CAR_Public/180510.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Thursday, May 10, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 94



                            Headlines


A CAB TAXI: Injunction Order in "Murray" Wage Suit Reversed
5 STAR ROOFING: Faces "Willis" Suit in N.D. Alabama
ABBOTT LABS: Leawood Attorney Files Acid Reflux Medication Suit
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Cty Employees' Fund Sues Over Share Price Drop
AMERICAN HONDA: Must Face Acura HandsFreeLink Class Action

AMSHER COLLECTION: Faces "Bergin" Suit in E.D. New York
ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Cash" Suit in N.D. Illinois
AT&T MOBILITY: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Roberts" Suit
AUDI AG: Ontario Judge Points Out Problems with Carriage Motions
BANK OF NEW YORK: Must Defend Against "Butterline" Class Claims

BARKERVILLE GOLD: Osgoode Receives $80K Settlement Cy-pres Award
BNSF RAILWAY: Wins Bid for Judgment; "Sumlin" Suit Claims Tossed
CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces V8 Splash False Advertising Class Action
CANADA: Suit Over Freedom-of-Information Web Breach Mulled
CANADA: Parents of Children with Autism File Discrimination Suit

CATHOLIC CHURCH: Faces Class Action Over St. Patrick Child Abuse
CENTRAL CREDIT: Certification of Class Sought in "Machnik" Suit
CENTRAL LOAN: Jones Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
CENTRUS ENERGY: Newman's Class Certified for Settlement Purposes
CHEROKEE COUNTY, GA: Class Action v. DSS Moves to Federal Court

CHICAGO BRIDGE: Judd Sues Over McDermott Merger Deal
CIGNA CORP: Faces ERISA Class Action in Pennsylvania
CIGNA CORP: Misrepresents ASH Charges, Class Action Alleges
COCONINO COUNTY, AZ: Inmate Sues Over Jail's Immigration Policy
CONSOLIDATED NUCLEAR: Hatmaker Seeks to Certify 2 Retiree Classes

CORECIVIC: Sued for Violating Anti-Human Trafficking Law
DE VILLE ASSSET: Faces "Stephens" Suit in E.D. New York
DOUBLEDOWN INTERACT: Faces Class Action in Washington
DUPONT: GenX Class Action Plaintiffs Respond to Motion Dismiss
DURHAM SCHOOL: School Bus Drivers File Wage Theft Claims

DURHAM SCHOOL: Romo's Bid for Prelim. Nod of Settlement Denied
EASY SPIRIT: Faces "Olsen" Suit in E.D. New York
ENTRUST GROUP: 3rd Amended Complaint in "White" Suit Underway
ESTATE INFORMATION: Faces "Azimov" Suit in S.D. New York
F&M TRUST: Finalizes $10MM Class Action Settlement Agreement

FACEBOOK INC: Class Action Over Face-Tagging in Photos Okayed
FEDERAL RECOVERY: Faces "Cinelli" Suit in E.D. New York
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Certification of Class Sought in "Kaur" Suit
FINISAR CORP: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
FLINT, MI: Lead-Tainted Water Class Action Can Proceed

FLINT, MI: SCOTUS Won't Review Water Crisis Suit Remand Ruling
FLORIDA: Orlando City Council Joins Gun Control Class-Action
FMA ALLIANCE: Certification of Class Sought in "Defalico" Suit
FRANKLIN COLLECTION: Gochet Moves for Certification of Class
GEC RESTAURANT: "Keyes" Labor Suit Seeks Minimum Wages

GEMFIELDS: Mozambican Miners File Human Rights Class Action
GETSWIFT: One Shareholder Class Action Likely to Proceed
GIMAC DIVISION: Cardona Moves for Conditional Class Certification
GIRARD, OH: Faces Class Action Over I-80 Speed Camera Tickets
GRASSY SPRAIN: Faces "Castro" Suit in E.D. New York

GREENCORE: U.S. Subsidiary Faces Wage Class Action
GROUPON INC: Dancel Moves to Certify Class & Subclass
HEINZ: Retirees Mull Class Action Over Health Benefit Cuts
HOME DEPOT USA: Faces "Stumbrice" Suit in S.D. New York
HORING WELIKSON: Faces "Razilova" Suit in E.D. New York

IDERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Raatz Files Suit Over Holdco Merger Deal
INDEPENDENT TRUCKERS: Northrup Moves to Certify Class Under TCPA
JAMAICA: CRH Junior Doctors Plan to Pursue Class Action
JARDINE LLOYD: May Face Class Action Over Brokerage Advice
JARDINE LLOYD: Law Firm Calls on Local Councils to Join Suit

JFK MEDICAL: Mendez Must Amend Bid to Certify Class on May 21
JOHN DOES: "Musso" Alleges Volatility Index Derivative Rigging
JPMORGAN CHASE: "Khosroabadi" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Interest
KEURIG GREEN: July 12 Final Approval Hearing on "Sanchez" Deal
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Settles Workers' Wage Class Action

LAS VEGAS, NV: June 5 Deadline to Amend "Moore" Complaint
LE ARLINGTON: 4th Bid to Dismiss "Ecoquij-Tzep" FLSA Suit Denied
LG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Action Phone Boot Loop Problem
LONGFIN CORP: June 4 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
LUMENTUM HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims

MCDONALD'S CORP: "Killeen" Suit Over Value Meal Prices Dismissed
MDL 2804: River Forest Joins Opioid Crisis Class Action
MERCK & CO: Filing of Amended Suit in Mumps Vaccine Case Barred
MERITER HEALTH: Morgan Lewis Didn't Admit to Mishandling Conflict
MYEXPERIAN INC: Vinsant Seeks to Certify Supervisors/CSRs Class

NESTLE: Faces SweeTARTs Candies False Advertising Class Action
NEW LONDON HOUSING: Judge Reardon Reopens Thames River Case
NEW YORK: Linden Plaza Tenants File Class Action
NISSAN NORTH: Townsend Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling
NORTHLAND GROUP: Wins Final OK of "Santiago" Suit Settlement

OWL INC: Perez Renews Bid to Issue Notice to Supervisors, Drivers
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: June 12 Deadline to Amend "Sgarlata" Suit
PLATINUM CORRAL: Wins Approval of Settlement in "Johnson" Suit
RACK ROOM: Wins Prelim. OK of $26,866 Settlement in "Stebbins"
RICHARDSON, TX: Bowman to Take Red Light Camera Suit to Sup. Ct.

