismiss data breach class actions under Rule 12(b)(6), as they
have on standing-based motions under Rule 12(b)(1).[GN]


BC LIBERAL PARTY: Judge Strikes Down Proposed Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Zytaruk, writing for Surrey Now-Leader, reports that a B.C.
Supreme Court judge has struck down a proposed class action
lawsuit against the BC Liberal Party that claimed the former
provincial government unjustly enriched itself by spending tax
money on non-essential, pre-election partisan advertising.

Justice Ward Branch, in his April 10 judgment in Vancouver noted
the plaintiff was David Trapp, 63, a Canadian citizen and B.C.
resident who "pleads that he has paid taxes throughout his
working life and retirement."

Branch agreed with the BC Liberals' counsel that the proposed
class action should be struck on grounds it disclosed no
"reasonable cause of action." The claim had not yet been
certified as a class proceeding.

Trapp alleged the former provincial Liberal government "engaged
in taxpayer-funded partisan and non-essential advertising" prior
to the May 14, 2013 provincial general election and continued to
do so after it won. The same allegations applied concerning
spending in the lead-up to the May 9, 2017 election.

The judge also agreed with the defendants' position that the
political party "is not proper defendant and that the plaintiff
has failed to plead a proper cause of action against it."

Trapp proposed to launch a class action civil claim on behalf of
"all individual, private, taxpaying citizens of the Province of
British Columbia, wherever they reside," claiming the former
Liberal government breached its fiduciary duty to taxpayers by
diverting tax money to the party to "commit the conversion."

Branch noted that "once tax dollars enter the government's
coffers, it would not be proper to characterize those as 'goods
of the plaintiff.' Rather they become the property of the
government."

He also found an "absence of a proper pleading of damage on the
part of the proposed class.

"As the plaintiff emphasized in their argument, they are not
actually seeking a return of their tax dollars, but simply a
redirection of the funds to more worthy government causes," he
wrote in his reasons for judgment. "I find that this desire to
simply control the government's decision-making power does not
qualify as 'damage' in the sense contemplated by a common law
conspiracy claim."

On the matter of "unjust enrichment, Branch said, Canadian law
permits recovery for this if a plaintiff can establish there was
an enrichment or benefit to the defendant and a corresponding
deprivation of the plaintiff.

"The only 'deprivation' alleged is the failure of the government
to expends its funds on other worthy causes, although the
plaintiff does not specify what exactly those causes should be,"
the judge observed. "I find that this is not the type of
deprivation contemplated by an action for unjust enrichment.
Taxpayers cannot generally control how government funds are
spent. There is no guarantee that any monies spent on other
objects would necessarily be spent on causes favoured by each and
every taxpayer. Indeed, it is virtually assured that they will
not be. [GN]


BIDDING UNLIMITED: Payton Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN PAYTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BIDDING UNLIMITED
INCORPORATED DBA BIDZ.COM, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and
each of them, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-03657 (C.D. Cal.,
May 1, 2018), seeks to recover damages and any other available
legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting
Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, and related regulations, specifically
the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's
privacy.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


BIG CHIEF: Misclassified Welders, "Young" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
BARNEY J. YOUNG, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BIG CHIEF PLANT SERVICES LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00411-SLP (W.D. Okla., April 27,
2018), seeks to recover all damages available under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, including back wages, liquidated damages,
legal fees, costs and post-judgment interest, for Defendant's
misclassification of Plaintiff as an independent contractor and
for failure to pay Plaintiff time and one-half his respective
regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each
seven day workweek.

The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and as a
FLSA collective action on behalf of all other similarly situated
current and/or former employees of Defendant who work(ed) as
welders, who are/were paid an hourly rate of pay, who are/were
misclassified as independent contractors under the FLSA, and who
are/were not paid time and one-half their respective regular
rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in each seven day
workweek in the time period of three years preceding the date
this lawsuit was filed.

Young worked exclusively for Big Chief as a welder performing
duties which involved the fusing of materials in connection with
Defendant's fabrication of structures for the oil and gas
industry. Young worked for Defendant from approximately December
2014 to September 2017 in and around Western Oklahoma. Young was
paid an hourly rate by Defendant. Young was issued 1099s by
Defendant in connection with his work. Young was not paid any
corresponding overtime premium compensation for his overtime
hours worked.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rebecca Currier, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 521 3605
          Facsimile: (214) 520 1181
          E-mail: rcurrier@baronbudd.com


BILLY REID: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Fischler Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN FISCHLER, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BILLY REID, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02591 (E.D.N.Y. Fla., May 1, 2018),
seeks permanent injunction to cause Billy Reid to change its
corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act, the
New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human
Rights Law.

The Plaintiff, who is legally blind, brings this civil rights
action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.billyreid.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Fischler and
other blind or visually-impaired people. Billy Reid denies full
and equal access to its Website.

Billy Reid, Inc. designs apparels, bags, and accessories. The
company offers shirts, knits, sweaters, tees, shots, trousers,
ties, and shorts for men; and tops, dresses, jackets, and bottoms
for women.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: "Mayes" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BARBARA THAXTON and ANGELA D. MAYES,
Individually, and on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated current and former employees, the Plaintiffs, v.
BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and
BOJANGLES', INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-269
(E.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "similarly situated current and former employees of
      Defendants, Bojangles' Restaurants, Inc. and Bojangles,
      Inc. "; and

   2. authorizing Court-supervised notice to those individuals,
      in accordance with Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor
      Standards Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IvStM02V

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754 8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754 8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  jholt@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  pjackson@jsyc.com


CALIF OFF TRACK WAGERING: Fails to Pay Straight-Time & OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Scimeca, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Southern California Off
Track Wagering Incorporated, a California Corporation; Northern
California Off Track Wagering Incorporated, a California
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. 37-2018-00021061-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., April 27,
2018), seeks to recover all straight-time and overtime wages owed
to non-exempt hourly replacement tellers for all time actually
worked, including but not limited to, on-call time and reporting-
time pay; and all wages owed each and every pay period under the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other members
of the SCOTW Class and NCOTW Class were entitled to receive
straight-time and overtime wages for all time spent working for
Defendants by being engaged to wait for a register assignment
and/or performing teller duties, on days when they reported to
work at a race track. To the extent that the hours worked
(including hours engaged to wait) exceeded eight hours in a day
and/or 40 hours in a workweek, Plaintiff and other members of the
SCOTW Class and NCOTW Class were entitled to receive compensation
at 1.5 times their regular rate of pay.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander I. Dychter, Esq.
          S. Adam Spiewak, Esq.
          DYCHTER LAW OFFICES, APC
          1010 Second Ave., Suite 1835
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 487 0777
          Facsimile: (619) 330 1827
          E-mail: Alex@DychterLaw.com
                  Adam@DychterLaw.com

               - and -

          Raphael A. Katri, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RAPHAEL A. KATRI
          8549 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 940 2034
          Facsimile: (310) 733 5644
          E-mail: RKatri@SoCalLaborLawyers.com


CAPITAL ONE: Faces "Figueroa" Suit in California Over ATM Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB FIGUEROA, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A., and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case
No. 3:18-cv-00692-JM-BGS (S.D. Cal., April 6, 2018), arises from
the Defendant's alleged:

   (a) unfair and unconscionable assessment of ATM fees on
       balance inquiries undertaken at its own, in-network ATMs,
       which it promises will be entirely fee-free; and

   (b) its deceptive, unfair and unconscionable assessment of two
       out-of-network ATM fees, when an accountholder conducts a
       balance inquiry that precedes a cash withdrawal at
       out-of-network ATMs.

Capital One is a national bank with its headquarters and
principal place of business located in McLean, Virginia.  Capital
One has hundreds of affiliates, such as Capital One Financial and
Capital One Bank, N.A.  Among other things, Capital One is
engaged in the business of providing retail banking services to
consumers, including Plaintiff and members of the putative
classes, which includes the issuance of debit cards for use by
its customers in conjunction with their checking accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          Jae (Eddie) K. Kim, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT LLP
          2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
          Redlands, CA 92374
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
                  jkk@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          Taras P. Kick, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM
          APC 201 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 350
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 395-2988
          Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
          E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com


CAREFIRST INC: SCOTUS Denies Petition for Writ of Certiorari
------------------------------------------------------------
Eric W. Richardson, Jacob D. Mahle and Brent D. Craft, writing
for Cincinatti Business Courier, report that the United States
Supreme Court recently denied a petition for a writ of certiorari
in CareFirst, Inc. v. Attias, permitting a data breach class
action to proceed against a medical insurer. In doing so, the
court passed on an opportunity to resolve the confusion among
lower courts in determining Article III federal standing for such
cases or, in other words, when a plaintiff can bring suit as a
result of a data breach.

The Supreme Court addressed standing in a non-data breach context
in the case of Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA. In that case, the
Supreme Court reiterated that, in order for a plaintiff to have
standing to invoke the jurisdiction of federal courts under
Article III of the United States Constitution, a plaintiff must
allege an injury that is actual or imminent.

Although the mere possibility of injury does not establish
standing, a "substantial risk" of injury can be sufficient to
create Article III standing. In Clapper, the court held that the
named plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge a provision of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which permitted
electronic surveillance of individuals who are not "United States
persons" and who are reasonably believed to be outside the United
States.

Although the named plaintiffs -- consisting of human rights
groups, lawyers, media organizations and others -- claimed that
their communications with foreign contacts were likely to be
intercepted in this program, the court held that, because they
could not demonstrate that their communications had, in fact,
been intercepted, they could not demonstrate injury and therefore
lacked standing to maintain the suit.  Clapper also held that
voluntarily assuming mitigation costs was not sufficient -- on
its own -- to establish injury.

Following Clapper, a circuit split has persisted regarding the
issue of standing in the context of data breach class actions. On
one side, a number of circuit courts have held that -- even in
the absence of proof that one's personal information actually has
been misused -- the mere fact that the information was accessed
and/or that the victims of the breach incurred costs as a result
of the unauthorized access (e.g., credit monitoring) posed a
sufficient risk of injury to confer standing.  For example:

In Attias v. CareFirst, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit concluded that, "simply by virtue of the
hack and the nature of the data" alleged to be taken, substantial
risk of injury to plaintiffs existed, even though no proof of
actual misuse had yet been shown.

In Galaria v. Nationwide Ins. Co., the Sixth Circuit (which is
based in Cincinnati and includes federal courts in Ohio,
Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee) held that standing existed
where Social Security numbers were accessed and credit monitoring
costs to mitigate the potential identity theft were incurred.

InLewert v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., the Seventh Circuit
held that standing existed where credit card information was
stolen and plaintiffs incurred charges to mitigate potential
effects of the breach.

Other circuit courts, however, have held that plaintiffs, in
order to have standing to sue, must demonstrate that their
personal information was not only accessed in a data breach, but
was actually misused as a result (e.g., a fraudulent line of
credit being taken out in the victim's name).  For example:

InBeck v. McDonald,the Fourth Circuit rejected an argument that
mitigation costs constituted "injury," and held that injury may
be "reasonably likely" to occur based on the theft of personal
information but still not be sufficiently "imminent" to provide a
plaintiff standing to sue.

In re SuperValu, Inc. the Eight Circuit held that the existence
of a data breach -- by itself -- was insufficient to establish
standing, even though credit card information was accessed and
one plaintiff faced a fraudulent charge (but did not ultimately
suffer a loss from that charge).

InWhalen v. Michaels Stores, Inc., the Second Circuit concluded
that the plaintiff lacked standing where her credit card
information was stolen, but the card was promptly cancelled after
the breach and no other personally identifying information was
alleged to have been stolen.

Whether or not CareFirst was the most appropriate vehicle for the
Supreme Court to weigh in on this issue, the court's decision to
deny review ensures that lower courts must continue to proceed
with a lack of needed clarity in applying Clapper to data breach
cases. [GN]


CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Class Cert. Bid Deadline Moved to Aug. 6
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CANDICE RITENOUR and CHERYL WEISER,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general
public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE
SERVICES, LLC, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. 8:16-cv-02011-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J.
Carney entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion to modify scheduling order in
      substantial part; and

   2. continuing Plaintiffs' deadline to file a motion for class
      certification from April 9, 2018 to August 6, 2018.

The Court also vacated the pretrial conference and trial cases,
and will reset these dates after ruling on Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. Further requests for extension of deadlines
are strongly disfavored. The Defendant's motion to deny class
certification is denied without prejudice in light of Plaintiffs'
continued deadline.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5q4U3WsJ


CBOE EXCHANGE: Manipulated VIX Trading, Siegel Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM SIEGEL, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CBOE EXCHANGE, INC.; CBOE GLOBAL
MARKETS, INC.; CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE, LLC; BELVEDERE TRADING,
LLC; CITIGROUP MARKET DERIVATIVES, INC.; CITIGROUP FINANCIAL
PRODUCTS, INC.; CITADEL SECURITIES, LLC; CONSOLIDATED TRADING,
LLC; CTC, LLC; IMC FINANCIAL MARKETS LLC; WOLVERINE TRADING L.P.;
and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03021 (N.D.
Ill., April 27, 2018), seeks redress under the Sherman Act and
the Commodities Exchange Act for investors in certain derivatives
of the benchmark Volatility Index ("VIX") during specific trading
sessions from January 1, 2008 to the present.

The VIX is a benchmark index created by Defendant CBOE Exchange,
Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant CBOE Global Markets,
Inc. Created in 1993, the VIX purports to measure the implied
volatility of large cap U.S. stocks over 30 days in the future.
The VIX has been popularly referred to as the "fear index."  The
VIX is based on Standard & Poor's 500 Index and estimates
volatility exposure within that index.

While the VIX is a benchmark that cannot be traded, the CBOEI has
created tradeable contracts for VIX Futures and VIX Options. The
former were introduced in 2004, while the latter were introduced
in 2006. The price of VIX Futures and VIX Options are
inextricably linked to VIX, including on settlement. From the
inception of tradeable contracts in 2004 to the present, trading
activity in VIX Instruments has increased significantly. The
average daily contract volume for VIX Futures rose from 1,731
contracts per day in 2006 to 300,568 contracts per day in 2017
(through August 24, 2017), a 17,263% increase. Meanwhile, the
average daily volume of VIX Options in 2006 was 23,491, and rose
to 687,181 in 2017 (through July of 2017), a 23,491% increase.

On February 12, 2018, there was made public a letter from a
whistleblower to the Securities & Exchange Commission and the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission that disclosed that the
whistleblower had submitted a TCR (tip, complaint or referral
form) to the agencies. The Market Maker Defendants' manipulation
of the VIX has caused injury to investors in VIX Instruments.
Defendants' conduct violates Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act,
and the Commodity Exchange Act. CBOE's actions in permitting VIX
Instruments to be traded despite the fact that they are readily
susceptible to such manipulation was and continues to be a
violation of the Commodity Exchange Act.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff William Siegel:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          111 W Washington Street, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 750 1265
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
                  kshamberg@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          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 -

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          Hilary Scherrer, Esq.
          Scott A. Martin, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 St. NW, Suite 650
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540 7200
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
                  hscherrer@hausfeld.com
                  smartin@hausfeld.com
                  mlehmann@hausfeld.com


CBOE GLOBAL: Manipulated VIX Trading, Terwilliger Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
NATHAN L. TERWILLIGER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CBOE GLOBAL MARKETS, INC.,
CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE LLC, and CHICAGO BOARD OPTIONS EXCHANGE,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03074 (N.D. Ill., April
30, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by CBOE's failure to
enforce bylaws, rules, regulations, or resolutions that it was
required to enforce under the Commodity Exchange Act

This case turns in part on the concept of market volatility,
which is uncertainty about future changes in the value of
securities. Market volatility is important to investors, as it
has a strong relationship with market performance: market
volatility tends to decline as the stock market rises, and
increase as the market falls. The most popular measure of near-
term market volatility is the VIX, an index created and
calculated by the CBOE and over which it has exclusive commercial
rights. The VIX purports to represent the stock market's
expectation of volatility over the next 30 days. CBOE calculates
the VIX using weighted prices for certain out-of-the-money
Standard & Poor 500 Options, a security created by the CBOE for
its own business purposes and traded only on the CBOE's own
exchange, for which CBOE itself retains ultimate responsibility
and control.

CBOE commercialized its VIX index by creating proprietary
products called VIX Futures and VIX Options that also trade only
on CBOE's own exchange. Every transaction involving VIX Futures
and Option contracts generates a fee for CBOE, and these fees,
together with fees generated by trading in SPX Options, make up
the majority of CBOE's total revenues. CBOE repeatedly touted VIX
Futures and VIX Options to investors as effective tools for
trading and risk management. The settlement value of VIX Futures
and VIX Options is calculated by CBOE by reference to a figure
called the VIX Special Opening Quotation, using a methodology
created by CBOE specifically for this purpose. Rather than
looking at transactions in SPX Options over the course of the
trading day, the generation of the VIX SOQ turns on out-of-the-
money SPX Options trades and quotes posted during a very short
period -- an auction occurring before the trading day begins.

Accordingly, even a single manipulative trade posted in that
period of relative illiquidity could move the VIX up or down.
Second, the cost for such manipulative trading is minimal, as
CBOE imposed only a five cent per-option contract threshold for
the bid quote of an SPX Option to be included in the settlement
calculation. Third, the SOQ process' use of quotes provided by
traders rather than actual trades enabled traders to easily
manipulate the SOQ value without engaging in actual trades.

In this respect the SOQ process created and executed by CBOE
lacked fundamental safeguards imposed by other commercial
volatility indexes such as the VSTOXX, a European market
volatility index, which, like VIX, is also traded through options
and futures. VSTOXX, however, is calculated based on actual
trading that occurs during a period in normal market hours, and
only options trades with a premium of .5 Euros are included in
its calculation -- a bar more than ten times higher than that
employed by CBOE. France's financial markets regulator, Autorite
des Marches Financiers, has asserted that the VIX settlement
process is much more vulnerable to manipulation than the VSTOXX.

Given these serious flaws, it is not surprising that there is
ample evidence that the settlement process for VIX Futures and
VIX Options is in fact routinely manipulated up to the present
day, to the detriment of investors in these instruments on CBOE's
exchange, including Plaintiff. A May 23, 2017 paper by academics
John Griffin and Amin Shams describes suspicious spikes between
2008 and 2015 in the volume of the out-of-the-money options used
to calculate the VIX SOQ, occurring at the settlement time of the
VIX index. Griffin and Sham conclude that these spikes are
consistent with manipulation and are inconsistent with innocent
trading practices such as hedging.

Experts retained by Plaintiff conducted their own independent
analysis of the VIX Futures and VIX Options settlement process in
2018, and similarly concluded that on SOQ settlement dates for
VIX Futures and VIX Options there were massively higher volumes
of trading in the out-of-the-money SPX options that influence the
SOQ settlement pricing of these instruments relative to other
dates. They found similar suspicious volume and other indications
consistent with manipulation on April 18, 2018, the expiration
date of VIX Options purchased by Plaintiff. Strikingly, the CBOE
itself took the unusual step of acknowledging in a Form 8-K dated
April 24, 2018, that the VIX final settlement value on April 18,
2018, was "higher than what market participants may have
otherwise expected" and asserted that it intended to take certain
steps to improve its settlement processes. Despite the
vulnerabilities in the design of the VIX SOQ process, the
mounting evidence that VIX was in fact being systematically
manipulated, and the foreseeability of the harm such manipulation
would pose to investors trading in VIX Futures and VIX Options,
CBOE in bad faith did nothing to alter its SOQ calculation
process or address its defects, as it had powerful financial
incentives to permit manipulation to go on. On monthly settlement
days, manipulation gave rise to markedly higher trading volume,
which in turn resulted in higher transaction fees for CBOE. This
failure to take reasonable care to ensure the SOQ settlement
process was free of manipulation resulted in billions in losses
to investors like Plaintiff who traded in VIX Futures and Options
and held these instruments on their settlement dates, when
manipulation occurred. By its conduct, CBOE is liable to the
Class under the common law of negligence, as it breached the
quantum of reasonable care it owed Plaintiff and the Class to
ensure that its services settling VIX Futures and Options on its
own exchange were not subject to illicit manipulation. By the
same conduct, the CBOE also violated the Commodity Exchange Act,
which requires that the CBOE observe rules requiring it to
prevent manipulation and other abusive practices in its contract
market.

CBOE's conduct caused injury to Plaintiff and other members of
the Class who transacted in CBOE's proprietary products, VIX
Futures and VIX Options, that CBOE knew was recklessly
indifferent to knowing were being traded in a manipulated market,
at manipulated prices, and with artificial price trends, during
the Class Period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Michael W. Stocker, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623 7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623 0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  mikes@hbsslaw.com
                  beth@hbsslaw.com


CENTURY FENCE: Fails to Pay Legally Required Wages, Reilly Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Reilly, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs v. Century Fence Company, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00315 (W.D. Wisc., May 1, 2018), seeks redress
for Century Fence's failure to pay legally required compensation
to the Plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Wisconsin law.

The Plaintiffs frequently performed work at the company shop,
including but not limited to loading trucks, before driving or
riding company trucks to the jobsite. The Plaintiffs sometimes
worked at more than one jobsite during the same day, so that they
had to travel between jobsites. The Defendants did not always
count as time worked, and did not always pay the Plaintiffs for
their riding time to the jobsite after working at the shop; as
well as for their riding time between jobsites during their
workdays. Century Fence paid the Plaintiffs at their shop rate
for their shop work, at a travel rate for their travel work when
it was paid; and paid to the Plaintiffs much higher hourly rates
when they worked on prevailing wage and so-called Davis-Bacon
Projects.

When the Plaintiffs performed both lower rated; and higher rated
prevailing wage and Davis-Bacon projects during the same week,
Century Fence whenever possible would pay the work with the
lowest pay rates at overtime rates though said work occurred
during straight time hours; and would pay the work with the
highest pay rates at straight time rates though said work
occurred during overtime hours worked.

Century Fence computed all of the Plaintiffs' overtime pay as 1.5
times the pay rate for the type of work performed, rather than
1.5 times the average wage rate earned by the Plaintiffs during
the workweek. On each of their jobsites the Plaintiffs performed
similar pavement marking and related work; though they may
receive different pay rates for their work depending on the wage
rate(s) required by the prevailing wage/Davis-Bacon
determinations in effect for the projects.