NTT DATA: Faces "Watkins" Suit in E.D. Virginia
PERSOLVE LEGAL: Faces "Johnson" Suit in E.D. New York
PURDUE PHARMA: Faces "Klodzinski" Suit in S.D. New York
RED ROSE NAIL: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Ruling in "Fu" FLSA Suit
RODAN + FIELDS: Faces Class Action Over Lash Boost Product

ROSICKI ROSICKI: "Reizes" Suit Disputes Debt Collection
SELECT COMFORT: TCCWNA Class Action Returns to 3d Cir.
SIMM ASSOCIATES: Gustafson Nicolaic Files FDCPA Class Action
SONAM'S STONEWALLS: Bids to Dismiss "Gonpo" Suit Granted in Part
SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Class Action Over Quake Insurance Pending

SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Out-of-Court Class Action Settlement Likely
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Discovery Bid in "Kimble" Suit Okayed
STEARN'S PRODUCTS: Meyers Sues Over Product Mislabeling
TTC INVESTMENTS: Faces "Truglio" Suit in D. Connecticut
TESLA MOTORS: Securities Suit Over Model 3 Production Pending

TIGER BRANDS: Listeriosis Death Toll Rises to 193, NICD Reveals
TOWNE PROPERTIES: Court Certifies Class in "Duggan" ERISA Suit
TRIPLE J: $177,000 Counsel Fee Okayed in "Mateo-Evangelio" Suit
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Must Defend Against Medical Society Claims
UNITED OF OMAHA: Awaits Order on Bentley's Bid to Certify Class

UNITED STATES: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "D'Apuzzo" Suit
UTI WORLDWIDE: Court Grants Angley's Bid for Class Certification
VENICE HMA: Briggs Moves to Certify Class of Nurse Case Managers
VITAL RECOVERY: Certification of Class Sought in "Johnson" Suit
WISE FOODS: Faces Chip Bags "Slack Fill" Class Action

YANG FAMILY: "Liu" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Late Wages
ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: Judge Has Yet to Rule on Motion to Dismiss

* Marshall University, WVU to Launch Consumer Assistance Project
* Three Legal Aid Groups Get Class Action Settlement Donations





                            *********


A CAB TAXI: Injunction Order in "Murray" Wage Suit Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, A CAB TAXI SERVICE, LLC; A CAB, LLC; AND CREIGHTON J
NADY, Appellants, v. MICHAEL MURRAY; AND MICHAEL RENO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Respondents, Case No. 72691 (Nev.), Judge Michael L. Douglas of
the Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the district court's order
granting Murray's motion for preliminary injunction.

The class action involves claims under the Minimum Wage Amendment
of the Nevada Constitution.  In the order certifying the class,
the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, excluded
another individual, Jaminska Dubric, from participating in the
class.

Dubric later filed a separate action against Appellants A Cab
Taxi Service, LLC, A Cab, LLC, and Creighton J. Nady ("ACTS"),
alleging that ACTS was not paying employees the constitutionally
mandated minimum wage.  In the Dubric action, ACTS and Dubric
were in settlement negotiations and jointly moved the district
court to be certified as a class.

While the motion to certify was pending, Murray filed a motion to
enjoin ACTS from entering into a settlement agreement with
Dubric.  Judge Kenneth C. Cory of the district court granted the
injunction, precluding ACTS from entering a settlement with
Dubric and requiring ACTS to withdraw the motion to certify.

ACTS took an appeal from the injunction order.

Judge Douglas explains that NRCP 65(d) requires the district
court's order granting preliminary injunction to set forth the
reasons for its issuance; be specific in terms; and describe in
reasonable detail, and not by reference to the complaint or other
document, the act or acts sought to be restrained.  However, the
lack of a statement of reasons does not necessarily invalidate a
permanent injunction, so long as the reasons for the injunction
are readily apparent elsewhere in the record and are sufficiently
clear to permit meaningful appellate review.

The Judge finds that the district court's order enjoining ACTS in
the Dubric action fails to satisfy the minimum requirements to
support injunctive relief under NRCP 65(d).  Moreover, his review
of the record demonstrates that the reasons for the injunction
are not readily apparent or sufficiently clear.  Thus, he
concludes that the district court's grant of a preliminary
injunction was an abuse of discretion.  Accordingly, he reversed
the district court's order granting the preliminary injunction.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 6, 2018 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2JETRoi from Leagle.com.


5 STAR ROOFING: Faces "Willis" Suit in N.D. Alabama
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 5 Star Roofing and
Restoration LLC. The case is styled as Richard Willis, an
individual and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 5 Star
Roofing and Restoration LLC, an Alabama corporation d/b/a 5 Star
Roofing, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00679-TMP (N.D. Ala., May 1,
2018).

5 Star Roofing and Restoration LLC is engaged in roofing
construction.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   James H McFerrin, Esq.
   MCFERRIN LAW FIRM
   3117 Manitou Lane
   Birmingham, AL 35216
   Tel: (205) 637-7111
   Fax: (205) 637-7212
   Email: jhmcferrin@gmail.com


ABBOTT LABS: Leawood Attorney Files Acid Reflux Medication Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Dornbrook, writing for Kansas City Business Journal,
reports that Leawood lawyer Kirk Goza, Esq. -- kgoza@gohonlaw.com
-- filed suit against some of the biggest pharmaceutical
companies in the United States, on behalf of 27 clients who took
acid reflux medication that allegedly caused kidney damage. [GN]


ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Cty Employees' Fund Sues Over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson County Employees' Retirement System, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Acadia
Healthcare Company, Inc., Joey A. Jacobs, Brent Turner, David
Duckworth, E. Perot Bissell, Christopher R. Gordon, Vicky B.
Gregg, William F. Grieco, Wade D. Miquelon, William M. Petrie,
Hartley R. Rogers, Reeve B. Waud and Citigroup Global Markets
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00286, (M.D. Tenn., March 14,
2018), seeks to recover losses on behalf of the investors who
purchased or obtained Acadia publicly traded securities pursuant
to the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Acadia is a healthcare company that operates inpatient
psychiatric facilities, residential treatment centers, group
homes, substance abuse facilities, and facilities providing
outpatient behavioral healthcare services to serve the behavioral
health and recovery needs of communities throughout the United
States and the UK.

Defendants falsely stated that the quality of its U.K. operations
gave the Company a competitive strength which would drive future
growth and profitability and issued false and misleading guidance
regarding the company's actual and projected 2017 revenue,
earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization
and earnings per share. These false and misleading statements
allowed defendants and certain of their officers, directors and
affiliated entities to offload over $143 million worth of Acadia
while its stock price was artificially inflated.

When the truth came out, Acadia's stock price collapsed,
plummeting 26% from a closing price of $44.12 per share on
October 24, 2017 to a closing price of $32.68 per share on
October 25, 2017. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Telephone: (615) 244-2203
      Fax: (615) 252-3798
      Email: cwood@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

      Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
      VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C.
      79 Alfred Street
      Detroit, MI 48201
      Telephone: (313) 578-1200
      Fax: (313) 578-1201
      Email: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com

             - and -

      Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
      MARTIN & GARRISON LLC
      414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Telephone: (615) 244-2202
      Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
      Email: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Must Face Acura HandsFreeLink Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that an
Acura HandsFreeLink class-action lawsuit is still connected as
the judge refused to dismiss the entire complaint.

The class-action alleges Honda wanted to beat competitors to the
punch by creating a hands-free feature that allowed customers to
use Bluetooth wireless technology, hence the beginning of
HandsFreeLink in 2004 Acura models.  The plaintiffs admit Acura
did get the feature to the public, but the automaker allegedly
failed to create a system that switched off when not in use.

The HandsFreeLink systems are allegedly left activated when
drivers remove the ignition keys, causing a "constant and
substantial parasitic electric drain on the electric system."

The plaintiffs claim owners get stuck with dead batteries, failed
alternators and the added expense of constantly replacing the
batteries.  The plaintiffs also claim cars equipped with
HandsFreeLink systems are less valuable than other vehicles that
have working hands-free systems.

Replacing a defective system can cost more than $1,000 and there
is allegedly no way to guarantee the replacement system won't
also drain the battery.  The lawsuit says even though customers
pay for the systems, some owners choose to make the systems
worthless by disabling the HandsFreeLink systems to protect the
batteries and other components.

According to the plaintiffs, Honda/Acura has known about the
problems since 2005, but in place of offering real solutions,
Honda chose to send allegedly useless technical service bulletins
to dealers.  Those bulletins let dealers know about customer
complaints but allegedly didn't contain correct methods to repair
the problems.

Plaintiff Lindsay Aberin says she bought a new 2005 Acura TL
equipped with HandsFreeLink in January 2005, a car she still
owns.  The plaintiff says she took the car to an Acura dealer in
February 2008 seeking repairs of the HandsFreeLink system.

The dealer replaced the battery under warranty, but the plaintiff
says the problem reappeared two years later and the fog lights
were replaced.  This was allegedly followed by another dealer
visit another two years later and the battery was again replaced.

In November 2013, Ms. Aberin took the Acura to a dealer again
because of HandsFreeLink problems and this time the driver-side
headlight inverter and ignitor were replaced.

The plaintiff says she had to take the Acura to a dealer in
November 2013 because of more problems with the hands-free system
and the dealer replaced a headlight bulb and front marker bulb.

Two months later the car was back at the dealer because of system
problems and the passenger-side headlight ignitor was replaced,
followed by another dealer visit more than a year later when the
starter was allegedly replaced.

According to the plaintiff, she took the Acura to the dealer
multiple more times as more parts were replaced.  Ms. Aberin says
she had no clue the HandsFreeLink system was allegedly causing
all the problems and trips to the dealer.

In 2016 the plaintiff allegedly disabled the system permanently,
all because Honda never admitted there were problems with the
system and never fixed the problems even after repeated attempts.

Honda has succeeded in getting multiple claims dismissed in the
past and its most recent motion to dismiss is no different.  The
judge ruled certain warranty and consumer protection claims don't
hold water because the affected plaintiffs waited too long to
file those claims.

Express warranty claims were also tossed because the warranties
don't cover the design defects alleged in the class-action
lawsuit.  However, the judge said the plaintiffs presented enough
evidence to allege the automaker concealed possible defects in
the Acura cars.

Included in the class-action lawsuit are all Acura vehicles
equipped with HandsFreeLink units with the alleged defects.

The Acura HandsFreeLink lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California - Aberin, et al.,
v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc. [GN]


AMSHER COLLECTION: Faces "Bergin" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amsher Collection
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Bergin,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Amsher Collection Services, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 2:18-cv-02588 (E.D. N.Y., May 1, 2018).

AmSher Collection Services, Inc. provides collection
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Cash" Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Artis Cash, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, Velocity Investments, LLC and John
Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03110 (N.D. Ill., May 1,
2018).

Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC is engaged in debt collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.[BN]


AT&T MOBILITY: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Roberts" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling
relating to the lawsuit titled Marcus Roberts, et al. v. AT&T
Mobility LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-03418-EMC, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

The appellate case is captioned as Marcus Roberts, et al. v. AT&T
Mobility LLC, Case No. 18-15593, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 11, 2018, the
Ninth Circuit issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's
Order granting the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in
the appellate case entitled MARCUS A. ROBERTS; KENNETH A. CHEWEY;
ASHLEY M. CHEWEY; JAMES KRENN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AT&T
MOBILITY LLC, Defendant-Appellee, No. 16-16915 (9th Cir.).