Century Fence informed its foremen that they would receive a
bonus if there was sufficient profitability on the projects that
they were involved with; so that the bonuses were promised to the
foremen to encourage them to complete their projects in a more
efficient manner; and so that the foremen expected to receive
these bonuses regularly. Century Fence did not include the paid
bonuses when computing the foremen's regular rate for their
overtime pay. When the Plaintiffs performed work on prevailing
wage/Davis-Bacon projects, Century Fence would make hourly 401(k)
contributions for the Plaintiffs in an amount equal to the
difference between the full hourly wage required by the rate
determination for the project, and the total value of cash and
other fringe benefits received by the employee.

The Plaintiffs therefore may receive thousands of dollars of
401(k) contributions or $0 in 401(k) contributions during a given
quarter, depending on the amount of prevailing wage work
performed during the quarter, as well as the differential between
the full prevailing wage, and their cash and other fringe
benefits received for prevailing wage work performed. Century
Fence made 401(k) contributions to its employees' accounts, but
only when they worked on prevailing wage projects, for the
purpose of offsetting its liability for employment taxes and
overtime pay, rather than to systematically provide for the
retirement of its employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yingtao Ho, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C.
          310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW
          Milwaukee, WI 53203
          Telephone: (414) 271 4500
          Facsimile: (414) 271 6308
          E-mail: yh@previant.com


CHEROKEE ROCK: Strickland Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY STRICKLAND, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHEROKEE ROCK, INC.;
ECOSTIM, INC.; and ECO-STIM ENERGY SOLUTIONS, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01389 (S.D. Tex., May 1, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

EcoStim provides hydraulic fracturing technology and field-
management services to customers in the offshore natural gas and
oil industry.  EcoStim employed Strickland as a Service
Supervisor, sometimes called a "Treater," from April 2017 to
March 2018.  Though EcoStim labeled Strickland a supervisor,
Strickland's primary duties were nonexempt. As a Service
Supervisor, Strickland was primarily tasked with pumping
operations, including rigging up and rigging down, monitoring
equipment, maintaining the well and fixing any problems.

The Service Supervisors report to the Field Supervisor.
Strickland's primary duties did not include office or nonmanual
work. Strickland's primary duties were not related to the
management or general business operations of EcoStim or its
customers. Strickland's duties did not differ substantially from
the duties of traditionally nonexempt hourly workers. Strickland
did not exercise a meaningful degree of independent discretion
with respect to the exercise of his duties. Strickland did not
have the discretion or authority to make any decisions with
respect to matters of significance.

During Strickland's employment with EcoStim, he regularly worked
in excess of forty hours per week. Strickland was generally
scheduled to work 84 hours per workweek and often worked more.
EcoStim knew or reasonably should have known that Strickland
worked in excess of forty hours per week. EcoStim did not pay
Strickland overtime "at a rate not less than one and one-half
times the regular rate at which he [was] employed."

Instead, EcoStim paid Strickland a fixed sum of money regardless
of the number of hours he worked in a workweek. In other words,
EcoStim paid Strickland overtime at a rate less than one and one-
half times the regular rate at which he was employed in violation
of the FLSA. EcoStim knew or reasonably should have known that
Strickland was not exempt from the overtime provisions of the
FLSA. EcoStim failed to maintain accurate time and pay records
for Strickland as required by 29 U.S.C. section 211(c) and 29
C.F.R. pt. 516.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          Bridget Davidson, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222 6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222 6739


CHICAGO, IL: Judge Throws Out Lead Pipes Class-Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hawthorne, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that
Mayor Rahm Emanuel's administration has fended off a lawsuit
demanding the removal of lead pipes connecting homes to the
public water system, but the judge who threw out the case in
March acknowledged that scores of Chicagoans are drinking tap
water contaminated with the brain-damaging metal.

In a seven-page decision, Cook County Circuit Judge Raymond W.
Mitchell said he dismissed the complaint against the city "on the
narrowest possible grounds" based on other court rulings that
limit Illinois residents from seeking damages when government
actions cause harm.

Before delving into the arcane details of case law, Mitchell
noted that research has outlined how Emanuel's aggressive
overhaul of the water system is increasing the chances that
Chicagoans are exposed to lead in their tap water. The judge also
cited allegations in the complaint that lead is leaching out of
pipes conveying otherwise clean water to homes, despite
corrosion-inhibiting chemicals the city adds to the water supply.

"City actions have increased the levels of lead in the water,"
Mitchell wrote. "The city nevertheless pursues its projects and
insists that the water is safe to drink."

Lawyers for the two plaintiffs had sought lead tests for every
Chicagoan and payouts from the city for affecting the value of
private property. But the lawsuit failed to provide evidence the
plaintiffs had been poisoned by lead, Mitchell wrote, and the
alleged damages were too broadly defined.

A spokesman for the city Law Department welcomed the decision,
filed March 29. The plaintiffs' lawyers said they plan to appeal.

Chicago required the use of lead service lines between street
mains and homes until Congress banned the practice in 1986. The
Tribune reported that lead was found in tap water drawn from
nearly 70 percent of the 2,797 Chicago homes that sent samples to
the city for testing in the past two years.

Tap water in 3 of every 10 homes sampled had lead concentrations
above 5 parts per billion, the maximum allowed in bottled water
by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Yet as Emanuel borrows hundreds of millions of dollars for water
projects, Chicago is keeping lead service lines in the ground.
The mayor's office has said it is up to homeowners, not the city,
to decide if it is worth replacing the pipes at their own
expense.

Chicago officials test tap water for lead in just 50 homes every
three years, the minimum required under federal regulations. The
limited sampling typically has found little or no lead in tap
water at those homes. As a result, the city has never been
required to warn residents about the presence of lead service
lines at thousands of Chicago homes.

The lawsuit dismissed in March was filed days after the Tribune
reported in 2016 that the Department of Water Management had
removed references to lead from flyers distributed before city
crews dug up streets to replace aging water mains. Lawyers for a
Seattle-based law firm, who were joined later by Chicago personal
injury attorney Philip Corboy, repeatedly cited a 2013 study by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that found high levels
of lead in drinking water after street work.

Kirkland & Ellis, a Chicago-based international law firm,
represented the city for free in the case. Steve Patton, Esq. --
StevePattonLaw@aol.com -- Emanuel's former chief legal adviser,
works for the firm, which has defended the lead industry in
several other lawsuits seeking to hold corporations accountable
for health problems caused by exposure to the toxic metal in
paint and water. [GN]


COCA-COLA COMPANY: "Robles" Suit Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Anthony Robles, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The
Coca-Cola Company; Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc., and DOES
1-10, inclusive, Case No. 30-02018-00982180, was removed from the
Orange County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:18-cv-00728 to the
proceeding.

The Coca-Cola Company is an American multinational beverage
corporation, and manufacturer, retailer, and marketer of
nonalcoholic beverage concentrates and syrups.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for The Coca-Cola Company and Coca-Cola Refreshments
USA, Inc.:

          Maria R Harrington, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          2050 Main Street Suite 900
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 705 3000
          Facsimile: (949) 724 1201
          E-mail: mharrington@littler.com


COLONY NORTHSTAR: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP disclosed that
purchasers of Colony NorthStar, Inc. (NYSE: CLNS) have filed a
class action complaint against the company's officers and
directors for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 between February 28, 2017 and March 1, 2018. Colony
NorthStar ("Colony") is a diversified equity REIT with an
embedded institutional and retail investment management business.

Colony NorthStar Accused of Including False Statements in its SEC
Filings

According to the complaint, Colony officials attested to the
accuracy of the financial reporting and the disclosure of all
fraud in the company's public filings. However, Colony's
financial results were not as accurate as the company represented
to investors because Colony's Healthcare and Investment
Management segments were performing worse than reported. On March
1, 2018, Colony announced a goodwill impairment of $375 million
to reflect lower value in its Investment Management business.
During the company's conference call that same day, Colony's
President and Chief Executive Officer stated, "Our earnings
performance has not lived up to expectations, emanating from more
challenging industry conditions in healthcare, real estate as
well as our retail broker dealer distribution business[.]. . . .
"

On this news, Colony's stock fell over 22% to close at $6.00 per
share on March 1, 2018, and has since continued to fall, closing
at $5.58 on April 12, 2018.

Colony NorthStar Shareholders Have Legal Options

If you would like more information about your rights and
potential remedies, contact attorney Leonid Kandinov at (800)
350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the shareholder
information form on the firm's website.

         Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
         Robbins Arroyo LLP
         Telephone: (619) 525-3990
         Toll Free: (800) 350-6003
         E-mail: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN]


COMMERCEHUB INC: Gordon Balks at GTCR LLC Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------
BRIAN GORDON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. COMMERCEHUB, INC., RICHARD N.
BAER, MARK P. CATTINI, MICHAEL P. HUSEBY, LUIS ANTONIO UBINAS,
DAVID GOLDHILL, BRIAN J. WENDLING, CHAD HOLLINGSWORTH, FRANCIS
POORE, and BETSY MORGAN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00512-
FJS-DJS (N.D.N.Y., April 27, 2018), seeks to enjoin the
Defendants from holding shareholder vote on a proposed merger and
taking any steps to consummate the proposed merger unless, and
until, material information is disclosed to CommerceHub
shareholders sufficiently in advance of the vote on the proposed
merger or, in the event the proposed merger is consummated, to
recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the
Exchange Act.

The action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of
himself and the other public holders of the common stock of
CommerceHub, Inc. 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 the proposed merger between CommerceHub and
certain affiliates of GTCR LLC and Sycamore Partners Management,
L.P.

On March 5, 2018, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which each share of
CommerceHub common stock will be exchanged for $22.75 in cash,
representing approximately $1.1 billion in the aggregate.

On April 18, 2018, to convince CommerceHub shareholders to vote
in favor of the Proposed Merger, the Board authorized the filing
of a materially incomplete and misleading Definitive Proxy
Statement on Schedule 14A with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. While Defendants are touting the fairness of the
Merger Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the Proxy,
they have failed to disclose certain material information that is
necessary for shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the
Proposed Merger, thereby rendering certain statements in the
Proxy false and/or misleading.

In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning: (i) financial projections for
the Company; (ii) the sale process leading up to the Proposed
Merger; and (iii) certain prior relationships between the
Company's financial advisor, Evercore Group L.L.C. and GTCR. It
is imperative that the material information that has been omitted
from the Proxy is disclosed to the Company's shareholders prior
to the forthcoming shareholder vote so that they can properly
exercise their corporate suffrage rights.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COMMUNITY INSURANCE: Denied Health Plan Benefits, A.G. Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
A.G., by and through her father, N.G., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COMMUNITY
INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a ANTHEM BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00300-TSB (S.D. Ohio., May 1, 2018),
seeks an order requiring Defendant to cover all medically
necessary services at outdoor behavioral health/wilderness
therapy programs in the future.

This action, brought under the Employee Retirement Income and
Security Act, 29 U.S.C. sections 1001-1191c, arises from
Defendant's arbitrary decision to deny health plan benefits for
medically necessary services for outdoor/wilderness behavioral
health treatment for mental health and substance abuse issues
even though the plan at issue provided mental health and
substance abuse benefits.

Outdoor/wilderness behavioral health programs offer cost-
effective treatment for adolescents and young adults with mental
health and substance abuse diagnoses. Outdoor/wilderness
behavioral health programs provide traditional, evidence-based
mental health and substance abuse treatments in a wilderness
setting. The Defendant denies coverage for treatment at
outdoor/wilderness behavioral healthcare programs on the
incorrect basis that such treatment "is not available under the
benefit plan for [sic] Wilderness Treatment Program as described
in your Certificate of Coverage." The problem with this position
is that (a) there is no express exclusion for covering such
services; and, (b) coverage for behavioral and mental health is
otherwise included in Defendant's coverage grants. Based on the
plan's plain language and invoking the rules of construction
applicable to ERISA health insurance plans, Defendant has
wrongfully denied coverage for these medically necessary
services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative:

          Robert R. Sparks, Esq.
          STRAUSS TROY CO., LPA
          150 E. Fourth Street, 4th Floor
          Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
          Telephone No.: (513) 621 2120
          Facsimile No.: (513) 241 8259
          E-mail: rrsparks@strausstroy.com

               - and -

          Jordan Lewis, Esq.
          JORDAN LEWIS, P.A.
          4473 N.E. 11th Avenue
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334
          Telephone No.: (954) 616 8995
          Facsimile No.: (954) 206 0374
          E-mail: jordan@jml-lawfirm.com


DEVILLE ASSET: Green Sues over Debt Collections Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
PORCHEA GREEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DEVILLE ASSET MANAGEMENT, LTD, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00119 (W.D.N.C., May 1, 2018), seeks
to recover damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief under
the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

According to the complaint, some time prior to February 1, 2018,
an obligation was allegedly incurred to Santander/Chrysler. The
alleged Santander/Chrysler obligation arose out of a transaction
in which money, property, insurance or services, which are the
subject of the transaction, are primarily for personal, family or
household purposes. The alleged obligation is a "debt" as defined
by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5). Santander/Chrysler is a "creditor"
as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(4). Santander/Chrysler or
subsequent owner of the Santander/Chrysler debt contracted the
Defendant to collect the alleged debt.

On or about February 1, 2018, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff
a collection letter regarding an alleged debt originally owed to
Santander/Chrysler.  The Letter was the first communication from
Defendant to the Plaintiff with regards to the alleged
Santander/Chrysler debt. The Plaintiff received the letter and
read it. The Letter stated in part: "Re: Santander/Chrysler" The
February 1, 2018 letter fails to explicitly or implicitly
identify Plaintiff's current creditor. The Plaintiff, as would
any least sophisticated consumer, was left unsure as to what
current creditor Defendant was attempting to collect for. The
obligation is not only to identify the name of the creditor, but
to convey the name of the creditor clearly and explicitly. Merely
listing "Re: Santander/Chrysler" on a collection letter does not
explicitly convey that "Santander/Chrysler" is the current
creditor to whom the debt is owed.

The FDCPA gives consumers a statutory right to receive certain
information, including the name of the creditor to whom the debt
collector is attempting to collect for, which the Plaintiff was
deprived of in this case. As a result of the Defendant's
violations of the FDCPA, the Plaintiff was harmed. Defendant's
actions are part of a pattern and practice used to collect
consumer debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695 3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298 6256
          E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RONALD UNTERSHINE, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS INC. and JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, INC.,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00679-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying proposed
classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiffs as class
representatives, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

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. Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-
3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017).
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).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          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


DOORDASH INC: Sahito Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------
RASHID SAHITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DOORDASH, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 2:18-cv-08451 (D.N.J., April 27, 2018), alleges that the
Defendant willfully violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, and invaded Plaintiffs' privacy by causing unsolicited text
messages to be made to Plaintiff's and other class members'
cellular telephones through the use of an auto-dialer.

The Defendant allegedly made one or more unauthorized text
message to Plaintiff's cellular phones using an automatic
telephone dialing system for the purpose of soliciting business
from Plaintiff. The Defendant continued to make unauthorized text
message to Plaintiff's cellular phones using ATDS for the purpose
of soliciting business from Plaintiff even after Plaintiff
requested that the text messages stop. The TCPA was enacted to
protect consumers from unsolicited and unwanted telephone calls
and text messages exactly like those alleged in this case.

DoorDash is an on-demand restaurant delivery service founded in
2013 by Stanford students Andy Fang, Stanley Tang, Tony Xu and
Evan Moore.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695 3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298 6256
          E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com


DR. PEPPER SNAPPLE: "Margaryan" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JACKIE FITZHENRY-RUSSELL, ROBIN DALE, and
GEGHAM MARGARYAN, as individuals, on behalf of themselves, the
general public and those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
DR. PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP, INC., DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP, INC., and
DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00564-NC (N.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs will move the Court on June 13, 2018 for an order
to certify a class of:

   "all persons who, between December 28, 2012 and the present,
   purchased any Canada Dry Ginger Ale products in the state of
   California."

The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court appoint them as class
representatives on all claims, and Gutride Safier LLP as lead
class counsel and The Margarian Law Firm as liaison class
counsel. The Plaintiffs finally ask the Court to order the
parties to meet and confer and present this Court, within 15 days
of an order granting class certification, a proposed notice to
the certified class.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=60qySW5o

Attorneys for Jackie Fitzhenry-Russell and Robin Dale:

          Adam J. Gutride, Esq.
          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Marie Mccrary, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94114
          Telephone: (415) 639 9090
          Facsimile: (415) 449 6469

               - and -

          Matthew T. Mccrary, Esq.
          265 Franklin St, Suite 1702
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (214) 502-2171

Attorney for Plaintiff Gegham Margaryan:

          Hovanes Margarian, Esq.
          THE MARGARIAN LAW FIRM
          801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 210
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 553 1000
          Facsimile: (818) 553 1005


DUPONT: Plaintiffs Respond to Bid to Dismiss GenX Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Adam Wagner, writing for The Fayetteville Observer, reports that
lawyers in a class action lawsuit against Chemours and DuPont on
April 13 claimed the chemical companies "are once again playing
fast and loose with the law and the truth" in a response to their
motion to dismiss the lawsuit centered around the chemical GenX
and others like it.

"The issues they have raised are deficient in many different
ways, which are addressed in our papers. They attack our
complaint on several different aspects, all of which we don't
believe are supported in the law, and that's what we address,"
said Ted Leopold,Esq. the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs.

In early March, Chemours and E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company
filed a motion to dismiss the case. Among the reasons outlined by
Chemours were that the plaintiffs allegedly failed to prove any
of their asserted claims and also failed to establish causation
of alleged personal injuries outlined in the initial complaint.
The case was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina.

"To be actionable . . . . a discharge of chemicals must cause the
plaintiff to suffer actual harm," Chemours and DuPont's lawyers
wrote on March 2. "This requirement dooms Plaintiffs' complaint,
which is long on accusations of deception and misconduct
(accusations that Defendants strongly deny), but short on
assertions of cognizable injury or causation."

In a section of April 13 filing addressing the medical conditions
of the four people representing the legal class, the response
said the bar for causation is, at this point, very low. Rather
than establishing causation, the document said, they must simply
put forth enough facts to allow the court to infer that the
chemicals caused the injuries.

"It is certainly reasonable," the plaintiffs' lawyers wrote, "to
infer that Plaintiffs developed cancer, liver disease, thyroid
disease and ulcerative colitis because Defendants polluted their
water with chemicals that have been scientifically linked to
cancer, liver disease, thyroid disease and ulcerative colitis."

At this point, the class action suit is moving forward as
expected, Leopold said.

"It's all part of preliminary jockeying, if you will," Leopold
said.

Another ongoing debate in the case is whether the plaintiff will
be able to sample wastewater from Chemours to determine what
chemicals have historically been discharged there. In late
November, with a deadline looming, Chemours agreed to cease all
GenX and Nafion wastewater discharges.

"We want to be able to test the chemicals before they are
dispersed into the waterway so we have an understanding of the
exact type of chemicals that are being emitted into the Cape Fear
River before they are diluted," Leopold said. "They are fighting
us tooth and nail on that . . . We think it's much more than just
GenX at this point."

The lawsuit is separate from one filed in February by dozens of
residents who live near the Bladen County plant. That lawsuit,
which was filed in U.S. District Court, alleges that Chemours and
DuPont secretly released GenX and similar compounds into the
groundwater, lakes, air, soil and Cape Fear River. [GN]


DUKE UNIVERSITY: Workers Get Class Status in Retirement Challenge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that Duke
University is the second prominent college to face a certified
class action over how it runs its retirement plan.

A federal judge in North Carolina granted class status to about
40,000 current and former Duke employees who say the school's
retirement plan carried high fees and offered bad investment
options. In February, employees at New York University received
class status in their lawsuit raising similar claims.

Duke and NYU are among 17 prominent colleges to be sued in recent
years over their retirement plans. These lawsuits are the first
to be certified as class actions and may ultimately provide a
blueprint for how the other cases are resolved. Most other cases
have survived early legal challenges, with judges allowing
litigation to proceed against Cornell, Emory, MIT, Columbia,
Yale, and others.

The case against NYU is scheduled to go to trial April 16.

Class Certified
The Duke employees met all requirements for class certification
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Catherine C.
Eagles of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina said in an April 13 decision. The case involved
many questions common to all class members, including whether the
defendants acted as plan fiduciaries, whether they breached their
duties, and whether any breaches caused losses to the plan,
Eagles said.

Duke said class status wasn't warranted in part because some of
the employees may have read plan communications that put them on
notice of the alleged problems outside of the relevant statute of
limitations. Eagles said even if Duke was correct, the school
"would be successful only in limiting damages, not precluding
them entirely."

Duke also argued that some class members may have profited by
investing in the challenged funds, but Eagles said that was no
barrier to class certification.

Finally, Eagles found the workers had constitutional standing to
bring suit because at least some of them had invested in each of
the plan investment options challenged by the lawsuit.

Schlichter Bogard & Denton and Puryear & Lingle represent the
Duke employees. Morgan Lewis & Bockius and Parker Poe Adams &
Bernstein represent Duke.

The case is Clark v. Duke Univ., M.D.N.C., No. 1:16-cv-01044,
order granting class status 4/13/18.[GN]


EMERGENCY CONSULTANTS: Keller Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROBERT M. KELLER, for himself and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EMERGENCY
CONSULTANTS, LLC, a Michigan Limited Liability Company (f/k/a
Emergency Consultants, Inc.), PRAIRIE EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, LLP,
a Michigan limited liability partnership, and DERIK K. KING, an
individual, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00448-RJJ-RSK (W.D.
Mich.), the Plaintiff moves the Court pursuant to Section 16(b)
of the Fair Labor Standards Act for entry of an order:

   1. conditionally certifying Plaintiff's proposed collective
      FLSA class defined as:

      "all current and former physician assistants and nurse
      practitioners employed by any of the defendants, or limited
      liability partnerships in which Defendant King is, or has
      been an agent of, from April 6, 2015 to the present, who
      were paid based on the number of hours worked and who did
      not receive overtime payment at a rate of one and one-half
      times their regular rate of pay for any hours worked in a
      workweek in excess of 40."

   2. requiring Defendants to, within 14 days of this Court's
      order, identify all physician assistants and nurse
      practitioners by providing a list, in electronic and
      importable format, of the names, addresses, phone numbers
      and e-mail addresses of all potential opt-in plaintiffs who
      worked for defendants from April 6, 2015 to the present;

   3. implementing a procedure whereby court-approved notice of
      Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail)
      to Plaintiff's proposed class as set forth above; and

   4. equitably tolling the statute of limitations for the
      putative class members from the date of the filing of this
      Motion for Conditional Certification until the putative
      class members receive notice.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nvYS4xHv

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Blodgett, Esq.
          Anders J. Gillis, Esq.
          PARKER HARVEY PLC
          901 S. Garfield Avenue, Suite 200
          Traverse City, MI 49686
          Telephone: (231) 929 4878
          E-mail: ablodgett@parkerharvey.com
                  agillis@parkerharvey.com

               - and -

          Matthew L. Wikander, Esq.
          Charissa Huang, Esq.
          SMITH HAUGHEY RICE & ROEGGE, P.C.
          100 Monroe Center NW
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2802
          Telephone: (616) 774 8000
          E-mail: mwikander@shrr.com
                  chuang@shrr.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Allan S. Rubin, Esq.
          Daniel C. Waslawski, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          2000 Town Center, Suite 1650
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: (248) 936 1900
          E-mail: rubina@jacksonlewis.com
                  daniel.waslawski@jacksonlewis.com


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Renewed Class Cert. Bid in "Johnson" Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ERIN JOHNSON, on behalf of plaintiff and a
class, the Plaintiff, v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00330-PPS (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge
Philip P. Simon entered an order on May 2, 2018.

   1. granting Plaintiff Erin Johnson's renewed motion for class
      certification of:

      "(a) all individuals who were sent a letter by defendant
      Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, (b) offering a settlement
      of a debt incurred primarily for personal, family, or
      household purposes, (c) and stating that "your delinquent
      account may be reported to the national credit bureaus" (d)
      where the debt was reported to one or more national credit
      bureaus (Equifax, Trans Union, or Experian) on or before
      the date in the letter for receipt of the settlement, or
      first payment thereof, and (e) the letter was sent at any
      time during a period beginning July 13, 2016 and ending
      August 3, 2017 (f) to a mailing address in the State of
      Indiana";

      and

   2. appointing Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC as
      counsel for the class.

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


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Inscho Sues over Background Check
------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK INSCHO, on behalf of himself and all consumers similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00790-MMD-VCF (D. Nev., May 1,
2018), seeks to recover actual, statutory, and punitive damages,
costs, and attorney fees brought against Equifax pursuant to the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Equifax is a consumer-reporting agency that compiles and
maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis. As part of
this process, Equifax uses an automated and systematic procedure
to gather and report derogatory public records in credit reports,
such as tax liens and judgments. However, Equifax does not follow
similar procedures to gather updated information when the tax
lien or judgment is released, satisfied, vacated or otherwise
removed. Equifax's failure to timely gather updated information
is a violation of 15 U.S.C. section 1681e(b) because Equifax has
not implemented reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum
possible accuracy in the preparation of the consumer reports that
it furnished regarding Plaintiff and the class members.

Unlike credit accounts, Equifax affirmatively seeks out and
purchases public records data, including Nevada tax liens and
civil judgments, to include this derogatory information in the
credit reports it sells. Equifax proactively gathers and
disseminates this derogatory information even though there is
nothing in the FCRA that affirmatively requires it to do so.
Equifax does not follow reasonable procedures to gather
information when the tax liens or judgments are released,
satisfied, vacated, appealed, or similarly dismissed, with the
same rigor and process that it employs to gather information
initially. Equifax uses a third party as a vendor to collect
information regarding judgments and tax liens. Equifax's vendor
was obligated to collect and provide all affirmative tax liens
and judgments under its contract with Equifax. However, in
contrast, the vendor was only obligated to collect and provide
updates and dispositions if the vendor determined it was
"commercially reasonable" to do so.

As a matter of common policy, Equifax and its vendors rarely
collect any tax lien or judgment disposition information. In
short, Equifax published public records data that it knew would
be inaccurate if a release, satisfaction, dismissal, vacatur, or
appeal had occurred--relying on consumers to clean up their own
files via the dispute process after learning of the inaccuracy,
rather than paying to have these dispositions collected with the
same vigor that it collected records of the initial entry of the
judgment or lien.

Equifax does not routinely collect this information even though
Equifax has been sued repeatedly for its failure to adopt
reasonable procedures to timely gather and report updated public
record information. The methods and processes used by Equifax to
gather releases, satisfactions, vacaturs, and dismissals
throughout Nevada was materially the same for the five years
preceding the date of filing of this Complaint. At all times
pertinent to this Complaint, Equifax's conduct regarding the
collection of disposition information was willful and carried out
in reckless disregard for a consumer's rights as set forth under
the FCRA. By example only and without limitation, Equifax's
conduct is willful because it was intentionally accomplished
through intended procedures; it had knowledge of its violation
through other lawsuits in other jurisdictions but it did nothing
to rectify the problem in Nevada; and as Equifax's diligence in
collecting and reporting derogatory information is believed by it
to be of greater economic value to its paying customers than
"disposition" information that demonstrated that the debt was no
longer owed to those customers.

As a result of Equifaxs conduct, Plaintiff and the putative class
members suffered particularized and concrete injuries, including
damages to their reputations, reductions to their credit scores,
and increased risks that they would be denied credit.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
          KELLY & CRANDALL, PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424 7570
          Facsimile: (703) 591 0167
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com

               - and -

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, PC
          43 SE Main St, Suite 505
          Minneapolis, MN 55422
          Telephone: (612) 594 5933
          Facsimile: (612) 584 4470
          E-mail: emdrake@bm.net


ERICSSON: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notified investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Telefonaktiebolaget
LM Ericsson and certain of its officers, on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Ericsson
securities between April 8, 2013 and July 17, 2017, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to
join this case by visiting the firm's site.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Ericsson prematurely
recognized revenues and improperly delayed the recognition of
costs related to services contracts; and (2) consequently,
Ericsson materially overstated its revenues, margins, and profits
during the Class Period.

On July 18, 2017, Ericsson disclosed that it would be
terminating, renegotiating or revising 42 long-term service
contracts with total annual sales of almost $1 billion. Following
this news, Ericsson's American Depositary Share price fell $1.21,
or 16.62%, to close at $6.07 on July 18, 2017.

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

         Peretz Bronstein,Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz,Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Telephone: 212-697-6484
         E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com [GN]


EVANGELINE PARISH: Settlements Resolve Investigative Holds Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
KLFY News reports that a pair of settlement agreements has
resolved class-action claims that law enforcement officers in a
rural Louisiana community used illegal "investigative holds" to
arrest and secretly jail hundreds of people for questioning.

A court filing on April 11 said all of the federal lawsuit's
claims against Evangeline Parish Sheriff Eddie Soileau and his
office have been settled. A separate agreement resolved the
claims against the city of Ville Platte and its police chief.
Terms weren't disclosed.

The lawsuit's claims mirrored a 2016 report by the U.S. Justice
Department, which said unconstitutional arrests were a routine
part of criminal investigations in Evangeline Parish for more
than two decades.

The department's report said people often were strip-searched,
held in cells without beds, toilets or showers and detained for
at least three days -- sometimes much longer -- without getting a
chance to talk to loved ones or contest their arrests. Detectives
told federal investigators they used these investigative holds
when they didn't have sufficient grounds for an arrest but had a
"hunch" or "feeling" that somebody may be involved in criminal
activity.

The class action over these holds hit a snag last year when a
judge dismissed three plaintiffs' claims because they were freed
from jail more than a year before their lawyers sued. The judge
rejected arguments by plaintiffs' lawyers that a one-year statute
of limitations shouldn't apply in this case because people were
told to keep silent.

New York-based plaintiffs' attorney Daniel Rehns,Esq. said in an
email on April 12 that he can't comment on the settlements.
Soileau and Ville Platte Police Chief Neal Lartigue didn't
immediately respond to messages.

In his orders dismissing the claims, U.S. District Judge Donald
Walter said he can reopen the case if the settlement isn't
"consummated" within 90 days.

The Justice Department, which began investigating in April 2015,
counted a "staggering" number of investigative holds for such a
sparsely populated community. Ville Platte police officers used
the practice more than 700 times between 2012 and 2014; the
sheriff's office made more than 200 such arrests over the same
period.

Evangeline Parish, approximately 80 miles west of Baton Rouge,
has a population of roughly 34,000 residents. Ville Platte has
approximately 7,300 residents, with blacks accounting for 64
percent of the city's population.

Plaintiffs' lawyers said the total number of arrests for
investigative holds is likely underreported because the agencies
use a "rudimentary" system for keeping arrest records.

"In fact, both agencies privately acknowledged to the (Justice
Department) that they used the practice of investigative holds
for as long as anyone at either agency can remember," their suit
said.

In its report, the Justice Department said the police department
and sheriff's office admitted that the holds are unconstitutional
and took "laudable steps to begin eliminating their use."[GN]


EXTRUDEX ALUMINUM: Martin Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
JOHN MARTIN, the Plaintiff, v. EXTRUDEX ALUMINUM, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00973 (N.D. Ohio, April 27, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, the Opt-Ins and the
Ohio Class are current or former hourly, non-exempt employees of
Defendant. The Plaintiff, Opt-Ins and Ohio Class frequently
worked more than 40 hours in a single workweek, entitling them to
overtime compensation under the FLSA. For example, Plaintiff
would, at times, work in excess of 50 hours in a week. The
Plaintiff, the Opt-Ins and the Ohio Class were not paid all of
the overtime compensation they earned. Pursuant to Defendant's
uniform companywide policy, Defendant rounds its employees'
clock-in time in a manner in which an employee always loses
credit for time actually worked.

The Defendant's practice of improperly rounding time always in
its favor, which resulted in its employees always losing time
worked, results and has resulted in Defendant's employees,
including Plaintiff, being underpaid for overtime hours worked on
a nearly daily basis. This, in turn, results and has resulted in
Defendant's employees, including Plaintiff, being underpaid
overtime hours worked on a weekly basis. The Plaintiff, and each
Opt-In and the members of the Ohio Class have each worked a
substantial number of uncompensated hours during the three-year
period immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint, which
has resulted in significant unpaid overtime.

Extrudex Aluminum specializes in manufacturing aluminum
extrusions for industries like commercial, consumer, marine,
architecture, industrial architecture, and residential.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          Michaela Calhoun, Esq.
          Nilges Draher LLC
          7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, Ohio 44646
          Telephone: (330) 470 4428
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: Skotnicki Sues over Illegal Access of User Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG SKOTNICKI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC., and
CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00655-UNA
(D. Del., April 30, 2018), seeks to enjoin the Defendants from
engaging in further negligent, deceptive, unfair, and unlawful
business practices relating to the "wrong" that Facebook CEO Mark
Zuckerberg admitted by disregarding the very privacy safeguards
they promised users.

In a keynote speech in San Francisco in 2014, Zuckerberg vowed,
"In every single thing we do, we always put people first;"
promising that Facebook would give people control over how they
share their information. Just four years later, on March 21,
2018, Zuckerberg addressed fresh reports of the misappropriation
of personal data of 50 million Facebook users by an app made by
Global Science Research Ltd. and Cambridge Analytica, admitting:
"This was clearly a mistake. We have a basic responsibility to
protect people's data, and if we can't do that then we don't
deserve to have the opportunity to serve people."

Then, on April 4, 2018, Facebook publicly stated that up to 87
million users' data may have been improperly shared with
Cambridge Analytica. Zuckerberg added that he regrets the company
waited so long to inform its users of what happened: "I think we
got that wrong."

On March 17, 2018, The Guardian and The New York Times revealed
that data analytics firm Cambridge Analytica harvested private
information from Facebook users "on an unprecedented scale." At
the time, Facebook's "platform policy" allowed third party
applications to accumulate data from "friends" of Facebook users
for the purpose of improved user experience, but prohibited it
from being sold or used for advertising. Although Facebook knew
about the misuse of its users' data in 2015, it chose to hide
this information from its users until forced to confront the
issue on March 17, 2018.

Just one month earlier, in February 2018, both Facebook and the
CEO of Cambridge Analytica, Alexander Nix, told a U.K.
parliamentary inquiry on fake news that the company did not
possess or employ private Facebook data. When asked if Cambridge
Analytica had Facebook user data, Simon Milner, Facebook's U.K.
policy director, told U.K. officials: "They may have lots of data
but it will not be Facebook user data. It may be data about
people who are on Facebook that they have gathered themselves,
but it is not data that we have provided."

Cambridge Analytica's Nix told officials: "We do not work with
Facebook data and we do not have Facebook data. Nix was later
caught on tape touting campaign tactics such as entrapping
political opponents using bribes and sex workers and was
terminated on March 20, 2018.

In direct contradiction to the actual events stemming from
Cambridge Analytica's improper use of Facebook user data,
Facebook's applicable Data Use Policy at the time of the activity
stated: "Facebook does not share your information with third
parties for the third parties own and independent direct
marketing purposes unless we receive your permission. Facebook's
current Data Use Policy states: "We do not share information that
personally identifies you (personally identifiable information is
information like name or email address that can by itself be used
to contact you or identifies who you are) with advertising,
measurement or analytics partners unless you give us permission."

Cambridge Analytica is a privately held company that combines
data mining and data analysis with strategic communication for
use in marketing and other strategies.

Facebook is a social networking website. By the end of 2017,
Facebook had more than 2.2 billion active users. Facebook's
stated mission is "to give people the power to build community
and bring the world closer together. People use Facebook to stay
connected with friends and family, to discover what's going on in
the world, and to share and express what matters to them."[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the proposed class:

          Christopher P. Simon, Esq.
          David G. Holmes, Esq.
          CROSS & SIMON, LLC
          1105 North Market Street, Suite 901
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 777 4200
          Facsimile: (302) 777 4224
          E-mail: csimon@crosslaw.com
                  dholmes@crosslaw.com

               - and -

          Jodi Westbrook Flowers, Esq.
          Ann Ritter, Esq.
          Fred Baker, Esq.
          Andrew Arnold, Esq.
          Annie Kouba, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          28 Bridgeside Boulevard
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 216-9000
          Facsimile: (843) 216-9450
          E-mail: jflowers@motleyrice.com
                  aritter@motleyrice.com
                  fbaker@motleyrice.com
                  aarnold@motleyrice.com
                  akouba@motleyrice.com


FAIRMOUNT SANTROL: Klein Balks at Unimin Corp. Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
MELVYN KLEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. FAIRMOUNT SANTROL HOLDINGS INC.,
JENNIFFER D. DECKARD, MATTHEW F. LEBARON, WILLIAM E. CONWAY,
MICHAEL G. FISCH, CHARLES D. FOWLER, STEPHEN J. HADDEN, MICHAEL
C. KEARNEY, WILLIAM P. KELLY, MICHAEL E. SAND, and LAWRENCE N.
SCHULTZ, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00646-UNA (D. Del.,
April 27, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants from holding
stockholder vote on a proposed merger or proceeding to conclude
the proposed merger unless and until all necessary material
information is disclosed to Fairmount's stockholders in advance
of the vote on the proposed merger, and in the alternative, if
the proposed merger is concluded, then Plaintiff seeks to recover
damages for the Class resulting from the Defendants' violations
of the Securities Exchange Act.

The action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of
himself and the other public stockholders of Fairmount Santrol
Holdings Inc. against Fairmount and the members of the Company's
board of directors and for their violations of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with
the proposed merger between Fairmount and Unimin Corporation, a
subsidiary of SCR-Sibelco NV.

On December 11, 2017, the Board caused the Company to enter into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger, under which each share of
Fairmount's common stock will be converted into the right to
receive: (i) the number of shares of Unimin common stock that
will result in the holders of Fairmount Common Stock, together
with the holders of certain Fairmount equity awards, owning 35%
of the Unimin Common Stock; and (ii) an amount in cash equal to
the result of (x) $170,000,000, divided by (y) the Fully Diluted
Fairmount Share Number, without interest.

On April 18, 2018, the Defendants authorized the filing of a
materially incomplete and misleading Registration Statement on
form S-4/A with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act in an
effort to persuade Fairmount's stockholders to vote in favor of
the Proposed Merger.

The Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading
information in numerous respects, including but not limited to:
(a) financial projections for both companies; (b) the valuation
analyses performed by Fairmount's financial advisor, Wells Fargo
Securities, LLC, in support of its fairness opinion; (c)
information relating to the Background of the Merger; and (d)
potential conflicts of interest involving Wells Fargo as
financial advisor to Fairmount. The special meeting of Fairmount
stockholders to vote on the Proposed Merger is imminent. In order
for the Fairmount stockholders to properly exercise their rights
to vote, the material information that has been omitted from the
Proxy must be disclosed to the Company's stockholders prior to
the stockholder vote. Accordingly, Plaintiff asserts claims
against Defendants for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


FOCUS RECEIVABLES: Bond Seeks to Certify Class in Robocalls Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled AMANDA BOND, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. FOCUS
RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-
00500-R-PLA (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on
October 15, 2018, to certify a class consisting of:

   "all persons within the United States who received any
   telephone calls from Defendant to said person's cellular
   telephone made through the use of any automatic telephone
   dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice and such
   person had not previously consented to receiving such calls
   within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint."

The Plaintiff will also move the Court for appointment of
Plaintiff as Class Representative, and for appointment of
Plaintiffs' attorneys as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uqRjK74q

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


FULFILLMENT LAB: Malet-Jowett Asks Court to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled EMILY MALET-JOWETT, on behalf of herself
and other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE
FULFILLMENT LAB, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00064-
ILRL-MBN (E.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the court to grant her
motion for class certification.

The Plaintiff notes that this motion is being submitted pursuant
to Local Rule 23.1(B) and reserves her right to supplement the
Motion for Class Certification upon the conclusion of discovery.
The proposed Class is legally and factually appropriate and
warranted, and Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification should
be granted. The Plaintiff maintains that the class satisfies all
Rule 23(a) pre-requisites for certification and commonality
predominates over any individual issues. In support of this
motion, the Plaintiff relies on the arguments set forth in the
attached memorandum.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2Dc8cjOh

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Mille Kirkland, Esq.
          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          Emily. A. Westermeier, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 534 5005
          Facsimile: (504) 272 2956


FUN EATS: Lopez Sues over "Tip Credit" System
---------------------------------------------
Veronica Lopez, Brent Hellman, Megan McGuinn, Shoshana Swain,
Alejandra Ventura, Hamna Choudhry, and all others similarly
situated under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), the Plaintiffs, v. Fun
Eats and Drinks, LLC dba Champps, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-
cv-01091-L (N.D. Tex., April 27, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs and Class Members in
accordance with the FLSA in that they failed to lawfully
administer a "tip credit" system, thereby violating the FLSA
minimum wage requirements. The Plaintiffs and Class Members were
paid a sub-minimum hourly wage plus tips, which were improperly
shared among other employees, who may not lawfully participate in
a tip pool. Furthermore, Defendant also subjected Plaintiffs and
Class Members to other unlawful deductions from their tips, which
is also a violation of condition two of the tip credit. Finally,
Defendant failed to inform Plaintiffs and Class Members of the
FLSA's Section tip-credit provisions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
          Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
          HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
          801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 479 9229
          Facsimile: (817) 260 0801
          E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com
                  pamela@herrmannlaw.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Tarkowskis Sue over Zofran's Side Effects
--------------------------------------------------------------
DARA TARKOWSKI and ADAM TARKOWSKI, as Parents and Next Friends of
E.T., a Minor, the Plaintiffs, v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10827 (D. Mass., April 27, 2018),
seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages, as well as
equitable relief in an effort to ensure that similarly situated
mothers-to-be are fully informed about the risks, benefits and
alternatives attending drugs marketed for use in pregnant women,
and such other relief as may be deemed just and proper arising
from injuries and birth defects as a result of exposure to
Zofran.

According to the complaint, Zofran was developed by GSK to treat
only those patients who were afflicted with the most severe
nausea imaginable -- that suffered as a result of chemotherapy or
radiation treatments by cancer patients. The U.S. Food and Drug
Administration approved Zofran in 1991 for use in cancer patients
who required chemotherapy or radiation therapy to treat
intractable nausea and vomiting. Although the only FDA approval
for Zofran was for cancer patients, GSK marketed Zofran "off
label" as a safe and effective treatment for the very common side
effect of a normal pregnancy -- pregnancy-related nausea and
vomiting -- otherwise known as "morning sickness." GSK did this
despite having knowledge that such representations were utterly
false, as GSK had never undertaken a single study on the effects
of this powerful drug on a pregnant mother or her child growing
in utero. Unlike another anti-nausea prescription drug available
on the market -- which is FDA-approved in the United States for
treating morning sickness -- GSK never conducted a single
clinical trial to study Zofrans effects on pregnant women or
their developing babies before marketing the drug to pregnant
women. GSK simply chose not to study Zofran in pregnant women or
to seek FDA approval to market the drug for treatment of morning
sickness. GSK avoided conducting these studies because clinical
study would have hampered GSK's marketing of Zofran and decreased
profits by linking the drug to serious birth defects. GSK's
conduct was tantamount to using expectant mothers and their
unborn children as human guinea pigs.

As a result of GSK's fraudulent marketing campaign, doctors (who
were led to believe the drug was safe) were induced to prescribe
Zofran to unsuspecting pregnant women throughout the United
States. These women ingested the drug, on the advice of their
treating physicians, because they innocently believed that Zofran
was an appropriate drug for use in the circumstances. When these
women ingested the drug, they had no way of knowing that Zofran
had never been studied in pregnant women, much less shown to be a
safe and effective treatment for pregnancy-related nausea and
vomiting.

By contrast, GSK knew that Zofran was unsafe for ingestion by
expectant mothers. In the 1980s, GSK conducted animal studies
which revealed evidence of teratogenicity, intrauterine deaths
and malformations in offspring, and further showed that Zofran's
active ingredient transferred through the placental barrier from
pregnant female mammals to their fetuses. A later study conducted
in humans confirmed that ingested Zofran readily crosses the
human placental barrier and exposes fetuses to substantial
concentrations of the drug's active ingredient. GSK did not
disclose this information to pregnant women or their treating
physicians. In 1992, GSK began receiving mounting evidence of
birth defects associated with Zofran. GSK had received at least
32 such reports by 2000, and has received more than 200 such
reports to date. GSK never disclosed these reports to pregnant
women or their treating physicians. In addition, scientists have
conducted large -- scale epidemiological studies that have
demonstrated an elevated risk of developing birth defects such as
those suffered in this case when women ingest Zofran during their
pregnancies. GSK has not disclosed these epidemiological studies
to pregnant women or their treating physicians. Instead, GSK
sales representatives specifically marketed and promoted Zofran
as a morning sickness treatment throughout the relevant time
periods. At or around the same time, GSK also entered civil
settlements with the United States that included more than $1
billion in payments to the federal government for its illegal
marketing of various drugs. GSK's conduct has caused devastating,
irreversible, and life-long consequences and suffering to
innocent newborns and their families, like Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiff's minor child, E.T., was born in 2012 with
congenital defects after Dara Tarkowski was prescribed and began
taking Zofran beginning early in her first trimester of pregnancy
to alleviate various symptoms of morning sickness. E.T. was
exposed to Zofran in utero during the periods when his body
tissues and major organs were forming and susceptible to
developmental insult from environmental exposure. To the fullest
extent that medical technology can determine, there is no genetic
cause for E.T.'s condition. E.T. has no family history of any of
the conditions from which she suffers. E.T. has had to undergo
multiple surgeries to date as a result of these congenital
defects. E.T. was diagnosed with multiple kidney defects,
including but not limited to hydronephrosis, hydroureter,
dilation and tortuosity of the right ureter. Had Dara Tarkowski
known the truth about Zofran's unreasonable risk of harm to her
developing child, which was concealed by GSK, she would never
have taken Zofran, and her child would never have been injured.