Plaintiffs Marcus Roberts, Ashley and Kenneth Chewey, and James
Krenn appeal an order compelling arbitration of their putative
class action claims against AT&T Mobility LLC.  The Plaintiffs
allege that AT&T falsely advertised their mobile service plans as
unlimited when in fact it intentionally slowed data at certain
usage levels.  AT&T moved to compel arbitration, and the
Plaintiffs opposed on First Amendment grounds.  The District
Court compelled arbitration, holding as a threshold matter that
there was no state action.

On appeal, the Plaintiffs raise two arguments.  First, they claim
there is state action whenever a party asserts a direct
constitutional challenge to a permissive law under Denver Area
Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S.
727 (1996).  Second, the Plaintiffs contend that the Federal
Arbitration Act, including judicial interpretations of the
statute, "encourages" arbitration such that AT&T's actions are
attributable to the state.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by May 7, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on June 5, 2018;

   -- Appellant AT&T Mobility LLC's opening brief is due on
      July 16, 2018;

   -- Appellees Ashley M. Chewey, Kenneth A. Chewey, James Krenn
      and Marcus A. Roberts' answering brief is due on August 16,
      2018; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees MARCUS A. ROBERTS, KENNETH A. CHEWEY, ASHLEY
M. CHEWEY and JAMES KRENN, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Daniel M. Hattis, Esq.
          HATTIS LAW
          935 Cowper Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94301
          Telephone: (650) 284-8495
          E-mail: dan@hattislaw.com

               - and -

          Roger N. Heller, Esq.
          Michael Sobol, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          E-mail: rheller@lchb.com
                  msobol@lchb.com

               - and -

          Alexander H. Schmidt, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          5 Professional Circle, Suite 204
          Colts Neck, NJ 07722
          Telephone: (732) 226-0004
          E-mail: Schmidt@whafh.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          201 North Franklin Street
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          E-mail: JYanchunis@ForThePeople.com

Defendant-Appellant AT&T MOBILITY LLC is represented by:

          Donald Manwell Falk, Esq.
          Elspeth V. Hansen, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          3000 El Camino Real
          Two Palo Alto Square
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
          Telephone: (650) 331-2000
          E-mail: dfalk@mayerbrown.com
                  elspeth.hansen@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq.
          Andrew John Pincus, Esq.
          Kevin Ranlett, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1999 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3000
          E-mail: aparasharami@mayerbrown.com
                  apincus@mayerbrown.com
                  kranlett@mayerbrown.com


AUDI AG: Ontario Judge Points Out Problems with Carriage Motions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael McKiernan, writing for Law Times, reports that defendants
should be completely excluded from carriage motions as part of a
broader overhaul to the process for selecting class counsel,
according to one of the lawyers on the losing side of the recent
bruising battle to prosecute a price manipulation claim against a
number of German automakers.

In Quenneville v. Audi AG, Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul
Perell pointed out that one of the problems with carriage motions
"is that defendants feast off them, and Class Counsel make
arguments that at the certification motion they will submit are
out of bounds."

"That dysfunctional phenomena occurred in the case at bar,"
Justice Perell added as he awarded carriage to Harrison Pensa LLP
and Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP, shutting out a partnership among
Koskie Minsky LLP, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP and
Siskinds LLP in a "photo-finish" that the judge said left little
to choose between the two proposed sets of class counsel.

But Justice Perell also lamented the current practice on carriage
motions, which he said turns them "into a blood sport of lawyer-
bashing," as "gross and not helpful."

"Unfortunately, it has become conventional in a carriage motion
for the rival Class Counsel to extol their own virtues and to
badmouth their rival," he added in his decision.

"I think it would make sense to change the process for assigning
carriage, whether it's done judicially or via a legislated fix,"
says Ren Bucholz, a lawyer with Toronto-based Paliare Roland
Rosenberg Rothstein, who appeared on the motion.

"One of the things we should consider is whether carriage motions
should be held in camera. I'm sure defendants would say it's a
violation of the open court principle," he says.

David Wingfield -- dwingfield@strosbergco.com -- a Toronto-based
partner with Strosberg Sasso Sutts, who argued the case for the
victorious consortium, agrees that carriage motions put
prospective class counsel in an awkward position due to the
presence of defendants.

"If you have a motion that involves different views of the best
approach, it's hard not to develop those arguments fully, but it
has to be done in their full view," he says, adding that some
defendants even like to participate in the carriage motion.

For example, in the recent motion to decide carriage of the
alleged bread price-fixing class action, also won by a group
including Strosberg Sasso Sutts, the defendants expressed a
preference for the losing consortium, prompting Justice Ed Morgan
to remark in David v. Loblaw; Breckon v. Loblaw that a "more
cynical person might think that the Defendants simply prefer the
more passive of the two competing class counsel groups over the
more proactive group."

Mr. Wingfield says he would also welcome a reformulation of the
test for awarding carriage, with a smaller number of factors
focused on the desire of counsel to advance the class action and
the sophistication of their case theory.

"I would certainly support the concept that the 16-part test
should be reduced to something far more limited and objective,
and I think this decision points in exactly that direction,"
agrees his co-counsel in Quenneville, Jonathan Foreman --
jforeman@harrisonpensa.com -- a partner with London, Ont. firm
Harrison Pensa.

In his decision, Justice Perell suggests a number of the 16
factors have become "dysfunctional" and could effectively be
dispensed with. For instance, he said the factor of the "quality
of proposed class counsel" threatens to instigate a "beauty
pageant or a cockfight" and should only rarely be a significant
consideration in awarding carriage.

In addition, he suggested that law firms seeking carriage in the
future should hire independent counsel to argue the motion.

But James Orr -- jorr@agmlawyers.com -- a class action lawyer
with Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP, says he's not so sure about the
idea.

"Unless the goal is full employment for Toronto lawyers, I would
disagree," says Orr, who notes that the courtroom for his last
carriage motion could barely accommodate all the lawyers
involved.  "There were probably 20 or 30 gowned."