GSK is a British pharmaceutical company headquartered in
Brentford, London. Established in 2000 by a merger of Glaxo
Wellcome and SmithKline Beecham.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carolyn Daley Scott, Esq.
          POWER ROGERS & SMITH, L.L.P.,
          70 W. Madison, Suite 5500
          Chicago, IL 60602


GLAZE DONUTS: Underpays Bakers, "Tapia" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------
EFRAIN TAPIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. GLAZE DONUTS CORPORATION, GLAZE
ARTISAN DONUTS LLC, GLAZE WEST CALDWELL LLC, and JULE HAZOU, as
an individual, the Defendants, Case No. :18-cv-08517-SDW-LDW
(D.N.J., April 30, 2018), seeks to recover compensatory damages
and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage
Payment Law.

According to the complaint, during Plaintiff's employment by
Defendants, Plaintiff's primary duties were as a baker, doughnut
maker, and cleaner, and performing other miscellaneous duties
from October 2014 until June 2016 and from June 2017 to November
2017. Although the Plaintiff worked approximately 60 hours per
week during his employment, the Defendant did not pay the
Plaintiff time and half for hours worked over 40, a blatant
violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and
NYLL.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          69-12 Austin Street
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (718) 263 9594


GOOGLE INC: Female Engineer's Fight for Equal Pay
-------------------------------------------------
Ellen Huet, writing for Bloomberg BusinessWeek, reports that in
2010, Kelly Ellis got the dream Silicon Valley job: a software
engineering position at Google. So when she first noticed things
at work that suggested she was earning less than her male
colleagues, she wasn't sure how to reconcile it with her idea of
the company. "I think I just didn't want to believe that Google
could be evil," she says in the latest episode of the Decrypted
podcast.

Ellis left Google in 2014. In September 2017, she and two other
women sued Alphabet Inc.'s Google for discrimination. They and a
fourth plaintiff, added in January, allege that Google pays women
less than men for the same or similar work and puts women on
career paths with lower pay ceilings. Google denies the
allegations in her lawsuit and said in a blog post in March that
its analyses found no pay gap on the basis of gender or race --
though its calculations excluded 11 percent of its workforce.

To tell Ellis's story, we trace her path from her first day at
Google to her decision to sue. She knows she has a long legal
journey ahead. She and her co-plaintiffs hope to get their case
approved as a class-action lawsuit, which could open it up to
thousands of women who have worked at Google.

Ellis says she hopes her efforts will help make the tech industry
more equitable. "If entire groups of people are being compensated
unfairly or not given the same opportunities because of factors
that they can't help, then that's not the kind of industry I want
to be in," she says in the episode, which was produced in
partnership with the Reveal podcast from the Center for
Investigative Reporting and PRX. [GN]


GOPRO INC: July 27 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
All Persons Who Purchased Shares Of GoPro, Inc. ("GoPro" Or The
"Company") Class A Common Stock In GoPro's June 26, 2014 Initial
Public Offering (the "IPO"), Or Between June 26, 2014 And
November 19, 2014, Inclusive, And Who Were Allegedly Damaged
Thereby

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

IN RE GOPRO, INC. SHAREHOLDER
LITIGATION

Lead Case No.: CIV537077

SUMMARY NOTICE OF
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
OF CLASS ACTION

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on July 27,
2018 at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Marie S. Weiner, Superior
Court of California, County of San Mateo, at the San Mateo County
Courthouse, Dep't 2, 400 County Center, Redwood City, California
94063, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the
"Settlement") of the above-captioned action ("Action") for
$5,000,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Final Judgment as provided
under the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement ("Stipulation")
should be entered, dismissing the Amended Class Action Complaint
filed in the Action on the merits and with prejudice; (3) the
release by the Class of the Released Claims, as set forth in the
Stipulation, should be provided to the Released Defendants'
Parties; (4) to award Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and
expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of
Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice"), referenced
below); (5) to grant Plaintiffs' request for a service or
incentive award out of the Settlement Fund in connection with
their role in prosecuting this action on behalf of the Class; and
(6) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court.

This Action is a securities class action against GoPro, certain
of its current and former officers and directors, and the
underwriters of GoPro's June 26, 2014 IPO, alleging that GoPro's
Registration Statement and Prospectus, issued in connection with
the IPO, contained material omissions and false statements
relating to certain aspects of GoPro's business, including its
expenses, intellectual property, competitive risks, products and
financial results.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED SHARES OF GOPRO CLASS A COMMON STOCK
(ticker symbol: "GPRO") IN THE JUNE 26, 2014 IPO, OR BETWEEN JUNE
26, 2014 AND NOVEMBER 19, 2014, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE
AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION.

To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
to the address below that is postmarked on or before July 26,
2018.  Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim and Release by
July 26, 2018 will subject your claim to rejection and preclude
your receiving any of the recovery in connection with the
Settlement of this Action.  If you are a Member of the Class and
do not request exclusion therefrom, you will be bound by the
Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Action,
including, but not limited to, the Final Judgment, whether or not
you submit a Proof of Claim and Release.

If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more fully
describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including
your right to object to the Settlement), or a Proof of Claim and
Release form, you may obtain these documents (as well as a copy
of the Stipulation, which contains the complete terms of the
Settlement and the definitions of all capitalized defined terms
used in this Summary Notice) online at
www.GoProShareholderLitigation.com, or by writing to:

          GoPro Shareholder Litigation Settlement
          JND Legal Administration
          P.O. Box 91346
          Seattle, WA 98111
          Telephone: 833/380-5566

Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court. Inquiries, other than requests for a copy of
the Notice or Proof of Claim and Release form, may be made to
Plaintiffs' Counsel:

          Yury A. Kolesnikov
          Bottini & Bottini, Inc.
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: 858/914-2001
          Facsimile: 858/914-2002

If you desire to be excluded from the class, you must submit a
request for exclusion postmarked by June 27, 2018, in the manner
and form explained in the notice.  All members of the class who
do not properly request exclusion from the class will be bound by
the settlement entered in the action even if they do not file a
timely proof of claim and release.

If you are a class member, you have the right to object to the
settlement, the plan of allocation, the request by plaintiffs'
counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, and/or the
payment to plaintiffs for their time and expenses.  Any
objections must be sent to class counsel and the court and
postmarked by June 27, 2018, in the manner and form explained in
the notice.

Dated: March 28, 2018

HON. MARIE S. WEINER
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE
SAN MATEO COUNTY, CA


GRAND ISLE: "Sandlin" Suit Has Conditional Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled WESLEY SANDLIN, the Plaintiff, v. GRAND
ISLE SHIPYARD, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-10083-LMA-
DEK (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Lance M. Africk entered an order
on May 3, 2018:

   1. granting in part and denying in part Sandlin's motion for
      conditional certification;

   2. granting Sandlin's proposed "Misclassification Class";

   3. denying Sandlin's proposed "Off-the-Clock Class";

   4. conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
      under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) with respect to:

      "all current and former Life Representatives who worked for
      Grand Isle at any location throughout the United States
      between May 2015 and April 2016";

   5. directing Grand Isle to provide Sandlin's counsel with the
      names, positions, dates of employment, all personal
      addresses, telephone numbers (home and mobile), and all
      personal email addresses for the class members, and
      directing Grand Isle to provide such information in a
      format, to be agreed upon by the parties, within 10 days of
      the date of this order;

   6. directing Sandlin to amend his proposed notice and
      directing Sandlin's counsel to mail a copy of the amended
      "notice of rights" and "consent form" via regular U.S. Mail
      and via electronic mail to all persons contained on the
      class list within 10 days of receiving the class list;

   7. Simultaneous with the first mailing, directing Sandlin's
      counsel to send a text message to the class members with a
      link to the notice of rights and consent form; and

   8. 30 days after the first mailing, direct6ng Sandlin's
      counsel to send reminder notice consisting of the notice of
      rights and consent form via mail, email, and text message
      to all class members who have not opted into this case.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=53iq3PEF


GUARDIAN LIFE: Web Sites Are Blind-Inaccessible, Young Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE YOUNG AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA AND
BIRKSHIRE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:18-cv-
03067 (S.D.N.Y., April 6, 2018), arises from the Defendants'
alleged failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their
Web sites -- http://www.guardianlife.com/and
http://www.berkshirelife.com/-- to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

Guardian Life Insurance Company of America is a company with
offices and locations throughout New York State and New York
County.  Guardian Life owns and operates locations, subsidiary
companies and the Websites, which provides a variety of insurance
options and products, such as life insurance, dental insurance,
etc., nationwide.  Guardian Life advertises, markets, distributes
and sells insurance plans throughout New York County.

Birkshire Life Insurance Company of America is a foreign business
corporation company with offices and locations throughout New
York State and New York County.  Birkshire Life owns and operates
locations, subsidiary companies and is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Guardian Life.[BN]

The Plaintiff 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


HEALTHCARE SERVICE: Terrys Sue over Air Transport Ambulance Fee
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA and JEFFREY TERRY, husband and wife, each individually
and on behalf of their minor child, G. TERRY, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. HEALTH CARE
SERVICE CORPORATION, a mutual legal reserve company, d/b/a BLUE
CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF OKLAHOMA, the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-
cv-00415-C (W.D. Okla., April 27, 2018), seeks judgment against
BCBSOK for breaching contract in the amount of alleged balance of
$45,149.14 plus attorney's fees, costs incurred, and additional
damages arising by virtue of collections suit initiated by RMH.

According to the complaint, to save their child's life, RMH,
evacuated him by emergency air ambulance from Great Plains in Elk
City to Children's, which was the closest hospital that could
provide the necessary care. RMH billed Plaintiffs $49,999.00 for
the flight from Elk City to Children's in Oklahoma City. On or
about May 29, 2014, BCBSOK sent an Explanation of Benefits
stating the amount Plaintiffs may owe for the emergency air
ambulance services was zero dollars, leading Plaintiffs to
believe they would owe zero dollars for the emergency air
ambulance services. However, like most of BCBSOK's documents,
this one was ambiguous later noting that "your claim has been
denied." On September 4, 2014, BCBSOK sent Plaintiffs another EOB
stating that the total benefits approved by BCBSOK for the
emergency air ambulance transfer amounted to $2,909.92 and
informed Plaintiffs that they were responsible for the remaining
$47,089.08 of the air ambulance bill because RMH was an out-of-
network provider.

On or about September 22, 2014, the Plaintiffs verbally appealed
BCBSOK's benefit determination and contacted BCBSOK by telephone
inquiring as to why BCBSOK paid such a small amount of the air
ambulance bill. A BCBSOK representative informed Plaintiffs that
BCBSOK would review the claim. On October 7, 2014, BCBSOK
adjusted the claim and sent another EOB stating that the total
benefits approved by BCBSOK for the emergency air ambulance
transfer was $4,849.86, an amount only $1,939.94 greater than
BCBSOK's original benefit determination. Simultaneously, BCBSOK
informed the Plaintiffs -- parents of a premature child born with
severely undeveloped lungs -- that "[s]ince an out-of-network
provider performed the services, you are responsible for
additional charges. No explanation was provided to Plaintiffs by
BCBSOC in the EOB of why the amount was adjusted or how it
decided how much to pay. Consequently, BCBSOK paid only a
fraction of the bill, $4,849.86, which resulted in RMH alleging
that Plaintiffs owed a remaining balance of $45,149.14.

The Plaintiffs, in an emergency situation with their newborn
child's life on the line, were without the luxury of taking the
time to identify any in-network air ambulances, if any such air
ambulances existed. No in-network air ambulance was available in
that location at that time.

According to the lawsuit, a declaratory judgment is both
necessary and proper in order to set forth and determine the
rights, obligations, and liabilities that exist among the
parties. The Plaintiffs' demand judgment against Defendant
declaring BCBSOK's failure or refusal to pay the amount it agreed
to pay to RMH violates applicable law, thus rendering the
Contract noncompliant under the ACA, establishing a breach, and
showing BCBSOK's bad faith. BCBSOK owed its insureds a duty to
pay the amounts it had agreed with RMH were owed for air
ambulance transport.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Christina and Jeffrey Terry, on their
own behalf and on behalf of their minor child, G. Terry, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated:

          Noble K. McIntyre, Esq.
          Jeremy Thurman, Esq.
          MCINTYRE LAW FIRM
          8601 South Western Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73139
          Telephone: (877) 917 5250
          Facsimile: (405) 917 5405
          E-mail: noble@mcintyrelaw.com

               - and -

          Edward L. White, Esq.
          Kerry D. Green, Esq.
          EDWARD L. WHITE, PC
          829 East 33rd Street
          Edmond, Oklahoma 73013
          Telephone: (405) 810 8188
          Facsimile: (405) 608 0971
          E-mail: ed@edwhitelaw.com
                  kerry@edwhitelaw.com

               - and -

          Mike Torrone, Esq.
          LOGAN & LOWRY, LLP
          101 South Wilson Street
          P. O. Box 558
          Vinita, OK 74301
          Telephone: (918) 256 7511
          Facsimile: (918) 256 3187
          E-mail: mtorrone@loganlowry.com


HOMELAND SECURITY: Parton Sues over Gov't Employees Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit, LAHOMA SUE PARTON, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, THE UNITED
STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, and THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-
cv-00409-SCY-JHR (D. N.M., May 1, 2018), arises out of the
historic data breach that the OPM, DOI, and DHS jointly permitted
to occur in or around the Spring of 2015. The named agencies do
not know exactly when the breach occurred. Although OPM has not
revealed or does not know the exact dates, it was ultimately
revealed that the OPM suffered at least two major breaches that
resulted in the unauthorized access and theft of private
personnel records of millions of federal government employees,
including the records of Plaintiff and the Class Members.

The lawsuit alleges that the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform issued a report titled, "The OPM Data Breach:
How the Government Jeopardized Our National Security for More
Than a Generation." In its report, the Committee points out:
"Despite this high value information maintained by OPM, the
agency failed to prioritize cybersecurity and adequately secure
high value data." The report continues: "The lax state of OPM's
information security left the agency's information systems
exposed for any experienced hacker to infiltrate and compromise."

Disturbingly, the report notes that the breach could have been
prevented or significantly mitigated. Moreover, according to the
report, the DHS and OPM were aware that a hacking incident was
underway since approximately March 20, 2014. DHS and OPM
monitored this hacking incident and formulated a plan to stop it.

Nevertheless, as the Committee concluded: the agencies' response
was ineffective and failed to take steps which were known to be
available, and which would have prevented the ultimate
exfiltration of data that eventually occurred. The information
compromised included employees' name, social security number,
date of birth, and other highly sensitive personal data including
financial information, background checks, and personal
identifying information of relatives. Defendants knew for years
that they had archaic, inadequate systems in place to protect the
highly valuable and sensitive personal data of Federal Employees.
Nevertheless, they took no steps to correct the glaring problems.
As a result of Defendants' gross negligence and willful acts and
omissions, Plaintiff's and the Class Members' personal data was
allowed to fall into the hands of unknown parties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason J. Lewis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JASON J. LEWIS, LLC
          201 12th St. NW
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 244 0950
          Facsimile: (505) 214 5108

               - and -

          Marshall J. Ray, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARSHALL J. RAY, LLC
          201 12th St. NW
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 312 7598


HYO DONG GAK: "Zhinin" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum & OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS GUAMAN ZHININ, and NELSON ANTONIO GUAMAN, on behalf of
themselves, and others similarly situated HYO DONG GAK, INC.,
BANBAT RESTAURANT, INC., and NACK GYEUN MUN, Case No. 1:18-cv-
03102 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2018), alleges that, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, the
Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the Defendants unpaid
wages and minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages and other relief.

Hyo Dong Gak, Inc., is a domestic business corporation organized
under the laws of the state of New York, with a principal place
of business in New York City.  Hanbat Restaurant, Inc., is a
business entity organized and existing under the laws of the
state of New York with a principal place of business in New York
City.  Nack Gyeun Mun is an owner, officer, director and managing
agent of the Corporate Defendants.

The Corporate Defendants are separate corporations, but each
engage in related activities; namely, they operate adjacent Asian
restaurants, which shared the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated employees.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com
                  jcilenti@jcpclaw.com


IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Class Certification Denied without Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JENNIFER D. HOVERMALE, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. IMMEDIATE
CREDIT RECOVERY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-05646-RBK-JS
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Robert B. Kugler entered an order:

   1. denying Plaintiff's motion for settlement of class action
      including enforcement of settlement agreement;

   2. denying Plaintiff's motion to certify class without
      prejudice; and

   3. denying Defendant's cross-motion for settlement enforcement
      and for sanctions.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ef6RCyFE


IRON CONTAINER: Rodriguez-Tellez Seeks Unpaid OT Wage under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ-TELLEZ, and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C 206(B), the Plaintiff, v. IRON CONTAINER, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company, and JOHN MARTORANO, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-21698-KMW (S.D. Fla., April 28,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wage compensation,
liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the lawsuit, John Martorano had operational control
of Plaintiff and is therefore an employer pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
section 203(d). The Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee, entitled
to be paid at the rate of one and one half for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week. Martorano knew or should have
known that Plaintiff suffered or was permitted to work overtime
for Employer as defined in 29 U.S.C. section 203 (g). Martorano
failed and/or refused to compensate Plaintiff for such work in
excess of 40)hours at rates no less than one and one-half times
the regular rates for which he was employed. At all material
times, Martorano knew or should have known that such refusal
and/or failure is prohibited by the FLSA and intentionally and
willfully violated the FLSA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Monica Espino, Esq.
          ESPINO LAW
          2655 S. LeJeune Road, Suite 802
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 704 3172
          Facsimile: (305) 722 7378
          E-mail: me@espino-law.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Mihalich" Suit Moved to S.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Barbara Mihalich, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2018-L-
000264, was removed from the Madison County Circuit Court, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois (East
St. Louis) on April 27, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:18-cv-01027 to the proceeding.

Johnson & Johnson offers world's largest range of consumer
healthcare products.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dan H. Ball, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE
          211 North Broadway
          One Metropolitan Square, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 259 2000
          E-mail: dhball@bryancave.com


JUST BORN: Escobar Seeks to Certify Hot Tamales Purchasers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled STEPHANIE ESCOBAR, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JUST
BORN, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01826-TJH-PJW (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will
move the court for an order on July 16, 2018:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons who purchased opaque boxes of 5-oz. Mike and
      Ike and 5-oz. Hot Tamales in California for personal use
      and not for resale during the time period February 3, 2013,
      through the present. Excluded from the Class are
      Defendants' officers, directors, and employees, and any
      individual who received remuneration from Defendants in
      connection with that individual's use or endorsement of the
      Products";

   2. appointing herself as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing Ryan J. Clarkson, Shireen M. Clarkson, and Bahar
      Sodaify of Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. as Class Counsel
      pursuant to Rule 23(g).

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=I4PBuU6C

Attorneys for Stephanie Escobar:

          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq.
          Bahar Sodaify, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          9255 Sunset Blvd., Ste. 804
          Los Angeles, CA 90069
          Telephone: (213) 788 4050
          Facsimile: (213) 788 4070
          E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com


KOHN LAW: Stanaszak Files Placeholder Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DAVID STANASZAK, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
KOHN LAW FIRM, S.C., and MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00680-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order certifying proposed classes in this case,
appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives, and
appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such
other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

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. Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-
3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017).
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).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY
          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


KRATON CORP: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
On February 26, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
against Kraton Corporation (NYSE:KRA). Federman & Sherwood
reminds current and former shareholders of Kraton Corporation
that they only had until April 27, 2018, to move the court for
appointment as a lead plaintiff in this case. The Complaint
alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you purchased Kraton Corporation shares between October 25,
2017 and February 21, 2018, have large losses as a result of your
trades during this time period, and wish to join this litigation
as a potential lead plaintiff, please contact our office as soon
as possible. Our firm seeks to recover damages on behalf of the
Class. Federman & Sherwood has extensive experience and expertise
in prosecuting securities litigation involving financial fraud.
We represent investors throughout the country in shareholder
litigation.

         William B. Federman, Esq.
         FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Telephone:(405) 235-1560
         Fax: (405) 239-2112
         E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com [GN]


KRISPY KREME: Faces Another Lawsuit Over Fruit-Flavored Doughnuts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that a
third consumer in California is suing Krispy Kreme Doughnuts
Inc., trying to prove the company misleads customers about the
nutritional content of fruit and maple fillings in several
products.

The lawsuit was filed April 6 by Irina Agajanyan with a request
for class-action status. The complaint, as the other two were,
was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

The November 2016 lawsuit by Jason Saidian and October 2017
lawsuit by Jacquline Salem were both voluntarily dismissed,
including Salem's complaint just a day later.

At the heart of the three complaints is the plaintiffs' claims
that Krispy Kreme knowingly sells fruit- and maple-flavored
doughnuts that do not include "real ingredients."

The three lawsuits focused on California's false-advertising
laws, along with claims of breach of contract, common law fraud,
intentional misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation.

Hovanes Margarian, who is representing Agajanyan, said they had
no comment on pending litigation.

Her attorneys acknowledged the similarities in her case and
Saidian, including saying "the Saidian case is presumed to have
settled on an individual basis" because of the voluntary
dismissal.

However, the Saidian dismissal said both parties paid for their
legal costs, typically a sign that no settlement had been
reached.

Agajanyan said she filed a complaint Dec. 8 with Krispy Kreme,
saying its blueberry and maple doughnuts did not contain real
ingredients. Agajanyan said the company did not respond.

What moves the lawsuits from being considered as potentially
frivolous is that California law has a low bar for proving
violations of business and professions code, as well as false
advertising and breach of contract.

One potential difference between Agajanyan and Saidian's lawsuits
is that Saidian requested at least $5 million in damages, as well
as disgorging of profits made from the products.

Krispy Kreme typically sells its variety doughnuts for $1.09
apiece and $8.99 for a dozen.

Agajanyan is requesting restitution of $1,000 for each potential
class-action plaintiff, any actual damages and a court order that
would prevent Krispy Kreme from selling blueberry and maple
doughnuts and from using the words blueberry and maple in the
names of doughnuts.

The Agajanyan and Saidian complaints both list glazed blueberry
cake and donut holes, and maple iced glazed doughnuts sold in
Krispy Kreme's shops.

Agajanyan included strawberry iced with sprinkles, while Saidian
included chocolate-iced raspberry-filled, glazed raspberry-filled
and maple bar.

                                 Complaint

Agajanyan based her complaint from a July 7, 2017, visit to a
Krispy Kreme shop in Burbank, California.

She said that once she tasted the doughnuts, she "became
suspicious" of the ingredients, "determined that ingredients
mentioned in the product names were false" and "undertook a pre-
complaint investigation."

According to Agajanyan's legal complaint, "Although Krispy Kreme
knew or should have known from the very start of the distribution
and sale of class products that the blueberry doughnuts and maple
doughnuts did not contain real ingredients, it misrepresented
that the class products had real ingredients when distributing
the doughnuts in the U.S. in order to make them more attractive
to consumers."

It continues: "Plaintiff and the class members will never know
whether a doughnut they are purchasing from Krispy Kreme has real
ingredients based on the name of the product."

Saidian claimed that he purchased a raspberry doughnut in 2015
because raspberries "are a rich source of vitamin C, vitamin K,
potassium and dietary fiber ... and help fight against cancer,
heart and circulatory disease, and age-related decline."

Saidian's attorneys cited other potential health benefits from
premium maple and blueberry ingredients.

Both complaints said the plaintiffs would not have bought the
doughnuts if they had felt or known the fruit filling did not
include "real ingredients."

Krispy Kreme has not filed a response to the Agajanyan lawsuit
and did not respond to the Winston-Salem Journal's requests for
comment.

However, Krispy Kreme spoke to the Saidian complaint several
times in court filings.

The company's defense essentially boiled down to this argument by
its attorneys: Because Krispy Kreme doesn't advertise that its
doughnuts contain real fruit, how can it be accused of false
advertising?

As the Krispy Kreme attorneys stated their defense against the
Saidian complaint, their comments became increasingly
incredulous. Some examples are:

No reasonable consumer would expect a doughnut to deliver the
same level of antioxidants, for example, as green tea."

"Consumers also understand that doughnuts are desserts and
contain flavoring ... that are shorthand references and are not
intended to describe the ingredients of the doughnuts."

"What exactly did he think the raspberry and blueberry doughnuts
contained? Was it raw fruit? Fruit jelly? Fruit jam? Dried
fruit?"

Krispy Kreme's attorneys say federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
regulations prohibit states from requiring restaurants to impose
--  at the point of sale  --  additional labeling requirements
beyond federal requirements that include number of calories per
item and a statement of how the item fits within a 2,000-calorie
diet.

Saidian's lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice, which means it
can be refiled. The motion preserves the ability to pursue class-
action claims if submitted and approved by the court.

AmLaw Litigation Daily called the Saidian complaint one of the
three worst consumer-protection lawsuits of 2016.

Jenna Greene, a blogger for AmLaw, wrote that "consumer
protection lawsuits, while sometimes heroic, can also be uniquely
dumb."

"News flash: doughnuts are not a health food," Greene wrote. The
lawsuit "wouldn't be so dopey except when it gets all indignant
about the health benefits doughnut eaters are being denied.

"Yeah, if only that doughnut you just ate had some real
raspberries, you totally wouldn't get cancer or heart
disease."[GN]


LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: October 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP regarding the Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. Securities
Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION
CLASS ACTION
Master File No. 3:15-cv-00347-EMC
SUMMARY NOTICE

This Document Relates To:
ALL ACTIONS.

TO: ALL PERSONS THAT PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES,
INC. ("LEAPFROG") COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM MAY 5, 2014
THROUGH JUNE 11, 2015, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD")
You may be entitled to receive money from a class action
settlement.  The average recovery in the Settlement per allegedly
damaged share is estimated to be approximately $0.125 per share,
before the deduction of any Court-approved fees and expenses, and
approximately $0.083 per allegedly damaged share, after the
deduction of attorneys' fees and expenses and the costs of notice
and administration of the Settlement.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
that a hearing will be held on October 18, 2018, at 1:30 p.m.,
before the Honorable Edward M. Chen, United States District
Judge, at the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco,
California, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the
proposed Settlement as set forth in the Stipulation of
Settlement, dated February 22, 2018 (the "Stipulation"), of the
above-captioned litigation ("Action") for $5,500,000.00 in cash
should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (2) whether a Judgment should be entered by the Court
dismissing the Action with prejudice; (3) whether the Plan of
Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be
approved; and (4) whether the application of Lead Counsel for the
payment of attorneys' fees (not to exceed 25% or $1,375,000) and
expenses (not to exceed $275,000) and the application by Lead
Plaintiff for reimbursement of its time and expenses of $5,600
should be approved.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED LEAPFROG COMMON STOCK BETWEEN MAY 5,
2014 AND JUNE 11, 2015, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY
THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION. If you have not received a
detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice")
and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of
Claim"), you may obtain copies by writing to LeapFrog Enterprises
Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. BOX
404056, Louisville, KY 40233-4056, or on the internet at
www.LeapFrogSecuritiesClassAction.com.

If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim by mail postmarked no later than August 8, 2018, or
submitted electronically no later than August 8, 2018,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.  Your failure to
submit your Proof of Claim by August 8, 2018, will subject your
claim to possible rejection and may preclude you from receiving
any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this
Action.  If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not
request exclusion, you will be bound by the Settlement and any
judgment and release entered in the Action, including, but not
limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of
Claim.

To exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a
written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions
set forth in the Notice such that it is received no later than
August 8, 2018.  All members of the Settlement Class who have not
requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by
the Settlement entered in the Action even if they do not submit a
timely Proof of Claim.

Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the
fee and expense application must be submitted to the Court in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice no later
than August 8, 2018.  If you object, but also want to be eligible
for a payment from the Settlement, you must still submit a Proof
of Claim or you will not receive a payment from the Settlement.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact Lead Counsel at the following addresses:

         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART
         San Diego, CA 92101
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900

         MOTLEY RICE LLC
         CHRISTOPHER F. MORIARTY
         28 Bridgeside Blvd.
         Mount Pleasant, SC 29464

DATED: March 20, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


LEXINGTON INSURANCE: "Franklin" Suit Moved to W.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA M. FRANKLIN, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LEXINGTON INSURANCE
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1816-CV04397, was removed by the
Defendant from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The
Western District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-00322-RK
to the proceeding.

Lexington Insurance Company is a surplus lines insurance company
wholly owned by AIG. It is the largest surplus lines insurer
based in the U.S., and it offers property, casualty, and
specialty lines insurance products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David T. Butsch, Esq.
          Christopher E. Roberts
          BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC
          231 South Bemiston Avenue, Suite 260
          Clayton, MO 63105
          E-mail: butsch@butschroberts.com
                  roberts@butschroberts.com

               - and -

          Joe D. Jacobson, Esq.
          JACOBSON PRESS, P.C.
          168 North Meramec Avenue, Suite 150
          Clayon, MO 63105
          E-mail: jacobson@archcitylawyers.com

Attorneys for Defendant Lexington Insurance Company:

          Wade P.K. Carr, Esq.
          Mark L. Hanover, Esq.
          Kristine M. Schanbacher, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          4520 Main Street, Suite 1100
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 460 2400
          E-mail: wade.carr@dentons.com
                  mark.hanover@dentons.com
                  kristine.schanbacher@dentons.com


LIBERTY STUDENT: Sadrarhami Sues over Marketing Phone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALI SADRARHAMI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY STUDENT LOAN
FORGIVENESS, the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-00732 (C.D. Cal.,
April 27, 2018), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and
any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from
the illegal actions of Defendant in negligently or willfully
contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby
invading Plaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is a private company,
not affiliated with the Department of Education or any academic
or governmental entity. The Defendant offers loan consolidation
services and repayment programs. At no time did Plaintiff have
any relationship with Defendant nor did Plaintiff solicit
Defendant's services. The Plaintiff never requested Defendant to
review his student loans, calculate consolidated payments, nor
did he request Defendant to provide him with any repayment
programs.

To solicit consumers with the Defendant's lucrative offers and
payment plan options, the Defendant calls consumers advising them
that "they prequalified for the federal student loan forgiveness
program." Despite never soliciting Defendant, on or about April
24, 2018, at approximately 1:01 p.m., the Plaintiff received an
unwelcomed automated impersonal voicemail from phone number (800)
218-0839 on his cellular telephone number ending in "5114." The
voicemail stated, "You're prequalified for the federal student
loan forgiveness program. Please call us back at (800) 549-6685
to discuss your repayment options or press one to be connected to
a live representative. Press two if you would like to be
removed." This voicemail is meant to deceive consumers into
believing that they have dealings with Defendant or Defendant is
currently servicing consumers' student loans.

The telephone call sent from Defendant's number appeared to be
autodialed based on lack of any personal information and the
impersonal nature of the soliciting content of the voicemail.
Moreover, the voicemail was prerecorded. Further, since the
Plaintiff had no prior relationship with Defendant, and in fact
since Defendant, it shows that Defendant's unsolicited phone call
was autodialed. These telephonic communications constituted
telephone solicitations. The Defendant did not have prior express
consent nor a written consent to send marketing phone call to
Plaintiff's cellular number. Through this action, the Plaintiff
suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest in privacy,
which is specifically addressed and protected by the TCPA. The
Plaintiff was personally affected because Plaintiff was
frustrated and distressed that Defendant harassed Plaintiff with
the unsolicited marketing phone call using an automatic telephone
dialing system despite Plaintiff's request to cease and desist
Defendant's unwanted communication. Defendant's autodialed
telephone messages forced Plaintiff and similarly situated
consumers to live without the utility of their cellular phones by
forcing Plaintiff and class members to silence their cellular
phones and/or block incoming numbers.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


LORALI BUILDING: Acceptance Distances from Tenancy Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
ACCEPTANCE INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, the Plaintiff, v. THE
LORALI BUILDING, LLC, THE LORALI COMPANY, LLC, JAMES STOLLER,
MICHAEL STEIN, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH05544 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., Cook Cty., April 30, 2018), seeks declaration that it does
not owe a duty to defend or indemnify Lorali Building, Lorali
Company or Stoller under policies of insurance issued to Lorali
Building, with respect to a purported class action complaint
filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division,
entitled Michael Stein, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Lorali Building, LLC, The Lorali
Company, LLC, and James Stoller a/k/a Jim Stoller, individually
and d/b/a "Lorali LLC", Case No. 18 CH 02632 (Underlying
Lawsuit).

Stein filed a complaint in the Underlying Lawsuit. The Underlying
Lawsuit is filed on behalf of Stein and a class of all tenants of
a single room occupancy building located at 1039-1045 W. Lawrence
Avenue in Chicago for 32 continuous days or longer from March 1,
2016 to the present.

The Underlying Lawsuit alleges that Lorali Building is the record
owner of the Building. The Underlying Lawsuit alleges that
beginning in or around October 2015 and continuing through the
present, Stein occupied a unit in the Building. The Underlying
Lawsuit alleges that throughout Stein's tenancy, the Building
suffered from unsafe, unsanitary, and uninhabitable conditions.
The Underlying Lawsuit alleges that Stein complained to
defendants orally and in writing about the conditions, however,
the defendants took little or no action to ameliorate or address
the problems. The Underlying Lawsuit alleges that on or about
February 13, 2018, within one year of Stein's complaints to the
defendants regarding the conditions of the Building, the
defendants filed an eviction action against Stein, Cook County
Case No. 18 Ml 701136.

On behalf of the class, the Underlying Lawsuit asserts claims for
violations of the Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance as a
result of the defendants' alleged policy of not providing tenants
with copies of RLTO summaries (Count I) and failure to maintain
the premises in compliance with the RLTO because of the
Building's unsafe, unsanitary, and uninhabitable conditions,
including a severe and intractable infestation of cockroaches,
bedbugs, and/or mice throughout the dwelling units and common
areas (Count II).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip R. King, Esq.
          Le G. Trieu, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          123 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1800
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 474 7900
          Facsimile: (312) 474 7898
          E-mail: pking@cozen.com
                  ltrieu@cozen.com


LOWE'S COMPANIES: Reetz Sues over 401(k) Plan Investment Losses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Reetz, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Lowe's 401(k)
Plan, the Plaintiff, v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., Administrative
Committee of Lowe's Companies, Inc., John and Jane Does 1-20, and
Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting, Inc., the Defendants, Case No.
5:18-cv-00075-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C., April 27, 2018), seeks to
recover losses, disgorge profits that Hewitt received on account
of its fiduciary breaches, and obtain equitable relief and other
appropriate relief as provided by Sections 409 and 502 of
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

According to the complaint, Lowe's imprudently selected and
retained Hewitt Growth Fund for the Plan, in consultation with
Hewitt (which served as the Plans fiduciary investment
consultant), despite the fact that (1) the Hewitt Growth Fund was
a new and largely untested fund at the time it was added to the
Plan; (2) the Hewitt Growth Fund was underperforming its
benchmark at the time it was added to the Plan and continued to
underperform after it was added to the Plan; and (3) the Hewitt
Growth Fund was not utilized by fiduciaries of any similarly-
sized plans and was generally unpopular in the marketplace. To
make matters worse, Defendants placed over $1 billion of the
Plan's assets into this new, underperforming, and unpopular fund,
and disturbed participants' investment choices by transferring
assets from eight existing funds in the Plan (which were
generally performing well) and putting them in the Hewitt Growth
Fund, which replaced these existing funds in the Plan's
investment lineup. Prior to this $1 billion investment by the
Plan, the Hewitt Growth Fund had struggled to attract capital
from other investors and had only $350 million in total assets,
such that the Plan's investment resulted in a four-fold increase
in the size of this fund. Hewitt had a conflict of interest in
recommending this proprietary fund for the Plan, and improperly
did so to further its own financial interests instead of the
interests of the Plan's participants. Lowe's should have
recognized this conflict of interest, and should have recognized
(as other 401(k) plan fiduciaries did) that the Hewitt Growth
Fund was inappropriate for the Plan. By causing the Plan to
include and retain this fund, the Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties under Section 404 of ERISA and caused the Plan
to suffer millions of dollars in investment losses.

Lowe's Companies, Inc., is a Fortune 500 American company that
operates a chain of retail home improvement and appliance stores
in the United States, Canada and Mexico.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          F. Hill Allen, Esq.
          THARRINGTON SMITH, L.L.P.
          P.O. Box 1151
          Raleigh, NC 27602-1151
          Telephone: (919) 821 4711
          Facsimile: (919) 829 1583
          E-mail: hallen@tharringtonsmith.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
          Kai H. Richter, Esq.
          Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
          Brandon T. McDonough, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 S 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256 3200
          Facsimile: (612) 338 4878
          E-mail: lukas@nka.com
                  krichter@nka.com
                  cengstrom@nka.com
                  bmcdonough@nka.com


LTI TRUCKING: "Ratliff" Suit Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JEROME RATLIFF, JR., the Plaintiff, v. LTI
TRUCKING SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07190
(N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jorge L. Alonso entered an order:

   1. granting Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of
      jurisdiction; and

   2. dismissing Plaintiff's complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

All other pending motions are denied as moot.  The status hearing
previously set for June 20, 2018 is stricken.

The Court said, "Plainly, the Plaintiff has alleged a technical
violation of the statute, namely that Defendant failed to provide
the relevant notice within three business days. The question is
whether the Plaintiff has alleged concrete harm. This Court
thinks he has not. The plain language of the statute tells this
Court that the purpose of notifying the consumer is so the
consumer can obtain a copy of the report and then dispute with
the consumer reporting agency (i.e., HireRight) the accuracy of
the information. See 15 U.S.C. section 1681(b)(3)(B)(i)(IV). The
Plaintiff does not allege that any of the information was
inaccurate, so, like the Supreme Court in Spokeo, this Court
cannot fathom how the Plaintiff could have suffered concrete
harm. He does not even allege that he asked for a copy of the
report and was denied. The Plaintiff, instead, argues that his
privacy has been invaded by the technical violation, but the
Court does not see anything in the language of the statute that
suggests a privacy right. Nor does the Plaintiff allege defendant
obtained the report without his permission. Without an allegation
of concrete harm, the Plaintiff has failed to allege injury in
fact and, therefore, has failed to establish that he has standing
to sue. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this case
and must dismiss it. Two other courts in this district considered
nearly identical allegations by this particular plaintiff and,
like this Court, concluded that plaintiff failed to allege
concrete harm. Ratliff v. Celadon Trucking Serv., Inc., Case No.
17 CV 7163, 2018 WL 1911797 (N.D. Ill. April 23, 2017)
(dismissing case for lack of jurisdiction); Ratliff v. A&R
Logistics, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-2787, 2018 WL 1124412 (N.D. Ill.
Feb. 28, 2018) (same). From the fact that plaintiff did not file
an amended complaint in A&R Logistics, this Court concludes that
amendment would be futile."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rKWD9WFd


LUX VENDING: Accused by "Dunleavey" Class Suit of Violating TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
PHILIP DUNLEAVEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LUX VENDING, LLC, a foreign corporation,
Case No. 1:18-cv-21367-DPG (S.D. Fla., April 6, 2018), seeks to
secure redress for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Through the action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
the Defendant's alleged illegal conduct, which has resulted in
the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption
of the daily life of thousands of individuals.

Lux Vending is a Georgia corporation whose principal office is
located in Atlanta, Georgia.  The Defendant directs, markets, and
provides its business activities throughout the state of Florida
and any other state in which a "Bitcoin ATM" is located.

Lux Vending is a company that deals in cryptocurrency, owns and
operates Bitcoin ATMs.  This service is intended to be a way of
depositing and buying Bitcoins, a rapidly-expanding
cryptocurrency, into a secure account.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MACY'S FLORIDA: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Haynes Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS HAYNES, Individually, the Plaintiffs, v. MACY'S FLORIDA
STORES, LLC, A Florida Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 0:18-
cv-60985-DPG (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiff
attempted to access and/or utilize Defendant's website, but was
unable to, and continues to be unable to, enjoy full and equal
access to the website and/or understand the content therein
because numerous portions of the website do not interface with
and are not readable by Screen Reader Software ("SRS"). More
specifically, features of the website that are inaccessible to
the visually impaired include, but are not limited to, the
following: Defendant's website contains graphics, links,
headings, forms and text with information that is not fully
readable and/or compatible with SRS.

The Plaintiff continues to attempt to utilize the website and/or
plans to continue to attempt to utilize the website in the near
future. In the alternative, Plaintiff intends to monitor the
website in the near future, as a tester, to ascertain whether it
has been updated to interface properly with SRS.

Macy's Florida Stores, LLC owns and operates a chain of
department stores. Macy's Florida Stores, LLC was formerly known
as Burdines, Inc. and changed its name to Macy's Florida Stores,
LLC in February 2004.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Duane Crooks, Esq.
          Thomas B. Bacon, Esq.
          THOMAS B. BACON, P.A.
          P.O. Box 450973
          Sunrise, FL 33345
          Telephone: (305) 761 2146
          E-mail: crookslawfirm@gmail.com
                  tbb@thomasbaconlaw.com


MASSACHUSETTS: Bell Sues over Assaults & Inhumane Treatment
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY BELL, on behalf of himself and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. THE DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH
SERVICES OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, VOLUNTEERS OF
AMERICA OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC., SILVIO DEPINA, HERMANO JOSEPH,
JOSEPH CINTOLO, AINSLEY LAROCHE, and JALISE ANDRADE, the
Defendants, Case No. 18-01314A (Mass. Super. Ct., April 30,
2018), seeks to recover money damages, and compensatory and
punitive damages caused by inhumane treatment suffered by
Plaintiff from the Department of Youth Services of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Volunteers of America of
Massachusetts, Inc., and the individuals who worked for them at
Casa Isla Short-Term Treatment and Revocation Center, a juvenile
detention center operated by VOA and DYS.

The Plaintiff was beaten, indecently assaulted, and subjected to
inhumane treatment by the Defendants or their agents while he was
detained at Casa Isla in 2013 and 2014. He seeks to represent a
class of all people who were detained at Casa Isla in 2012, 2013
and 2014, and who were subject to the same or similar treatment
as he received. On information and belief, hundreds of people
have been subjected to unconstitutional treatment after admission
to Casa Isla in 2012, 2013, and 2014.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David M. Hass, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BURTON J. HASS
          640 Main Street
          Malden MA 02148-3919
          Telephone: (781)322 3900
          E-mail: BJHlaw@msn.com


MDL 2804: Trial Date Set for Opioid Class-Action
------------------------------------------------
Marlene Satter, writing for BenefitsPro, reports that as the
opioid crisis drags on, the wheels of justice continue to turn,
with distributors of opioids scheduled to testify before the
House Energy and Commerce Committee in May and a federal judge in
Ohio setting a trial date for next March for cases from three of
the cities and counties that have brought suit against drug
companies.

Reports from The Hill detail the actions, with the executives
from five opioid distributors set to be questioned about how
millions of pills flooded little towns in West Virginia.
Meanwhile, Judge Dan Polster in Ohio is choosing cases from the
"hundreds brought under Poster's review" to serve as
"bellwethers" that could bring settlements or further legal
action to drive change.

In addition, the Senate Finance Committee has announced a hearing
on ways to better the response to the opioid epidemic by Medicare
and Medicaid.

According to the first report, representatives from McKesson
Corporation, Cardinal Health Inc., AmerisourceBergen Corporation,
Miami-Luken, Inc. and H.D. Smith Wholesale Drug Company will
testify before the House committee after an Energy and Commerce
investigation found that the companies collectively distributed
millions of pain pills just in that state, which has been the
target of some of the worst effects of the epidemic.

Miami-Luken alone sent 4 million pills to the town of Oceana
between 2008-2015. Oceana has a population of just 1,390 people.
According to a letter from the committee to the company in
January, "This means that in 2014 alone, Miami-Luken provided
roughly 689 pills for every man, woman and child in Oceana."