The competing counsel in Quenneville launched their actions
within a week of one another following a July 2017 report in a
German magazine alleging that Audi, BMW, Daimler, Porsche and
Volkswagen had all engaged in an anti-competitive scheme to gain
an advantage over non-German competitors between 1990 and 2016.

The article claims they collaborated on the design, development,
engineering and marketing of luxury vehicles, characterizing the
alleged arrangement as monopoly-like rather than a direct
conspiracy to fix prices.

After trying and failing to come to a consortium agreement, the
two groups moved toward a carriage motion to settle the issue.
However, at the same time, the team led by Harrison Pensa and
Strosberg Sasso Sutts delivered a motion record for
certification, including an expert report.

Justice Perell described the move as "ill-advised" considering
carriage had not yet been settled, but he also criticized the
decision of the competing team of counsel to attack alleged
deficiencies in the expert report in front of the defence.

Ultimately, Justice Perell concluded that case theory was the
"most-weighty factor for determining who should have carriage"
and plumped for the "more creative and more developable case
theory" proposed by Mr. Wingfield and his team. [GN]


BANK OF NEW YORK: Must Defend Against "Butterline" Class Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LISA BUTTERLINE, et al. v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK
MELLON TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al, Civil Action
No. 15-1429 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Juan R. Sanchez of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (i)
denied the Bank's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second
Amended Complaint, except as to the Plaintiffs' request for
punitive damages; and (ii) denied as premature the Bank's motion
to strike the Plaintiffs' class allegations.

Plaintiffs Lisa and Mark Butterline previously owned real
property located at 2713 East Huntingdon Street in Philadelphia.
They fell behind on their mortgage payments, and in November
2007, the Bank initiated foreclosure proceedings in the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.  The Bank eventually
obtained a default judgment in the amount of $62,764.79 in April
2009.

The Bank thereafter sought to execute its foreclosure judgment,
causing the Property to be sold at a sheriff's sale on Nov. 1,
2011.  The sale generated competitive bidding, and the Bank
purchased the Property with a winning bid of $93,000,
approximately $30,000 more than the amount of its foreclosure
judgment.  Following the sale, the City did not prepare and keep
on file a schedule of proposed distribution of the sale proceeds,
as required by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 3136(a).  Nor
did it enforce the payment terms set forth in its pre-sale
advertising.  Instead, on July 23, 2012, the City deeded the
Property to the Bank in exchange for the Bank's payment of only
the costs owed on the Property -- e.g., the Sheriff's costs in
conducting the sale, taxes, charges for water and gas, etc. --
which totaled $16,291.11, rather than the entire $93,000 bid
amount (or the full amount by which the bid amount exceeded the
Bank's foreclosure judgment).  The deed was recorded on Oct. 31,
2012.

In December 2014, the Plaintiffs filed an administrative claim
(known as a "DART" claim) with the Sheriff's Office, pursuant to
the Sheriff's local rules, requesting all excess funds obtained
as a result of the sale in the case -- i.e., the amount by which
the Bank's bid exceeded the sum of its foreclosure judgment and
the costs on the Property.  On Dec. 18, 2014, the City rejected
Plaintiffs' administrative claim, stating that because the Bank,
as executing creditor, "won the bid," it was required to pay only
the pending cost (i.e. Sheriff's cost, transfer taxes, water) and
the Plaintiffs were thus not due any monies from the Sheriff
Sale.

The Plaintiffs contend the City has a policy of collecting only
the costs owed to the City where, as here, the winning bidder is
also the executing creditor, leaving any excess proceeds from the
sheriff's sale uncollected.  In contrast, when the winning bidder
is a third party, the City collects the full amount of the bid,
though it does not distribute the excess proceeds to the former
owner unless the former owner submits an administrative claim to
the Sheriff's Office.

Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiffs filed the putative class
action lawsuit against the City and the Bank, initially asserting
a procedural due process claim against the City and a contract
claim against the Bank based on their mortgage contract with the
Bank.  The Court granted Defendants' motions to dismiss, but
allowed the Plaintiffs an opportunity to seek leave to amend.

The Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion for leave to amend,
which the Court denied as to the City on futility grounds.
However, the Court granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend as to
the Bank, which did not oppose the Plaintiffs' motion, resulting
in the filing of the instant Second Amended Complaint in which
the Plaintiffs seek to recover the excess proceeds of the
sheriff's sale from the Bank as a third-party beneficiary of the
sale contract between the Bank and the Sheriff.

The Plaintiffs seek to pursue this action on behalf of a class
composed of all individuals or entities whose real property was
foreclosed and sold to the Bank at the sheriff sale and who did
not recover the excess funds remaining from such sheriff's sale
after all liabilities on the real property had been satisfied.

The Bank now moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' third-party beneficiary
breach of contract claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) or, alternatively, to strike the Plaintiffs'
class allegations.  The Plaintiffs oppose the motion and, in the
event their third-party beneficiary claim is dismissed, seek
leave to file a third amended complaint to assert claims for
unjust enrichment and conversion against the Bank.

Because the facts alleged in the Second Amended Complaint support
the reasonable inference that (1) the sheriff's sale resulted in
a sale contract between the Sheriff and the Bank, wherein the
Bank agreed to purchase the Property for $93,000; and (2) the
Plaintiffs are intended third-party beneficiaries of the sale
contract insofar as the sale generated excess proceeds, Judge
Sanchez finds that the Plaintiffs have stated a third-party
beneficiary breach of contract claim against the Bank.  He denied
the Bank's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

While the Bank does suggest that identifying the class members
will require the Court to determine whether the Sheriff's Office
published a Schedule of Distribution, whether each potential
class member filed a timely claim demanding entitlement to any
excess funds, and whether the Sheriff's Office distributed some
or all of the funds, the Judge finds that it is not clear that
such inquiry will be necessary given the Plaintiffs' allegations
that the City has a policy to collect only costs when the Bank
wins the bid at a sheriff's sale.