The lawsuit Polster scheduled for next year is part of "a massive
combined lawsuit against drug manufacturers and distributors over
the opioid epidemic," says the report. Polster is quoted saying
to Reuters in the report that while he wants a settlement, the
companies have "asserted forcefully that they cannot reach final
settlement without litigating certain matters."

He is also quoted saying, "I'm confident we can do something to
dramatically reduce the number of opioids that are being
disseminated, manufactured and distributed. Just dramatically
reduce the quantity and make sure that the pills that are
manufactured and distributed go to the right people and no one
else." [GN]


MDLIVE INC: "Mezzasalma" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled KARINA MEZZASALMA, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
MDLive, Inc. a Foreign Corporation and JUSTIN WOLLER, the
Defendants, Case No. 18-004771-CA-01, was removed from the 11th
Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on
April 27, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-
cv-21691-KMM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Chief Judge K. Michael Moore.

MDLive is a telehealth provider focused on digital delivery of
high-quality, convenient, and cost-efficient medical care.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Michael Hoogerwoerd, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flager Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: pmh@rgpattorneys.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Barry Adam Postman, Esq.
          S. Jonathan Vine, Esq.
          Sheena Danielle Smith, Esq.
          COLE SCOTT & KISSANE
          222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 120
          West Palm Beach, FL 33417
          Telephone: (561) 383 9200
          Facsimile: (561) 683 8977
          E-mail: postman@csklegal.com
                  Jonathan.Vine@csklegal.com
                  sheena.smith@csklegal.com


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Jones et al. Sue over Inflated DRAM Prices
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELE JONES, DAVID LAIETTA, KIMBERLY YORK, BENJAMIN MURRAY,
WANDA DUREYA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., MICRON
SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., SK HYNIX, INC. (F/K/A HYNIX
SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.), SK HYNIX AMERICA, INC. (F/K/A HYNIX
SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.), the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-
02518-JSW (N.D. Cal., April 27, 2018), alleges that the
Defendants combined and contracted to fix, raise, maintain, or
stabilize the prices at which DRAM was sold in the United States
from at least June 1, 2016 to February 1, 2018. Defendants'
conspiracy artificially inflated prices for DRAM throughout the
supply chain that were ultimately passed through to Plaintiffs
and the Class, causing them to pay more for DRAM Products than
they otherwise would have absent Defendants' conspiracy.

Dynamic random access memory (DRAM) is one of the most common
forms of semiconductor memory. DRAM is made from silicon wafers,
and is widely used as a component in digital electronics, such as
in mobile phones, PCs and servers, laptops, tablets, TVs, set-top
boxes, cameras, and in industrial applications, such as in
automotive, military, and aviation devices.

The alleged co-conspirators, Samsung, Micron, and Hynix, are the
three companies that control nearly one-hundred percent of the
DRAM market. The Defendants are the world's largest manufacturers
of DRAM, collectively controlling 96% of worldwide DRAM market
share as of mid-2017.

Prior to entering into the conspiracy, Defendants acted
independently in deciding how to balance supply (and capacity) to
meet industry demand for DRAM.  Acting independently, firms
sought to gain market share though increases in their supply. For
example, during the period from 2014-2015, the Defendant Samsung
added wafer capacity throughout the period in an attempt to take
market share from the other Defendants. DRAM prices fell during
this time. But in the face of the willingness of the three firms
controlling the DRAM market to steal share through price
competition (and supply increases), Defendants made a near
simultaneous decision in 2016 to restrict growth in the supply of
DRAM to stop the downward pressure on prices and, indeed, to
cause DRAM prices to skyrocket upward.

The plausibility of the alleged conspiracy is also buttressed by
the fact that Defendants have previously been convicted for
conspiring to fix prices of DRAM. In 2005, the United States
Department of Justice brought criminal charges against the very
same Defendants as named here for participating in a conspiracy
to fix prices of DRAM sold in the United States between 1999 and
2002.

Samsung and SK Hynix2 pleaded guilty to the DOJ's charges -- and
paid some of the largest criminal fines in history for their
illegal conduct. Micron also admitted its participation in the
earlier DRAM conspiracy, but was given amnesty from DOJ
prosecution in exchange for its cooperation under the DOJ's
Antitrust Leniency Program. Fourteen individual employees of
Defendants also pleaded guilty for their participation in the
earlier DRAM conspiracy -- paying fines of $250,000 each, and
serving prison sentences ranging from 7 to 14 months. Defendants
and their co-conspirators also collectively paid over $650
million to settlement civil price-fixing claims related to their
prior conduct in the DRAM market.

The Defendants' conspiratorial conduct between 2016 and 2018
violated Section One of the Sherman Act and the antitrust,
consumer protection, and unfair competition laws of various
states. As a result, Plaintiffs and the Class paid artificially
inflated prices for DRAM Products, and thereby suffered antitrust
injury to their business or property.

The Defendants manufacture DRAM in fabrication plants. The
Defendants manufacture DRAM at their fabs in Korea and China.
DRAM is made from silicon wafers. To make DRAM, silicon wafers
are cut into individual chips called "dice." The dice are printed
with electronics, and are then considered complete. Capacity for
DRAM is often discussed in terms of new "wafer starts." DRAM
chips are classified into types based on the number of data
transfers a chip can process per cycle. DRAM types are most
commonly denoted by the term Double Data Rate ("DDR"), and are
suffixed by numbers 2-6. For example, DRAM types include DDR3 and
DDR4.

Micron is an American global corporation based in Boise, Idaho.
The company produces many forms of semiconductor devices,
including dynamic random-access memory, flash memory, and solid-
state drives.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
          Rio S. Pierce, Esq.
          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Anthony Shapiro, Esq.
          Ronnie Spiegel, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725 3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725 3001
          E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com
                  riop@hbsslaw.com
                  steve@hbsslaw.com
                  tony@hbsslaw.com
                  ronnie@hbsslaw.com


MEDCARE INVESTMENT: Certification of Employees Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled COLLENE COLLIER, KAREN GROCE and BARRY
KUSNICK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MEDCARE INVESTMENT CORPORATION d/b/a
MEDCARE INVESTMENT FUNDS, CARDIOVASCULAR CARE GROUP, INC., and
CCG OF LOUISIANA, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00331
(M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs, in furtherance of their claims
under the Worker Adjustment Retraining and Notification Act, move
the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "(a) Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated former
      employees who worked at, received assignments from, or
      reported to Defendants' Facilities, (b) who were terminated
      without cause beginning on or about February 3, 2017, and
      within thirty (30) days of that date, or (c) who are
      affected employees within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. section
      2101(a)(5)), (d) who are not bound by a release of WARN Act
      claims against Defendants, and (e) who have not filed a
      timely request to opt out of the Class";

   2. appointing Outten & Golden LLP as Class Counsel;

   3. appointing Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives; and

   4. approving the form and manner of Notice.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SiR68tal

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the putative class:

          Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
          Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245 1000

               - and -

          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Seth M. Hyatt, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Bank of America Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244 2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252 3798
          E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                  shyatt@barrettjohnston.com


MESILLA VALLEY TRANS: "Ratliff" Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JEROME RATLIFF, JR., the Plaintiff, v.
MESILLA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION, INC., and MVT SERVICES, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07192 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
Jorge L. Alonso entered an order:

   1. granting Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of
      jurisdiction; and

   2. dismissing Plaintiff's complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

All other pending motions are denied as moot. Status hearing
previously set for June 20, 2018 is stricken.

The Court said, "Plainly, the Plaintiff has alleged a technical
violation of the statute, namely that Defendant failed to provide
the relevant notice within three business days. The question is
whether the Plaintiff has alleged concrete harm. This Court
thinks he has not. The plain language of the statute tells this
Court that the purpose of notifying the consumer is so the
consumer can obtain a copy of the report and then dispute with
the consumer reporting agency (i.e., HireRight) the accuracy of
the information. See 15 U.S.C. section 1681(b)(3)(B)(i)(IV). The
Plaintiff does not allege that any of the information was
inaccurate, so, like the Supreme Court in Spokeo, this Court
cannot fathom how the Plaintiff could have suffered concrete
harm. He does not even allege that he asked for a copy of the
report and was denied. The Plaintiff, instead, argues that his
privacy has been invaded by the technical violation, but the
Court does not see anything in the language of the statute that
suggests a privacy right. Nor does the Plaintiff allege defendant
obtained the report without his permission. Without an allegation
of concrete harm, the Plaintiff has failed to allege injury in
fact and, therefore, has failed to establish that he has standing
to sue. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this case
and must dismiss it. Two other courts in this district considered
nearly identical allegations by this particular plaintiff and,
like this Court, concluded that plaintiff failed to allege
concrete harm. Ratliff v. Celadon Trucking Serv., Inc., Case No.
17 CV 7163, 2018 WL 1911797 (N.D. Ill. April 23, 2017)
(dismissing case for lack of jurisdiction); Ratliff v. A&R
Logistics, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-2787, 2018 WL 1124412 (N.D. Ill.
Feb. 28, 2018) (same). From the fact that Plaintiff did not file
an amended complaint in A&R Logistics, this Court concludes that
amendment would be futile."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=g954wwYG


MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Steamfitters Alleges Securities Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 449 PENSION PLAN, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MOLINA
HEALTHCARE, INC., J. MARIO MOLINA, JOHN C. MOLINA, TERRY P.
BAYER, and RICK HOPFER, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03579
(C.D. Cal., April 27, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a securities class action on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Molina common stock
between October 31, 2014 and August 2, 2017, inclusive. Molina is
a managed care company, focused on 4.5 million members eligible
for Medicaid, Medicare, and other government-sponsored healthcare
programs. Molina's health plans are operated by various wholly-
owned subsidiaries, each of which is licensed as a health
maintenance organization.

As of December 31, 2017, Molina had 5,300 employees and operated
in 13 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. During the
Class Period, Molina misled investors regarding the scalability
of its existing administrative infrastructure. Scalability refers
to a system's capacity to handle a growing amount of work, and
administrative infrastructure refers to personnel, processes, and
technology that allow Molina to administer health plans through
various business functions, including provider payment and
utilization management. Utilization management is a cost
management tool that evaluates the necessity and efficiency of
healthcare. Molina executives falsely claimed that the Company's
existing administrative infrastructure could support rapid growth
into existing Medicaid markets and new Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act health insurance marketplaces in a cost-
effective manner. Molina later admitted that its existing
administrative infrastructure was built for a "much smaller,
simpler business" and was "never" designed to support the
Company's growth strategy.

The truth regarding Molina's failed growth strategy and
inadequate administrative infrastructure was revealed through a
series of partial disclosures, including the Company's April 28,
2016 earnings release. On that date, Molina reported a sharp
earnings miss for the first quarter ended March 31, 2016 and
drastically cut full-year 2016 earnings guidance. Molina blamed
the poor results on higher costs tied to administrative capacity
issues. On this news, Molina's common stock price fell $12.46 per
share, or 19.40 percent, to close at $51.76 per share on April
29, 2016.

On February 15, 2017, Molina announced its financial results for
the fourth quarter and full-year ended December 31, 2016. Despite
Molina's prior expressions of commitment to a rapid growth
strategy, Molina executives cautioned that the Company could not
commit to ACA Health Exchange participation beyond 2017. On this
news, Molina's common stock price fell $10.71 per share, or 17.88
percent, to close at $49.18 per share on February 16, 2017.

On August 2, 2017, Molina announced its financial results for the
second quarter ended June 30, 2017. The Company reported a net
loss of $230 million for the quarter, termination of its ACA
Health Exchange participation in Utah and Wisconsin, and a major
restructuring plan. During the related earnings call, Molina
revealed that its administrative infrastructure was never
designed to sustain such rapid growth. On this news, Molina's
common stock price fell $3.92 per share, or 5.92 percent, to
close at $62.32 per share on August 3, 2017. As a result of
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's common stock, the
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant
losses and damages.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan:

          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Lesley F. Portnoyv
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201 9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201 9160
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
          Francis P. McConville, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907 0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818 0477
          E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
                  ebelfi@labaton.com
                  fmcconville@labaton.com


MONAT GLOBAL: Hair Care Products Have Harmful Effects, Row Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Row, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MONAT GLOBAL CORP., a Florida
Corporation, and ALCORA CORP., a Florida Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-21731-JEM (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2018),
assert that the Defendants' representations that their
"specialty" hair care products under the Monat brand are safe,
naturally-based, and designed to increase hair strength and
growth, are deceptive, misleading, unfair, and unlawful, because
Defendants have actively concealed and failed to disclose the
harmful side effects caused by its hair care products.

The Plaintiff and the proposed classes purchased and used
Defendants' hair care products after relying on its
representations about the products' safety and efficacy. However,
complaints concerning Monat's products have become commonplace in
the wake of its recent and rapid growth. Rather than increasing
hair growth and minimizing breakage, individuals using the hair
care products have reportedly suffered hair loss and scalp
injury.

Instead of disclosing the risk of hair loss and other injury, the
Defendants have intentionally concealed these risks and continues
to sell its products as safe and defect-free. For example, Monat
advertises its products as "safe" and "clinically proven," and
claims they provide "outstanding clinical results." It also touts
its "Scientific Board" of physicians that it utilizes to extend
[its] commitment to quality, integrity, customer safety and
superior product development.

The Plaintiff relied on Defendants' representations as to the
safety and efficacy of its hair care products, and purchased
Monat's Hydration System on November 18, 2017, and Monat's
Restore Leave-In Conditioner, Smoothing Deep Conditioner, and
Renew Shampoo on December 25, 2017.  According to the Complaint,
the active concealments and material omissions induced the
purchase of hair care products that no reasonable consumer would
likely purchase, let alone pay a premium for. Every consumer who
purchased Defendants' defective hair care products without the
facts concerning risks and side effects having been disclosed
prior to purchase were injured equally at the point of sale when,
instead of obtaining the premium, safe, and natural hair care
product they thought they were getting, they obtained Defendants'
dangerous and defective product. Had the potential impacts of the
defective hair care products designed and sold by Defendants been
disclosed, reasonable consumers would not have paid the hefty
premium charged for these products, or more likely, would not
have purchased the products at all.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julie Braman Kane, Esq.
          Lindsey Lazopoulos Friedman, Esq.
          COLSON HICKS EIDSON
          255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 476 7400
          Facsimile: (305) 476 7444
          E-mail: julie@colson.com
                  lindsey@colson.com
                  b.cancela@colson.com
                  eservice@colson.com

               - and -

          Yvonne M. Flaherty, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339 6900
          E-mail: ymflaherty@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Amanda M. Williams, Esq.
          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333 8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339 6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  awilliams@gustafsongluek.com
                  rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Caminiti Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Caminiti, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00678-SNLJ (E.D. Mo., April 30,
2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup
(TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendants Roundup
products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate
Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide,
Roundup D-Pak herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export
Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, and Roundup Garden Foam
Weed & Grass Killer.

Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is
headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
          GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
          11181 Overbrook Road, Suite 200
          Leawood, KS 66211
          Telephone: (913) 451 3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839 0567
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Bradleys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
CARL and BETTY BRADLEY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. Case: 4:18-cv-00664 (E.D. Mo., April 27,
2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing
the active ingredient glyphosate.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff maintains that Roundup
(TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health,
unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and
lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers
associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those
striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the
country, were avoidable.

"Roundup" refers to all formulations of Defendant Roundup
products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate
Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide,
Roundup D-Pak herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, and Roundup
Export Herbicide.

Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222 2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421 0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Harleys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
BARRY AND KELLY HARLEY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00667 (E.D. Mo., April 27, 2018),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and
proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing
the active ingredient glyphosate.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff maintains that Roundup
(TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health,
unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and
lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers
associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those
striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the
country, were avoidable.

"Roundup" refers to all formulations of Defendant Roundup
products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate
Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide,
Roundup D-Pak herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, and Roundup
Export Herbicide.

Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222 2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421 0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Johnson Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
LUDIE JOHNSON, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:18-cv-00673 (E.D. Mo., April 27, 2018), seeks to
recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate
result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff maintains that Roundup
(TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health,
unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and
lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers
associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those
striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the
country, were avoidable.

"Roundup" refers to all formulations of Defendant Roundup
products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate
Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide,
Roundup D-Pak herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, and Roundup
Export Herbicide.

Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222 2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421 0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Torres Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
GILBERT and BELINOLA TORRES, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00661-PLC (E.D. Mo., April 27,
2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing
the active ingredient glyphosate.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff maintains that Roundup
(TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health,
unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and
lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers
associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those
striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the
country, were avoidable.

"Roundup" refers to all formulations of Defendant Roundup
products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate
Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide,
Roundup D-Pak herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, and Roundup
Export Herbicide.

Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222 2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421 0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MUZZY'S DAY: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage and OT, Knight Says
----------------------------------------------------------
DONNA KNIGHT, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MUZZY'S DAY SQUARE FLORIST, INC. AND
JOSEPH MAZZARINO, JR., the Defendants, Case No. 18-01318D (Mass.
Sup. Ct., April 30, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage and
overtime pay under the Massachusetts Wage Act and Massachusetts
Minimum Fair Wage Law.

The Defendants allegedly violated these statutes by failing to
pay the Plaintiff for all hours worked, failing to pay the
Plaintiff for hours worked in excess of 40 per week at the rate
of one and one-half times her regular hourly rate and failing to
pay the Plaintiff for hours worked on Sunday in at the rate of
one and one-half times her regular hourly rate.

Muzzy's is a retail florist shop. The Plaintiff began working for
the Defendants in or around January 2014 as a floral designer.
The Plaintiffs last date of work for the Defendants was on or
about June 21, 2017. The Plaintiffs rate of pay was originally
$15 per hour, which was increased to $16 per hour in 2015, $per
hour in 2016 and $18 per hour in 2017. The Plaintiffs regular
work hours were from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. However, Plaintiff was
frequently required to work additional hours, beginning as early
as 6 a.m. and working at times until as late as 7:30 p.m. The
Plaintiff was also frequently required to work on Saturdays and
Sundays. During many weeks, Plaintiff worked in excess of 40
hours per week. During the weeks in which Plaintiff worked 40 or
more hours, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages at
one and one-half times her regular hourly rate. As a retail
store, Muzzy's was required to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked
on Sunday at one and one-half times her regular hourly rate.
However, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for hours worked on
Sunday at one and one-half times her regular hourly rate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard M. Brown, Esq.
          BOSTON EMPLOYMENT LAW PC
          1170 Beacon Street, Suite 200
          Brookline, MA 02446
          Telephone: (617) 566 8090
          Facsimile: (617) 566 8091
          E-mail: hmb@bostonemploymentlaw.com


MY FINANCIAL: Karon Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL KARON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MY FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS LLC, a
California limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-01000 (N.D. Ohio, May 1, 2018), seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of placing calls using "an artificial or
prerecorded voice" to the telephones of consumers nationwide
without prior express written consent; stop the Defendant from
calling consumers who are registered on the National Do Not Call
Registry; and obtain redress for all persons injured by its
conduct.

My Financial Solutions purports to provide assistance to student
loan borrowers in obtaining student loan forgiveness and student
loan consolidation.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Adam T. Savett, Esq.
          SAVETT LAW OFFICES LLC
          2764 Carole Lane
          Allentown PA 18104
          Telephone: (610) 621 4550
          Facsimile: (610) 978 2970
          E-mail: adam@savettlaw.com


NANO: "Brola" Suit Seeks to Recover Purchases, Investments in XRB
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEX BROLA, individually; and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. NANO f/k/a RAIBLOCKS f/k/a HIEUSYS, LLC, a Texas
company; COLIN LEMAHIEU, an individual; MICA BUSCH, an
individual; ZACH SHAPIRO, an individual; and TROY RETZER, an
individual, Case No. 1:18-cv-02049 (E.D.N.Y., April 6, 2018),
seeks compensatory and equitable relief rescinding their
purchases of/investments in XRB and/or restoring to them the
assets and funds they were wrongfully induced into investing.

The action is brought by Alex Brola who -- upon investment
solicitations and specific instructions and representations of
safety and security made by NANO representatives -- opened a
customer account at BitGrail, an Italian-based cryptocurrency
exchange, for the primary purpose of investing in and exchanging
a cryptocurrency called Nano (f/k/a RaiBlocks) [XRB], which was
developed and promoted (but never registered with any regulatory
authority) by the Defendants, who are based in the United States.

NANO is a Texas company with its principal place of business
located in Austin, Texas.  According to NANO's own published
promotional materials, NANO is a "low-latency payment platform"
that "utilizes a novel block-lattice architecture" on which "each
account has [its] own blockchain as part of a larger directed
acyclic graph."

Colin Lemahieu is a resident of Austin, Texas.  According to
NANO's own published promotional materials, Lemahieu co-founded
NANO in 2014 and serves as the company's Lead Developer,
"spearheading development of the core protocol."  Mica Busch is a
resident of Chicago, Illinois.  According to NANO, Busch is a key
member of NANO's core team, serving as a Control System developer
for NANO's web and Android systems.

Zach Shapiro is a resident of Brooklyn, New York.  According to
NANO, Shapiro is a key member of NANO's core team, as he "runs
Mobile, Wallets, and Product" for the company and serves as the
company's head iOS Developer.  Troy Retzer is a resident of
Hilton Head Island, South Carolina.  According to NANO', Retzer
is a key member of NANO's core team, as he manages and directs
the company's marketing and Community and Public Relations
efforts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Braunstein, Esq.
          THE BRAUNSTEIN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          3 Eberling Drive
          New City, NY 10956
          Telephone: (845) 642-5062
          E-mail: mbraunstein@braunsteinfirm.com

               - and -

          David C. Silver, Esq.
          Jason S. Miller, Esq.
          SILVER MILLER
          11780 W. Sample Road
          Coral Springs, FL 33065
          Telephone: (954) 516-6000
          E-mail: DSilver@SilverMillerLaw.com
                  JMiller@SilverMillerLaw.com


NARS COSMETICS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Olsen Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS J. OLSEN, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NARS COSMETICS, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03925 (S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2018), seeks
permanent injunction to cause NARS to change its corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will
become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.

The Plaintiff, who is legally blind, brings this civil rights
action against Defendant NARS Cosmetics, Inc. for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.narscosmetics.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff Olsen and other blind or
visually-impaired people. NARS denies full and equal access to
its Website.  Olsen, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, asserts claims under the Americans With
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the
New York City Human Rights Law against NARS.

NARS Cosmetics is a French cosmetics and skin care company
founded by make-up artist and photographer Francois Nars in 1994.
The cosmetics line began with twelve lipsticks sold at Barneys
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OAK LODGE: Settlement Reached in "Jenkins" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MADELINE JENKINS, individually and on
behalf of persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. OAK
LODGE, LLC, PARC 73, LLC and MICHAEL STEVENS, Case No. 3:17-cv-
01673-SDD-RLB (M.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:

   1. certifying a collective defined as for the purposes of
      settlement:

      "all hourly non-exempt employees of Oak Lodge, LLC, Parc
      73, LLC, or Michael Stevens within the three years prior to
      the date of filing of this Complaint";

   2. approving settlement calculations agreed upon by the
      Parties; and

   3. approving proposed Notice Form, and granting such other and
      further relief as is necessary to effectuate an efficient
      settlement in this action.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=O4Un12An

Counsel For Plaintiffs:

          Charles J. Stiegler, Esq.
          STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC
          318 Harrison Ave., Suite 104
          New Orleans, La. 70124
          Telephone: (504) 267 0777
          Facsimile: (504) 513 3084
          E-mail: Charles@StieglerLawFirm.com

               - and -

          Robert B. Landry III, Esq.
          ROBERT B. LANDRY III, PLC
          5420 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 204
          Baton Rouge, LA 70808
          Telephone: (225) 349 7460
          Facsimile: (225) 349 7466
          E-mail: rlandry@landryfirm.com

Counsel For Defendants:

          Ross Dooley, Esq.
          Luke Piontek, Esq.
          David C. Fleshman, Esq.
          David B. Phelps, Esq.
          Jessica Browne, Esq.
          ROEDEL PARSONS KOCH BLACHE
          BALHOFF & MCCOLLISTER, A.L.C.
          8440 Jefferson Highway, Suite 301
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 929 7033
          Facsimile: (225) 928 4925


OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Scott+Scott Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP ("Scott+Scott"), a national
securities and consumer rights litigation firm, is notifying
investors that class action lawsuits have been filed against
Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: OBLN) ("Obalon" or the
"Company") and other defendants, related to alleged violations of
federal securities laws. If you purchased Obalon securities
between October 5, 2016 and January 23, 2018, you are encouraged
to contact a Scott+Scott attorney at (844) 818-6980 for
additional information.

Obalon manufactures medical devices, including a medical gastric
balloon for weight loss therapy.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to
disclose: (1) that the Company recognized revenue in violation of
Generally Accepted Accounting principles; (2) that the Company
lacked adequate internal controls over accounting and financial
reporting; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's financial statements and defendants' statements about
Obalon's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On January 23, 2018, Obalon announced that "a purported
whistleblower contacted KPMG LLP, the Company's independent
auditors, to make certain allegations relating to allegedly
improper revenue recognition during the Company's fourth fiscal
quarter of 2017." The Company further stated that "Obalon's Audit
Committee will oversee an internal investigation of these
allegations."

On this news, Obalon's stock price fell $1.73 per share, or
33.3%, to close at $3.46 per share on January 23, 2018. The $3.46
closing price represented a total decline of nearly 77%, from the
Initial Public Offering price of $15.00 per share.

What You Can Do

If you purchased Obalon securities between October 5, 2016 and
January 23, 2018, dates inclusive, or if you have questions about
this notice or your legal rights, please contact attorney Rhiana
Swartz at (844) 818-6980, or at rswartz@scott-scott.com.
Investors have until April 16, 2018, to move for lead plaintiff.

         Rhiana Swartz,Esq.
         Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP
         Telephone: (844) 818-6980
         E-mail: rswartz@scott-scott.com [GN]


OMEGA PROJECT: Schubert Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------
STEVE SCHUBERT, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. OMEGA PROJECT SOLUTIONS, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01372 (S.D. Tex., April 30, 2018),
seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant required Plaintiff to
work more than 40 hours in a workweek as a quality assurance
consultant. The Defendant misclassified Plaintiff as an
independent contractor and failed to pay him any premium for
overtime hours worked. The Defendant's conduct violates the FLSA,
which requires non-exempt employees to be compensated for all
hours in excess of 40 in a workweek at one and one-half times
their regular rate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
          William M. Hogg, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
          Galvin B. Kennedy
          4409 Montrose Blvd
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523 0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523 1116
          E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com
                  whogg@kennedyhodges.com


PATTERSON COS: May 29 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors that they have until May 29, 2018 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit
against Patterson Companies, Inc. (NasdaqGS:PDCO), if they
purchased the Company's shares between June 26, 2015 and February
28, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").  This action is pending
in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota.

Get Help

Patterson investors should visit us at
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-patterson-companies-inc-
securities-litigation-1 or call to speak to our claim center
toll-free at (844) 367-9658.

About the Lawsuit

Patterson and certain of its executives are charged with failing
to disclose material information during the Class Period,
violating federal securities laws.

On February 12, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission disclosed that
it had filed a complaint against the Company for violating
antitrust regulations through a conspiracy with other dental
supply companies to fix the prices of dental products and refuse
to offer discounts or service to buying groups representing
dental practitioners. Then, on March 1, 2018, the Company
revealed dismal financial results for 2018Q3 and the departure of
its Chief Financial Officer.

On this news, the price of Patterson's shares plummeted $7.48 per
share, or 23% in one day.

                     About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions
of dollars from securities class action settlements.
ClaimsFiler's team of experts monitor the securities class action
landscape and cull information from a variety of sources to
ensure comprehensive coverage across a broad range of financial
instruments. [GN]


PERSONAL HOME: "Fayer" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
FIM FAYER and JELENA JURKOVA, the Plaintiffs, v. PERSONAL HOME
CARE, LLC; PERSONAL CARE, LLC; HOMECENTRIS HEALTHCARE, LLC; and
MATTHEW AUMAN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01276-RDB (D.
Md., May 1, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, the Maryland
Wage Payment and Collection Law.

The lawsuit arises out of the Defendants' willful and unlawful
conduct in failing to properly compensate Plaintiffs and the
Class for their earned wages. Members of the Class all share or
shared similar job titles, job skills and job responsibilities
and were subjected to the same terms and conditions of
employment, as well as the same systematic failure by Defendants
to properly compensate them for all wages earned.

Personal Home provides health care services. The Company offers
home, personal, and respite care, nurse monitoring, and care
coordination services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class:

          Judd G. Millman, Esq.
          Bruce M. Luchansky, Esq.
          Samuel C. Pinsky, Esq.
          LUCHANSKY LAW
          606 Bosley Avenue, Suite 3B
          Towson, Maryland 21204
          Telephone: (410) 522 1020
          Facsimile: (410) 522 1021
          E-mail: judd@luchanskylaw.com
                  lucky@luchanskylaw.com
                  sam@luchanskylaw.com


PETROFORCE ENERGY: Brooking, et al. Sue over Securities Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT E. BROOKING and ROSEMARY E. BROOKING, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
PETROFORCE ENERGY, LLC, WILLIAM D. VEASEY IV, and JAVIER
ALVARADO, the Defendants, v. ZEPHYR OILFIELD SERVICES LLC, and
TRUSTAR OPERATING COMPANY INC., Nominal Defendants, Case No. D-1-
GN-18-002050 (Tex. 201st Judicial Dist., Travis Cty., April 27,
2018), seeks to recover rescission, actual and exemplary damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs resulting from securities fraud
committed by the Defendants.

According to the complaint, beginning in December 2012, the
Defendants marketed oil and gas investments in the form of equity
interests in limited partnerships and a joint venture. The
Defendants offered and sold these investments -- which were
unregistered securities -- to Plaintiffs and other similarly-
situated investors and made material misstatements and omissions
to them in connection with those offers and sales.

Among other things, the Defendants failed to disclose that the
expenses on Defendants' wells were far higher than what was
disclosed to Plaintiffs and others in large part due to massive
amounts of paraffin wax in the oil wells, which was also known by
Defendants and not disclosed. The Defendants also neglected to
disclose that Defendant Alvarado, an unregistered broker,
received thousands in commissions from these illegal securities
sales, all while acting as an officer of Defendant Petroforce.
The Defendants also falsely informed Plaintiffs and others that
they would be able to deduct the entirety of their investment
from their taxes within a short period.  The Defendants also
offered to amend the securities purchased by their investors, so
that the investors would become general partners rather than
limited partners and failed to disclose any related risks in this
offering.

On July 24, 2017, the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission sued the Defendants in the Western District of Texas,
alleging that they committed securities fraud, sold unregistered
securities, and sold securities without registering as brokers.
All Defendants immediately settled with the SEC, each consenting
to an agreed judgment involving disgorgement, penalties, and
injunctive relief.

PetroForce Energy is a privately held oil and gas company with
headquarters located in Austin, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse Z. Weiss, Esq.
          Ryan T. Shelton, Esq.
          BROPHY EDMUNDSON
          SHELTON & WEISS PLLC
          210 Barton Springs Road. Suite 500
          Austin, TX 78704
          Telephone: (512) 596 3622
          Facsimile: (512) 532 6637
          E-mail: jesse@beswlaw.com
                  ryans@besw1aw.com


PHYSICIANS LABORATORIES: "Rivas" Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Melissa Rivas, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Physicians Laboratories, Inc., an Arizona corporation; MDX
Logistics, a Michigan corporation; Sebapharma GmbH & Co. KG,
a corporation organized under the laws of Germany; CVS Health
Corp., a Delaware corporation; Costco Wholesale Corporation, a
Washington corporation; Rite Aid Corporation, a Delaware
corporation; The Kroger Co., a Ohio corporation; iHerb, Inc., a
California corporation; Bed Bath & Beyond, a New York
corporation; Vitacost, a Delaware corporation; Alex Fazeli, an
individual; Monroe Fazeli, an individual; and Does 1 through 100,
the Defendants, Case No. 30-02018-00979214, was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of Orange, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Southern
Division - Santa Ana) on April 27, 2018. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 8:18-cv-00729 to the proceeding.

Physicians Laboratory provides reference laboratory testing and
consultant pathology services to hospitals, physician offices,
veterinarians, and industries in Nebraska and Iowa.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for Costco Wholesale Corporation:

          William A Delgado, Esq.
          WILLENKEN WILSON LOH AND DELGADO LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 3850
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 955 9240
          Facsimile: (213) 955 9250
          E-mail: wdelgado@willenken.com


PLAZA SERVICES: Reddick Sues over Debt Collections Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Tamika Reddick, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Plaza Services, LLC and
John Does 1-25, the Defendant(s)., Case No. 2:18-cv-00225-HCM-RJK
(E.D. Va., May 1, 2018), contends that some time prior to May 19,
2017, an obligation was allegedly incurred to First Virginia. The
First Virginia obligation arose out of subject transactions in
which money, property, insurance or services were used primarily
for personal, family or household purposes. Specifically
Plaintiff incurred a loan from First Virginia the funds of which
she used to purchase personal, family and household items. The
alleged First Virginia obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15
U.S.C. section 1692a(5). First Virginia is a "creditor" as
defined by 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692a(4). First Virginia or a
subsequent owner of the First Virginia debt contracted with the
Defendant to collect the alleged debt.

The Defendant collects and attempts to collect debts incurred or
alleged to have been incurred for personal, family or household
purposes on behalf of creditors using the United States Postal
Services, telephone and internet. On or about May 19, 2017,
Defendant sent the Plaintiff an initial contact notice regarding
the alleged debt owed to First Premier Bank.

When a debt collector solicits payment from a consumer, it must,
within five days of an initial communication (1) the amount of
the debt; (2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;
(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days
after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt,
or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by
the debt collector; (4) a statement that if the consumer notifies
the debt collector in writing within the thirty day period that
the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector
will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of the judgment
against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment
will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and (5) a
statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the
thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer
with the name and address of the original creditor, if different
from the current creditor. 15 U.S.C. section 1692g(a). This is
known as the "G-Notice." The "G-Notice" in the May 19, 2017
Letter does not meet the required guidelines of the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act because it fails to include that the
consumer must dispute the debt in writing to validly exercise her
options under the statute. The Defendant Plaza's Letter fails to
differentiate that the consumer's dispute and validation request
must be in writing and is misleading because without the proper
instruction the least sophisticated consumer would effectively
lose part of his/her right to dispute and request validation of
the debt within the 30-day period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aryeh E. Stein, Esq.
          MERIDIAN LAW, LLC
          600 Reisterstown Rd., Ste 700
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (443) 326 6011
          Facsimile: (410) 653 9061
          E-mail: astein@meridianlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          RC LAW GROUP, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282 6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282 6501
          E-mail: ysaks@rclawgroup.com


PLY GEM: Court Dismisses Stockholder Litigation Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Notice is hereby provided to all persons who held shares of Ply
Gem Holdings, Inc. common stock at any time during the period
from and including January 31, 2018 through April 3, 2018.

The purpose of this Notice is to inform you about developments
with respect to the putative class action lawsuit in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned In re Ply Gem
Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.
2018-0151-AGB (the "Action"), including the effects on Ply Gem
and its stockholders, the dismissal of the Action, and an
agreement to pay attorneys' fees (inclusive of expenses) to
counsel for Plaintiffs in the Action.

By way of background, Plaintiffs commenced the Action on behalf
of a putative class of Ply Gem stockholders to challenge the
disclosures made by Defendants in connection with a series of
transactions set forth in a January 31, 2018 merger agreement
between Ply Gem and Pisces Midco, Inc. ("Pisces"), an indirect
wholly owned subsidiary of funds sponsored by Clayton, Dubilier &
Rice, LLC ("CD&R"). Pursuant to this agreement, Pisces will
acquire all outstanding shares of Ply Gem for the right to
receive $21.64 per share in cash consideration (the "Merger" or
the "Transaction"). The Transaction was approved by written
consent without a stockholder vote.

On February 14, 2018, Ply Gem filed a Preliminary Information
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") on Form PREM14C that, among other things,
described the background of the Transaction, the fairness opinion
issued in connection with the Transaction, and certain financial
projections generated by Ply Gem's management.

Plaintiffs filed verified class action complaints in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware related to the Transaction
alleging that the Individual Defendants had breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material information
necessary for Ply Gem stockholders to determine whether to seek
appraisal of their shares (as defined above, the "Action").

On March 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction, a Motion for Expedited Proceedings, and a Brief in
Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Proceedings.

On March 23, 2018, Ply Gem filed a Definitive Information
Statement with the SEC on Form DEFM14C.

On April 3, 2018, Ply Gem filed supplemental disclosures to moot
Plaintiffs' claims in a Form 8-K (the "Amended Recommendation
Statement") (accessible on the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission's website at
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1284807/00012848071800001
5/a2018428k.htm).  This Form 8-K supplemented Ply Gem's
Definitive Information Statement to include certain additional
information (the "Supplemental Disclosures"), which mooted
Plaintiffs' disclosure claims in the Action.

Later that same day, on April 3, 2018, the parties in the Action
jointly submitted to the Court a Stipulated [Proposed] Order
Dismissing Action as Moot and Retaining Jurisdiction to Determine
Plaintiffs' Counsel's Application for an Award of Attorneys' Fees
& Reimbursement of Expenses (the "Stipulation").  The Court
granted the Stipulation the same day, and thereby dismissed the
Action with prejudice as to Plaintiffs, and without prejudice as
to any absent members of the putative class.  Pursuant to the
Order, the Court retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of
determining Plaintiffs' counsel's anticipated application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, including
any award based on Ply Gem issuing the Supplemental Disclosures
(such application, the "Fee and Expense Application").

Only after the Action was dismissed did the parties commence and
engage in discussions to resolve issues regarding Plaintiffs'
counsel's anticipated Fee and Expense Application.  After
negotiations, Defendants agreed to make an all-inclusive fee and
expense payment to Plaintiffs' counsel in the Action in the
amount of $199,000.00 to resolve the Fee and Expense Application.
This amount will be paid by Ply Gem within thirty (30) calendar
days of final dismissal and closure of the Action.  The Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware has not been asked to review,
and will pass no judgment on, this payment of fees and expenses
or its reasonableness. [GN]


QUALITY INTEGRATED: McElveen Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
CHAD McELVEEN, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. QUALITY INTEGRATED
SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00414-C (W.D.
Okla., April 27, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant allegedly required the Plaintiff to work more than
forty hours in a workweek without overtime compensation. The
Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and other similarly situated
workers throughout the United States as exempt from overtime
under the FLSA. The Defendant's conduct violates the FLSA, which
requires non-exempt employees to be compensated for all hours in
excess of forty in a workweek at one and one-half times their
regular rates of pay.

The Defendant operates in the construction and inspection
industry. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a utility
inspector from approximately January of 2012 to December of
2017.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amber L. Hurst, Esq.
          HAMMONS, GOWENS, HURST & ASSOCIATES
          325 Dean A. McGee Avenue
          Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102
          Telephone: (405) 235 6100
          Facsimile: (405) 235 6111
          E-mail: amberh@hammonslaw.com

               - and -

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


QUINSTREET INC: Reed Alleges Misleading Financial Statements
------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM REED, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. QUINSTREET, INC., DOUGLAS VALENTI,
and GREGORY WONG, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-02517-JSW
(N.D. Cal., April 27, 2018), seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly
traded securities of QuinStreet between February 10, 2016 and
April 10, 2018, both dates inclusive.

On February 9, 2016, after market hours, QuinStreet filed a form
10-Q for the second quarter of 2016 with the SEC which provided
the Company's financial results and position for the quarter
ending December 31, 2015. The 2Q16 10-Q was signed by Defendant
Wong. The 2Q16 10-Q contained signed certifications pursuant to
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 by Defendants Valenti and Wong
attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure
of any material changes to the Company's internal control over
financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud.

On August 19, 2016, QuinStreet filed its annual report on Form
10-K for the year ended June 30, 2016 with the SEC which provided
the Company's annual financial results and position. The 2016 10-
K was signed by Defendants Valenti and Wong. The 2016 10-K
contained signed SOX certifications by Defendants Valenti and
Wong attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the
disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal
control over financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud.

On September 8, 2017, QuinStreet filed its annual report on Form
10-K for the year ended June 30 with the SEC which provided the
Company's annual financial results and position. The 2017 10-K
was signed by Defendants Valenti and Wong. The 2017 10-K
contained signed SOX certifications by Defendants Valenti and
Wong attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the
disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal
control over financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud.

According to the complaint, the financial statements were
materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented
and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to
the Company's business, operational and financial results, which
were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) QuinStreet recklessly
disregarded the occurrence of click-through fraud; (2)
QuinStreet-owned websites experienced phony, low quality traffic
for its clients; (3) QuinStreet practices were not geared toward
providing its clients with valuable customers or high-quality
leads or clicks; and (4) as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

QuinStreet is a publicly traded marketing company based in Foster
City, California. QuinStreet uses performance-based advertising
with search engine marketing strategies to promote clients over
the Internet.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785 2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226 4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


QWEST CORPORATION: Seiffert Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN SEIFFERT, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. QWEST CORPORATION d/b/a CENTURYLINK
QC, and CENTURYLINK COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-00070-BMM (D. Mont., April 30, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is a former Engineer for CenturyLink. He performed
manual and clerical tasks for which CenturyLink paid him a
salary. CenturyLink classified the Plaintiff and other Engineers
as exempt "management" employees even though Plaintiff never
managed or supervised any employees.

CenturyLink is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the
symbol "CTL" and "is the second largest U.S. communications
provider to global enterprise customers with customers in more
than 60 countries(.)" CenturyLink provides managed network
services, which connects more than 350 metropolitan areas with
more than 450,000 route miles of fiber network globally.

During the Collective Period, CenturyLink failed to pay overtime
compensation to Plaintiff and each member of the Engineer FLSA
Collective Class. CenturyLink's failure to pay overtime
compensation to each member of this Collective Class violates
federal law. Until recently, CenturyLink's policy and practice
was to deny earned wages including overtime pay to its Engineers.
In particular, CenturyLink required these employees to perform
work in excess of 40 hours per week, but failed to pay them
overtime by illegally classifying all such employees as exempt
from the overtime requirements.

CenturyLink operated under a scheme to deprive these employees of
overtime compensation by failing to properly compensate them for
all hours worked. CenturyLink represented to its employees and
the public that its Engineers are "management" employees, when
CenturyLink knows these employees do not supervise other
employees. CenturyLink's deliberate illegal classification of its
Engineers as exempt from the overtime requirements resulted in
CenturyLink willfully violating the FLSA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip McGrady, Esq.
          MCGRADY LAW
          309 Wisconsin Ave.
          Whitefish, MT 59937
          Telephone: (406) 322 8647
          Facsimile: (406) 324 7313
          E-mail: Philip@mcgradylawfirm.com


RAINBOW SHOPS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Fischler Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN FISCHLER, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RAINBOW SHOPS INC. AND
A.I.J.J. ENTERPRISES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
02522-BMC (E.D.N.Y., April 29, 2018), seeks permanent injunction
to cause Defendants to change their corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that their Website will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff, who is legally blind, brings this civil rights
action against Defendants Rainbow Shops Inc. and A.I.J.J.
Enterprises, Inc. for their failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website, www.rainbowshops.com, to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff
Fischler and other blind or visually-impaired people.

Fischler, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, asserts claims under the Americans With Disabilities
Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human
Rights Law against Defendants.

Rainbow Shops, commonly referred to as just Rainbow is a
privately held, moderately priced American retail apparel chain
comprising several lifestyle brands primarily targeting teens and
young women.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RED PAYMENTS: Roller Sues over Phony Customer Accounts
------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN ROLLER, d/b/a Kalos Street, L.L.C., the Plaintiff, v. RED
PAYMENTS L.L.C. and FIRST DATA GLOBAL LEASING, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-01834-WD (E.D. Pa., May 1, 2018), alleges that
Red Payments and First Data routinely open additional credit or
debit card accounts without their customer's authorization or
knowledge. The lawsuit claims that Red Payments can create these
phony additional accounts because the victims are already their
customers. So when these customers do not use the new accounts
but still get charged fees on them, for example, a monthly
minimum fee, equipment leasing fees, and annual usage fees, all
on an account or accounts they did not know even existed, First
Data invoices the customer just as it does for their actual
account that is processing transactions on a monthly basis.
Because the same company send them the same bill for the
complicated payment processing services they understand they are
paying for, customers more often than not pay the fees and costs
of the additional, unauthorized accounts without realizing they
have been duped. Often, the Defendants simply "pay" the resulting
fees from the newly-created account(s) simply by taking money
from the clients' existing accounts.