As to predominance, the Bank mentions this issue only briefly,
arguing that for the same reasons the class is unascertainable,
individual issues will predominate over common issues.
Unhelpfully, the Plaintiffs fail to respond.  Given the scant
attention devoted to this issue in the parties' briefs, Judge
Sanchez says he is not persuaded a class discovery would be
futile in the case.  Accordingly, without expressing any opinion
on whether the Plaintiffs' proposed class can ultimately be
certified, he does not find a basis to strike the class
allegations at this stage.

As to the Bank's bid to strike the Plaintiffs' request for
punitive damages, the Plaintiffs do not respond to the Bank's
argument on this point, and, as the Bank notes that under
Pennsylvania law, punitive damages are not recoverable in an
action solely based upon breach of contract.  The Judge therefore
struck the Plaintiffs' request for punitive damages.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 6, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://bit.ly/2r97IMz from Leagle.com.

LISA BUTTERLINE & MARK BUTTERLINE, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND
ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, represented by
CHRISTOPHER G. HAYES, LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER G. HAYES, DANIEL
C. LEVIN -- dlevin@lfsblaw.com -- LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, MICHAEL
G. LOUIS -- mlouis@macelree.com -- MacELREE, HARVEY, GALLAGHER,
FEATHERMAN & SEBASTIAN, LTD. & WILLIAM T. WILSON --
wtw@becounsel.com -- BAILEY & EHRENBERG PLLC.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY, N.A. AS SUCCESSOR TO
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR RESIDENTIAL ASSET
MORTGAGE PRODUCTS, INC., MORTGAGE ASSET-BACKED PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-RP1 I/P/A BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST, CO.,
Defendant, represented by JOELLE EPSTEIN -- epstein@blankrome.com
-- BLANK ROME, KEVIN G. MCDONALD, KML LAW GROUP, P.C., LAURA E.
VENDZULES -- lvendzules@blankrome.com -- BLANK ROME LLP & MICHAEL
A. IANNUCCI -- iannucci@blankrome.com -- BLANK ROME LLP.


BARKERVILLE GOLD: Osgoode Receives $80K Settlement Cy-pres Award
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexia Kapralos, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that
Osgoode Hall Law School's Investor Protection Clinic has received
an $80,000 cy-pres award from a class action settlement that will
help the clinic remain open throughout the summer.

The injection of cash was a "very welcome surprise," according to
the clinic's academic director, Poonam Puri.

The Toronto-based clinic will be putting the court-directed award
toward hiring four summer students so client files can remain
open past the academic term.  Neither the clinic nor the law
school were involved in the class action directly (a settlement
in the shareholder proceeding involving Barkerville Gold Mines
Ltd.). Rather, the clinic received the money as a result of a
decision made by Justice Paul Perell of the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice.

"When the class members in a class action proceeding can't be
easily identified, or it would be uneconomical to distribute the
funds, a court has discretion to grant a cy-pres award so that
you're allocating the funds as close as possible through other
means that are in the best interests of the class," says
Ms. Puri.

This clinic aids people who believe their investments have been
mishandled and cannot afford a lawyer.  The first of its kind in
Canada, the clinic was founded by Osgoode Hall Law School and
FAIR Canada (Canadian Foundation for the Advancement of Investor
Rights) and launched in September 2017. It was initially funded
by close to $100,000 in seed money from the Law Foundation of
Ontario, says Ms. Puri.

"It really allowed us to put the clinic together and launch. But
the funding is only for a limited period of time and it's only
seed funding, not operational funding," she says.  "We are
thinking of ways to ensure sustainability, to make sure we can
provide this service for the community, not just for a limited
period of time, but for the foreseeable future."

Counsel for the plaintiff in the case where the cy-pres award
came from, Andrew Morganti, of Morganti & Co., contacted the
clinic to see if it would be interested in receiving the award on
behalf of the settlement.

In September, 10 more students, in addition to the four hired
during the summer, will be joining the clinic for school credit
-- a total of 14 students (there were 12 in the last session).
Also, lawyers from six business law firms assist the students by
sharing their expertise and oversee particular files.

Since the four students will be able to work at the clinic during
the summer, Ms. Puri says that this is advantageous because
they'll have more time to understand and learn the files, know
what the procedures are and as a result, will be able to help the
upcoming group of students joining them in the fall, rather than
everyone starting from scratch.

Ms. Puri says eventually she'd like the clinic to have an in-
house lawyer.

"The students are loving the program.  They're really loving the
opportunity to be able to engage directly with people who have
been harmed or who believe that they've been harmed, and help
them navigate forward," she says. [GN]


BNSF RAILWAY: Wins Bid for Judgment; "Sumlin" Suit Claims Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable John F. Walter granted BNSF's motion for judgment
on the pleadings in the lawsuit titled Henry Sumlin, et al. v.
BNSF Railway Company, et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-02364-JFW-KK (C.D.
Cal.).

Judge Walter ruled that BNSF's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings is granted in its entirety, and all of the Plaintiffs'
claims alleged in the First Amended Complaint are dismissed, with
prejudice.

In light of the Court's ruling, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification is moot.  The parties are ordered to meet and
confer and agree on a proposed Judgment, which is consistent with
this Order.  In the unlikely event that counsel are unable to
agree upon a proposed Judgment, Judge Walter says, the parties
shall each submit separate versions of a proposed Judgment along
with a Joint Statement setting forth their respective positions.

BNSF, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Houston, Texas, is
one of the largest railroad companies in the United States.  BNSF
operates 8,000 locomotives and has a rail network of 32,500 route
miles in 28 states and Canada.  The Plaintiffs are California
residents, who work as through-freight employees for BNSF.  The
Plaintiffs contend that BNSF violated the California Labor Code
and Industrial Wage Commission Wage Order Number 9 by failing to
compensate them for missed rest periods.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=I0BeVu0m


CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces V8 Splash False Advertising Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
maker of V8 Splash is alleged to have failed to disclose that the
drinks contained artificial flavoring.