First Data specializes in providing merchants, agents, bank
partners and ISOs with cost-effective solutions for leasing
quality.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class:

          Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          David J. Stanoch, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 985 9177
          Facsimile: (215) 985 4169
          E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com
                  kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com
                  dstanoch@golombhonik.com


RESTAURANT BRANDS: Failed to Honour Terms, Franchisee Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Burns and Ian Bickis of Canadian Press report that the
federal government is looking into concerns raised by a dissident
group of Tim Hortons franchisees about the potential violation of
terms Ottawa placed on a deal that saw Canada's most iconic
restaurant chain taken over by a Brazilian firm.

The government will examine allegations that Tim Hortons owner
Restaurant Brands International has failed to live up to promises
it made to the federal government under the Investment Canada Act
in 2014, said Economic Development Minister Navdeep Bains in an
interview on April 13.

"I've asked my officials to look into the matter, to address the
issues, to see what are the concerns being raised, the accuracy
and validity of those issues, and to make sure we do our proper
due diligence," said Bains.

Under the Investment Canada Act, there are a variety of tools
available to make sure conditions are met, he said, ranging from
going to court to imposing penalties, but it's premature to
speculate on any outcome.

He said he was concerned about the issues raised in a letter sent
to him by lawyers representing the Great White North Franchise
Association, which represents about half of Canadian Tims
franchisees.

"Tim Hortons is a household name, Tim Hortons franchisees exist
throughout Canada. These are many businesses that are owned and
operated by families, so of course we're concerned, we understand
that this is an important issue. But at the same time we want to
make sure that we do our due diligence and look at all the
facts," said Bains.

In the letter, the lawyers cite numerous commitments that
Brazilian firm 3G Capital, which owns RBI, made to the federal
government when it acquired Tim Hortons in 2014, including
maintaining franchisee relationships, the rent and royalty
structure for five years and keeping existing employment levels
at Tims franchises across Canada.

They say the company has failed to live up to those commitments,
and that "appropriate remedies" should be made to franchisees.

"The franchisees are increasingly concerned with RBI's self-
serving attempts to significantly increase its margins at the
expense of the franchisees," the letter stated.

The franchisees specifically say that the company has effectively
changed the rent and royalty structure by saddling them with
increasing costs and requiring them to renovate stores at their
own costs.

RBI announced in March that the coffee-and-doughnut chain and its
restaurant owners will invest $700 million to spruce up almost
all of its Canadian locations over the next four years, but the
franchisee group was quick to point out it believed the plan was
ill-conceived and would cost individual restaurant owners about
$450,000 each.

In response to word that the federal government is looking into
the franchisees' claims, a spokesman for Tim Hortons said the
company hadn't been notified of any official inquiries.

"What I can tell you, is that every year we have reported to the
government on meeting our undertakings, without complaint," said
spokesman Patrick McGrade.

"We have always been and remain committed to doing good business
in Canada."

The federal government approved the takeover of Tim Hortons Inc.
by Burger King Worldwide Inc. in December 2014. Then-industry
minister James Moore signed off on the deal, but included several
caveats, following a review of the agreement under the Investment
Canada Act.

The dispute over the so-called "covenants" is the latest move in
an ongoing dispute between Tim Hortons franchisees and the parent
company, which they claim has been cutting costs and squeezing
restaurant owners' profits, most recently by refusing to raise
prices to help them cope with Ontario's minimum wage hike.

The franchisees' association vowed to "do everything in our
power" to assist an outspoken member whose restaurant licence
renewal is being denied amid his ongoing tensions with the fast
food giant.

The board said Mark Kuziora, who is involved in a class action
against RBI, was told by RBI in early April that he would be
denied a renewal for one of the two Toronto Tim Hortons
franchises he owns.

The class-action lawsuit lodged on behalf of Kuziora is over the
company's alleged improper use of a national advertising
fund.[GN]


ROUND ROCK: Stone Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY STONE, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, v. ROUND ROCK RESTAURANT GROUP,
LLC and MATTHEW O'DONNELL, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-
01319-ESW (D. Ariz., April 28, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime hours owed to Plaintiff and similarly
situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at its Papa
John's stores, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arizonia Employment Practices and Working Conditions law.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Matthew Haynie, Esq.
          Jay Forester, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          1701 N. Market St., No. 210
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 210 2100
          E-mail: matthew@foresterhaynie.com
                  jay@foresterhaynie.com


RSP PERMIAN: "Murphy" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RSP PERMIAN, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-00079 (W.D. Tex., May 1, 2018), seeks
to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, even though Murphy and the FLSA Class
regularly worked more than 12 hours per day for weeks on end, RSP
did not pay Murphy and the FLSA Class any overtime compensation.
RSP's policy of classifying its workers as independent
contractors and failing to pay them overtime, including Murphy,
violates the FLSA because these workers are, for all purposes,
day rate employees performing non-exempt job duties. It is
undisputed that Murphy and the FLSA Class are maintaining and
working with oilfield machinery, performing manual labor, and
working long hours out in the field. Because Murphy and the FLSA
Class were misclassified as independent contractors by RSP, they
should receive overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a week.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713 352 1100
          Facsimile: 713 352 3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877 8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877 8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


RUSSO BROTHERS: Guzman Seeks Payment of Overtime & Earned Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO D. GUZMAN, and other similarly situated current and former
contractors and manual workers, the Plaintiff, v. RUSSO BROTHERS
CONTRACTING INC. and THOMAS RUSSO, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-
cv-02519 (E.D.N.Y., April 28, 2018), seeks injunctive and
declaratory relief against Defendants for their unlawful actions,
compensation for their failure to pay overtime wages and earned
wages, and liquidated damages, compensatory damages, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the collective
class work or have worked at the Russo Brothers Contracting Inc.
controlled, managed and operated by Thoms Russo. As part of its
regular business practice, the Defendants have intentionally,
willfully and repeatedly harmed Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective
by engaging in a pattern and/or policy of violating the FLSA.
This policy and/or policy includes, inter alia, the following:
(a) Failing to pay employees the applicable overtime rate for all
time worked in excess of 40 hours per week; (b) Failing to keep
accurate records of hours worked by employees as required by the
FLSA and NYLL. The Defendants have engaged in their unlawful
conduct pursuant to a corporate policy of minimizing labor costs
and denying employees compensation. Defendants' unlawful conduct
has been intentional, willful and in bad faith, and has caused
significant damage to Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SELECT PORTFOLIO: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Bivens" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Steven Bivens filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Steven Bivens v. Select Portfolio Servicing,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-04325-ELR, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. is a loan servicing company with
operations in Salt Lake City, Utah and Jacksonville, Florida.

The appellate case is captioned as Steven Bivens v. Select
Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Case No. 18-11215, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on or before
April 23, 2018, as to Appellee Select Portfolio Servicing,
Inc.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant STEVEN BIVENS, on behalf of himself and all
persons similarly situated, is represented by:

          Wayne Charles, Esq.
          WAYNE CHARLES, PC
          395 Highgrove Drive
          Fayetteville, GA 30215
          Telephone: (770) 241-8936
          E-mail: wc115@bellsouth.net

Defendant-Appellee SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., is
represented by:

          Elizabeth Joy Campbell, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD, LLP
          777 S Flagler Dr., Suite 215a
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 833-7700
          E-mail: ecampbell@lockelord.com

               - and -

          Alexandra Marie Dishun, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD, LLP
          3333 Piedmont Rd. NE, Suite 1200
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 870-4679
          E-mail: adishun@lockelord.com


SOLID BIOSCIENCES: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm disclosed that a class action complaint has
been filed on behalf of shareholders of Solid Biosciences Inc.
(NASDAQ:SLDB) who purchased shares pursuant to the January 25,
2018 initial public offering and/or between January 25, 2018 and
March 14, 2018. The action, which was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleges that
the Company violated federal securities laws.

According to the complaint, throughout the class period
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Solid Bioscience's lead drug
candidate, SGT-001, had a high likelihood of causing adverse
events in patients; (2) the company misled investors regarding
the toxicity of SGT-001; and (3) consequently, defendants'
statements in the Registration Statement regarding Solid
Biosciences' business, operations, and prospects were materially
false and/or misleading.

Shareholders have until May 29, 2018 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery does
not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. You may choose to
be an absent class member.

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


T-MOBILE US: Pritchett Sues over Unsolicited Text Ads
-----------------------------------------------------
CURRON PRITCHETT, on behalf of himself and other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. T-MOBILE US, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2018-CH-05545 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.,
April 30, 2018), seeks to recover damages, and all costs and
attorneys' fees together with legal interest.

According to the complaint, within the last year, the Plaintiff,
received numerous text message advertisements to his cellular
telephone from Defendant. These text message advertisements were
solicitations encouraging the Plaintiff to purchase goods and
services from Defendant. For example, one such text message
encouraged Plaintiff to "get a Samsung tablet free after 24 mo.
finance agreement. Just sign up for a new qualifying T-Mobile
plan." The Plaintiff received multiple other similar text message
advertisement calls from Defendant. The Defendant never discloses
how to opt-out of the text advertisement campaign.

At the time he received the text messages, Plaintiff was not a
customer nor a cellular subscriber of Defendant. Plaintiff has
never been a customer or a cellular subscriber of Defendant. The
Plaintiff had not expressly consented in writing prior to
receiving any solicitations from Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          3151 W. 261h Street, Second Floor
          Chicago, IL 60623
          Telephone: (773) 831 8000
          Facsimile: (504) 272 2956
          E-mail: whb@beaumontcostales.com


TALLGRASS ENERGY: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Notice is hereby given that Monteverde & Associates PC has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:18-cv-00545, on behalf of
public common unitholders of Tallgrass Energy Partners, LP ("TEP"
or the "Company") (NYSE: TEP) who held TEP public common units
and have been harmed by TEP and its board of directors (the
"Board") for alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in
connection with the acquisition of the Company by Tallgrass
Energy GP, LP ("TEGP").

Under the terms of the merger agreement (the "Merger Agreement"),
each issued and outstanding TEP common unit, except for any TEP
Common Units owned by Tallgrass Equity, LLC, will be converted
into the right to receive 2.0 TEGP Class A Shares.  The complaint
alleges that this offer is inadequate and that the Form S-4
Registration Statement (the "Registration Statement") provides
materially incomplete and misleading information about the
Company's financials and the transaction, in violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  Specifically, the
Registration Statement contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning: (i) financial projections for
TEP; (ii) the valuation analyses conducted by the Company's
financial advisor, Evercore Group L.L.C. ("Evercore"); (iii) the
background process leading up to the signing of the Merger
Agreement; and (iv) the potential conflicts of interest Evercore
faced as a result of its historical dealings with TEP and TEGP.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from today.  Any member of the putative
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain
an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this action, or
have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact:

Click here for more information:
www.monteverdelaw.com/investigations/m-a/  It is free and there
is no cost or obligation to you.

         Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
         MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
         The Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Ave, Suite 4405
         New York, NY 10118
         United States of America
         Telephone:: (212) 971-1341
         E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN]


TERRA'S KITCHEN: Lopez Sues over Auto-Renewal of Services
---------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. TERRA'S KITCHEN, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; and DOES 1 - 10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00842-MMA-JLB (S.D. Cal., May 1,
2018), seeks to recover damages, restitution, declaratory relief,
injunctive relief and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the California Business and Professions Code.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, the
Defendant made automatic renewal or continuous service offers to
consumers in California and (a) at the time of making the
automatic renewal or continuous service offers, failed to present
the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer
terms, in a clear and conspicuous manner and in visual proximity
to the request for consent to the offer before the subscription
or purchasing agreement was fulfilled; (b) charged Plaintiff's
and Class Members' credit or debit cards, or third-party account
without first obtaining Plaintiff's and Class Members'
affirmative consent to the agreement containing the automatic
renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms; and (c)
failed to provide an acknowledgment that includes the automatic
renewal or continuous service offer terms, cancellation policy,
and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is
capable of being retained by the consumer merchandise, or
products sent to Plaintiff and Class Members under the automatic
renewal of continuous service agreements are deemed to be an
unconditional gift pursuant.

Terra's Kitchen, LLC provides meal delivery services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
          4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706 6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706 6469
          E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com


TOOTSIE ROLL: Lawsuit Asks Junior Mints to Fill Box
---------------------------------------------------
Reg Wydeven, writing for Post Crescent, reports that when we were
kids, my buddy Pearl and I loved to go to the movies. Back then,
we could buy our ticket, some candy and a soda for $5. I would
usually buy Milk Duds, but Pearl favored Junior Mints. Because we
were huge Milwaukee Bucks fans, Pearl would bring a pen to the
theater and write "Bridge" on the box so it read Junior Bridge
Mints, a play on the name of the Bucks' all-time leader in games
played, Junior Bridgeman.

We would usually tear into our candy and have it gone before the
coming attractions were over. I thought we were gluttonous, but
according to a recent lawsuit, it may not have been our fault.

Paige Stemm filed a consumer fraud lawsuit against Tootsie Roll
Industries, the maker of Junior Mints, claiming the company uses
deceptive packaging. The suit alleges that there is as much air
in the box as there is candy. According to Stemm's attorney,
Christopher Moon, "They have created this oversized theater box
and it misleads consumers because consumers believe they're
getting more candy when they purchase a box of Junior Mints than
they're actually getting." He believes, "The size of the actual
packaging is itself a misrepresentation."

Stemm filed the suit in federal court in Chicago and seeks class
action status. She considered suing after she bought a box of
Junior Mints at a Walgreen's for about $1. Hers is the most
recent example of a string of lawsuits against food manufacturers
for allegedly deceptive and unnecessary empty space in packaging.
Known as "slack fill," the FDA defines it as "the difference
between the actual capacity of a container and the volume of
product contained therein."

Most of the time, slack fill is necessary to provide an air
cushion for the food inside, such as preventing potato chips from
turning into crumbs. Moon asserts, however, "In a situation like
Junior Mints, that empty space actually can increase the chances
that the candies will be damaged because they move around quite a
bit inside the hard cardboard box."

Last year, Biola Daniel filed a class action lawsuit in federal
court in Manhattan against Tootsie Roll echoing the same
complaints about the slack fill in Junior Mints boxes. Moon's law
firm filed a similar lawsuit against Ferrara Candy, which makes
Lemonheads, Jujyfruits, Chuckles and other candies that allegedly
have too much empty space in their packaging. According to the
American Bar Association, the number of federal class-action
lawsuits related to slack fill in food packaging increased from
20 in 2008 to more than 110 in 2015.

Moon said that Stemm is seeking undisclosed damages and an order
that Tootsie Roll repackage its Junior Mints so that "they either
fill the box more or reduce the size of the packaging to reduce
the unlawful slack fill."

Junior Mints were introduced in 1949, but were bought by Tootsie
Roll in 1993. Coincidentally, that's the same year of the
"Seinfeld" episode "The Junior Mint," where Kramer accidentally
drops one of the mints from a hospital observation gallery into
the chest cavity of a patient on the operating table. "Who's
going to turn down a Junior Mint?" Kramer asks, arguing, "it's
chocolate, it's peppermint, it's delicious!"

If Stemm gets her way, boxes of Junior Mints will have more
chocolate and peppermint and less empty cavity.[GN]


TOUCHPOINT 360: Arugu Seeks to Certify Class of Unpaid Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DONNA ARUGU, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. TOUCHPOINT 360,
LLC and E.A. LANGENFELD ASSOCIATES, LTD., the Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-00343-LY (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
certify a class of:

   "individuals who were paid a day rate with no overtime
   compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek,
   direct prompt disclosure of contact information of potential
   class members by Defendants, and authorize Plaintiff's counsel
   to notify them of this lawsuit."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=O4Un12An

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq.
          Daniel A. Verrett, Esq.
          MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          700 West Summit Drive
          Wimberley, Texas 78676
          Telephone: (512) 782 0567
          Facsimile: (512) 782 0605
          E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com
                  daniel@morelandlaw.com


TRUECAR INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of TrueCar, Inc. ("TrueCar") (NASDAQ:TRUE) between
February 16, 2017 and November 6, 2017. You are hereby notified
that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. To get more information go to:

http://www.zlk.com/pslra-d/truecar-inc?wire=3

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-
free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) that the United Services Automobile
Association ("USAA") had been planning significant changes to its
website that would have a material adverse effect on the volume
of purchases generated by USAA; (2) that USAA made significant
changes to its website that would have a material adverse effect
on the volume of purchases generated by USAA; (3) that the
changes to USAA's website maintained by TrueCar caused a material
adverse effect on the volume of purchases generated by USAA; and
(4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements
about TrueCar's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

If you suffered a loss in TrueCar you have until June 1, 2018 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve
as a lead plaintiff. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Fridman Files 1st Suit over Spam Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL FRIDMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a
Delaware corporation, and RASIER, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-21688-DPG
(S.D. Fla., April 27, 2018), seeks injunction requiring Uber to
cease sending unsolicited text messages to former drivers and
other consumers, as well as an award of actual and/or statutory
damages and costs.

This case challenges Defendant Uber's practice of sending
unsolicited text messages to former Uber drivers that, prior to
sending them texts, Uber has deactivated and terminated its
agreements and relationships with, and to other consumers that
have never been Uber drivers. Uber's unsolicited texts violate
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and caused Plaintiff and
putative members of the Class to suffer actual harm, including
the aggravation, nuisance, loss of time, and invasions of privacy
that result from the receipt of such text messages, lost value of
cellular services paid for, and a loss of the use and enjoyment
of their phones, including wear and tear to their phones' data,
memory, software, hardware, and battery components, among other
harms.

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

Counsel for Plaintiff Michael Fridman and all others similarly
situated:

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (305) 469 5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Fridman Files 2nd Suit over Spam Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANNY GESEL REZNIK FRIDMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., a Delaware corporation, and RASIER, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
21689-RNS (S.D. Fla., April 27, 2018), seeks injunction requiring
Uber to cease sending unsolicited text messages to former drivers
and other consumers, as well as an award of actual and/or
statutory damages and costs.

This case challenges Defendant Uber's practice of sending
unsolicited text messages to former Uber drivers that, prior to
sending them texts, Uber has deactivated and terminated its
agreements and relationships with, and to other consumers that
have never been Uber drivers. Uber's unsolicited texts violate
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and caused Plaintiff and
putative members of the Class to suffer actual harm, including
the aggravation, nuisance, loss of time, and invasions of privacy
that result from the receipt of such text messages, lost value of
cellular services paid for, and a loss of the use and enjoyment
of their phones, including wear and tear to their phones' data,
memory, software, hardware, and battery components, among other
harms.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (305) 469 5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


UNITED OF OMAHA: "Bentley" Suit Granted Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BENTLEY, the Plaintiff, v. UNITED OF OMAHA
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-07870-
DMG-AJW (C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order granting class
certification, in part, and denying, in part, as to certain
individuals excluded from the class.

The following class is certified for the purpose of pursuing
Count I of the complaint against Defendant for breach of
contract:

   "all beneficiaries who made a claim, or would have been
   eligible to make a claim, for the payment of benefits on life
   insurance policies renewed, issued, or delivered by United of
   Omaha Life Insurance Company in 2013 in the State of
   California that lapsed or were terminated by Omaha for the
   non-payment of premium after January 1, 2013 (and which were
   not affirmatively cancelled by the policyholder), and as to
   which policies one or more of the third-party notices
   described by Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72 of the California
   Insurance Code were not sent by Omaha prior to lapse or
   termination."

The Court also appointed Plaintiff as class representative and
Joseph M. Vanek of the law firm of Vanek Vickers & Masini, P.C.
and Jason Zweig of the law firm of Hagens Berman Sobol & Shapiro
LLP as class counsel pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 23(g).
Within 30 days of this Order, class counsel shall provide the
Court with a proposed form of class notice.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xPapgQ6q


WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Placeholder Class Certification Bid Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled AUDREY MACHNIK, as successor in interest to
MICHAEL MACHNIK, the Plaintiff, v. WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00678-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying proposed
classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiffs as class
representatives, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further requests that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

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. Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-
3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017).
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).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nJ5SJhxb

          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


WALGREENS.COM: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Haynes Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS HAYNES, Individually, the Plaintiffs, v. WALGREENS.COM,
INC. A Foreign Profit Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
0:18-cv-60987-KMM (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2018), seeks injunctive
relief, and attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is a Florida resident, lives in Broward County, is
sui juris, and qualifies as an individual with disabilities as
defined by the ADA. The Plaintiff is blind and therefore unable
to fully engage in and enjoy the major life activity of seeing.
The Plaintiff also utilizes the internet. The Plaintiff is unable
to read computer materials and/or access and comprehend internet
website information without software specially designed for the
visually impaired. Specifically, the Plaintiff utilizes the JAWS
Screen Reader software, which is one of the most popular reader
Screen Reader Software ("SRS") utilized worldwide.

The Plaintiff is also an advocate of the rights of similarly
situated disabled persons and is a "tester" for the purpose of
asserting his civil rights and monitoring, ensuring, and
determining whether places of public accommodation and/or their
websites are in compliance with the ADA. The Defendant owns,
leases, leases to, or operates a place of public accommodation as
defined by the ADA and the regulations implementing the ADA, 28
CFR 36.201(a) and 36.104. The place of public accommodation that
the Defendant owns, operates, leases or leases is a chain of
stores located throughout the nation, State of Florida, and
Broward County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn L.M. Hairston, Esq.
          Thomas B. Bacon, Esq.
          THOMAS B. BACON, P.A.
          2525 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 300
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 200 8784
          E-mail: Shawn@Hairstonlaw.com
                  tbb@thomasbaconlaw.com


WIRELESSPCS CHICAGO: "Hunter" Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Datisha Hunter, et al., the Plaintiff, v.
WirelessPCS Chicago LLC, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00980 (N.D. Ill.), remains pending.

The Hon. Judge Ronald A. Guzman entered an order resetting the
time for initial status hearing and hearing on Plaintiffs' motion
for conditional certification to May 2, 2018 at 9:00 a.m.,
according to the docket entry made by the Clerk on May 1, 2018.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3g0peuXz


XSPORT FITNESS: Motion to Certify Class Continued, Court Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Lundon Gooden, the Plaintiff, v. XSport
Fitness Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02200 (N.D. Ill.),
the Hon. Judge Manish S. Shah entered an order continuing the
motion to certify class.

According to the docket entry was made by the Clerk on May 1,
2018, Plaintiff's motion to file amended complaint is granted.
The Defendants shall respond to amended complaint by July 5,
2018. Motion to certify class and motion for case management
order are entered and continued. Defendants' Motion to stay shall
be filed by May 11, 2018 and noticed for presentment before the
Court. Defendants shall file a response to the motion for case
management order by May 11, 2018.

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




                            *********


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  * * *