Hortense Sims, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, filed a complaint on April 2 in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California against Campbell Soup Co.
and Y&R over alleged violation of California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that Campbell's
V8 Splash products are falsely advertised in the state of
California.  She alleges the drinks contain less than 2 percent
of the juice the products are named for and that they are mostly
water and corn syrup.  She also alleges Campbell's conceals the
fact the drinks are artificially flavored.

The suit states defendant Y&R is the advertising agency
responsible for the labeling and advertising of V8 Splash.

As a result, Ms. Sims claims she and class members lost money
because they paid a price premium for a product that contained
undisclosed artificial flavors.

The plaintiff holds Campbell Soup Co. and Y&R responsible because
the defendant allegedly failed to label the products in
accordance with federal and state labeling regulations and
omitting the required information that the products contain
artificial flavoring.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment for
punitive damages, order requiring the defendants to conduct
corrective advertising, attorney fees, costs and such other and
further relief as the court may deem just, equitable, or proper.
She is represented by Ronald A. Marron and Michael T. Houchin of
Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron in San Diego.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 5:18-cv-00668-PSG-SP [GN]


CANADA: Suit Over Freedom-of-Information Web Breach Mulled
----------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a Nova Scotia law firm is
investigating the potential for a class action lawsuit following
a breach of the province's freedom-of-information Internet portal
affecting thousands of sensitive documents.

Between March 3 and March 5, approximately 7,000 documents --
containing birth dates, social insurance numbers, addresses and
government services' client information -- were inappropriately
accessed.

Lawyer Ray Wagner says it's concerning that such information was
compromised and accessed so readily, and that government delayed
informing the public.

The government waited nearly a week to inform the public, while
police began their investigation.

A Halifax man was charged.

Mr. Wagner says anyone who lives in Nova Scotia and is concerned
that their information was inappropriately accessed, should
contact his law firm. [GN]


CANADA: Parents of Children with Autism File Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Henriquez, writing for Global News, reports that a group
of parents of children on the autism spectrum say they're ready
to take legal action against the government of Quebec and its
school boards, because they say the system is discriminating
against their children.

Claudia Taboada is one of those parents.

"We have no life, we have no life and this is going on. It's
going to go forever," Ms. Taboada said in tears.

She worries her 17 year-old will not get the services he needs
past the age of 21.

"[It's as if] at 21, children [are] not autistic anymore, and
it's what scares me because at 21 there are no services,"
Ms. Taboada explained.

They say the government's lack of services and long waiting lists
force them to seek private care.

Desperate to access services, parents like Sam Kuhn have resorted
to crowdfunding to pay for the speech therapy his seven year-old
daughter Charlotte needs.

Mr. Kuhn even protested in front of Quebec's Public Health
Minister Lucie Charlebois in an effort to access the services his
daughter needs.

At a press conference on April 15, parents were at wit's end and
left with no other choice but to take legal action.

They now plan to file multiple civil rights complaints to the
Commission of Human Rights.

"We want respect, we want that their rights for education, for
living, for dignity are respected," Ms. Taboada said, "and we're
going to go all the way.  All the way."

The Centre for Research-Action on Race Relations (CRARR) believes
the province's failure to provide proper services and education
is a clear display of discrimination based on disability -- and
that violates children's rights.

Together, the parents and the centre are also looking to launch a
class action lawsuit against school boards.

"For failure to accommodate, for failure to integrate children,
but also against many of the rehabilitation centres and
healthcare system for failure to provide the equal protection of
the law," said Fo Niemi, executive director of the Centre for
Research-Action on Race Relations.

A spokesperson for public health minister Lucie Charlebois told
Global News the government is aware of the increasing needs of
the autism community. And that's why the province is investing
$29 million a year into its 2017-2022 autism action plan.

But families affected say that help is nowhere to be seen.

"I haven't seen any of this money and I don't think my
colleagues have," Ms. Taboada said.

And that's why she's calling on other parents to join their
fight.

"We are sick and tired of the government not listening to us,"
Ms. Taboada said.  "This is for our children.  We have to go and
we have to fight." [GN]


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Faces Class Action Over St. Patrick Child Abuse
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julianne Langshaw, writing for Gippsland Times, reports that the
Catholic Church in Gippsland is set to become embroiled in a
landmark class action to be brought by alleged victims of child
abuse, which could run into millions of dollars.

The proposed action relates to alleged historical child sex and
physical abuse offences at St Patrick's College, Sale, many of
which are said to have occurred in the 1970s when the school
housed boarders.

Two St Patrick's cases have already been prosecuted in the
criminal system, with another case against a Marist Brother,
alleging multiple victims, set to go to trial later this year.

Another criminal case was unable to proceed after the accused lay
teacher died.

The class action, which will allege a failure in duty of care,
will attract state and national attention, as this is expected to
be the first class action lawsuit in Victoria against the
Catholic Church under impending changes to state government
legislation, which are anticipated to pass in the Legislative
Council within weeks.

Under the new laws, both individuals and class action parties
will be able to sue the church's highly valuable property trusts,
and other such structures, that were previously 'untouchable'.

With at least 28 known reports of sexually and physically abused
victims from St Pat's, the class action is now at the 'public
notification' stage, to encourage other St Pats victims to come
forward.

St Pat's Sale class action leader and lead plaintiff, 'Michael',
said sexually and physically abused victims now finally had a
chance to seek reasonable and acceptable compensation.

"As a fellow St Pat's sexually and physically abused victim, I
know firsthand the horrors and trauma that we've all been
through," he said.

"A nightmare it has been.

"That's why I've been prepared to volunteer my time, particularly
over the past three years, to help get justice for all our
victims.

"It's been a degrading, humiliating and heart breaking process
for all of us abused victims to go through, after being shunned
for decade after decade by the Catholic Church."

The public awareness campaign is one of the final steps to
lodging the class action lawsuit in the Victorian Supreme Court.

Michael believes there could be many other victims who have
remained silent.

"They need to know it is now safe to come forward, even if their
initial enquiries are anonymous," he said.

He added victims who wanted to undertake their own legal actions
and negotiations separately could still do so.

"But with a class action, there are many advantages to those
victims who would prefer to take a less 'confronting' approach,"
he added.

"We'll have the best legal expertise in the country fighting our
fight, on a no-win, no-fee basis.

"And no expensive litigation funders, either."

Victims could be entitled to pain and suffering compensation
alone of up to $500,000, but there is no legal impediment to
compensation awards in the millions.

As this is expected to the first class action lawsuit to go
before the Victorian Supreme Court under the proposed new
legislation, Michael said his team was "disciplined and taking a
highly detailed and methodical approach to every set of the
process, to ensure winning this precedent-setting case".

Michael said he had been in "productive discussions" with several
law firms, including giants Slater and Gordon and Maurice
Blackburn, and would soon be selecting a legal firm to run the
class action.

In the meantime, he encouraged victims, on a strictly
confidential basis, to email the volunteer class action manager
will.waterside@outlook.com

"We'll also be ensuring that collusion, an important legal issue,
won't be able to occur between our victims," he added.

Michael said he was hopeful justice would prevail, so that
victims could "put the nightmare behind them".

Early last year, the Catholic Diocese of Sale was named
Australia's most prolific for child sexual abuse, with the
highest proportion of alleged paedophile priests nationwide over
60 years.

According to a report, released by the Royal Commission into
Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, 15.1 per cent of
all Sale Diocese priests who ministered from 1950 to 2010 were
named as alleged perpetrators, giving it the highest overall
proportion of child sexual abusers of dioceses across Australia.

In February The Age newspaper reported its investigations had
revealed the Catholic Church in Victoria was worth more than $9
billion, making it the biggest non-government property owner in
the state -- and much wealthier than it had admitted in evidence
to major inquiries into child sexual abuse.

A six-month investigation by The Age found that the church misled
the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual
Abuse by grossly undervaluing its property portfolio, while
claiming that increased payments to abuse survivors would likely
require cuts to its social programs.

Figures extrapolated from a huge volume of Victorian council
valuation data showed the church had more than $30 billion in
property and other assets, Australia wide.

Based on these figures, The Age concluded the church was the
largest non-government property owner, by value, in the state,
and close to the largest in Australia, rivalling giant Westfield,
with its vast network of shopping centres and other assets.

A spokesperson for the Catholic Church was approached for
comment, but none was able to be issued at this time. [GN]


CENTRAL CREDIT: Certification of Class Sought in "Machnik" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Audrey Machnik moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit styled AUDREY MACHNIK, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CENTRAL CREDIT
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00557-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), and
further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LC7FFc2C

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CENTRAL LOAN: Jones Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled HARRY JONES, GLORY JONES,
and PETER HODDERSEN, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. CENTRAL LOAN ADMINISTRATION & REPORTING
d/b/a CENLAR FSB, AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, STANDARD
GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY, and VOYAGER INDEMNITY INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 3:16-cv-09245 (D.N.J.), submit with the Court
their Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement, Certification of Settlement Class, and Appointment of
Class Representatives.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KoctsE3U

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kyle Tognan, Esq.
          BATHGATE, WEGENER & WOLF, P.C.
          One Airport Road
          P.O. Box 2043
          Lakewood, NJ 08701
          Telephone: (732) 363-0666
          Facsimile: (732) 363-9864
          E-mail: ktognan@bathweg.com

               - and -

          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
          THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
          2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1423
          E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
                  howard@moskowitz-law.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Neary, Esq.
          KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON, LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 9th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 372-1800
          Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
          E-mail: rn@kttlaw.com

               - and -

          Lance A. Harke, Esq.
          HARKE CLASBY & BUSHMAN LLP
          9699 NE Second Avenue
          Miami Shores, FL 33138
          Telephone: (305) 536-8220
          Facsimile: (305) 536-8229
          E-mail: lharke@harkeclasby.com


CENTRUS ENERGY: Newman's Class Certified for Settlement Purposes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Michael R. Barrett grants the motion for class
certification for purposes of settlement in the lawsuit captioned
CHARLES NEWMAN, et al. v. CENTRUS ENERGY CORP, et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-00449-MRB (S.D. Ohio).

Charles Newman, Gary Johnson, and the United Steel, Paper and
Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and
Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC, have entered
into a proposed Settlement Agreement with the Defendants to
resolve the claims in this putative class action lawsuit.

Plaintiffs Charles Newman, Gary Johnson and Proposed Plaintiff
Donna Steele (the Class Representatives) seek certification of a
Settlement Class.  The parties have entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement and also have agreed on a proposed Class Notice.

The Court defines the settlement class in this litigation, for
settlement purposes only, as:

     Former employees of the United States Enrichment
     Corporation, (along with their spouses, surviving spouses,
     and eligible dependents), at the gaseous diffusion
     facilities in Piketon, OH and Paducah, KY, who were: (1)
     represented by the USW or a predecessor union, and; (2) who,
     pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement and/or the
     Privatization Act, are, will be, or were eligible to receive
     retiree health care and prescription drug benefits from
     Centrus after having attained age 65.

The Court appoints Charles Newman, Gary Johnson, and Donna Steele
as Class Representatives to represent the Settlement Class, and
appoints Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC, as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vvTE6GRD


CHEROKEE COUNTY, GA: Class Action v. DSS Moves to Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
WLOS reports that there are new developments involving the
Department of Social Services in Cherokee County.

The class action lawsuit filed against Cherokee County DSS has
been moved to federal court.

The NC Department of Health and Human Services took over the
agency several weeks ago.

The lawsuit claims child welfare workers removed potentially
hundreds of kids from their homes illegally.

The lawsuit says those DSS employees did not follow state law to
get a judge's approval to remove children from their biological
parents. [GN]


CHICAGO BRIDGE: Judd Sues Over McDermott Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------
Paul E. Judd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V.,
Marsha C. Williams, L. Richard Flury, Larry Mcvay, W. Craig
Kissel, Deborah M. Fretz, James R. Bolch, James H. Miller and
Forbes I.J. Alexander, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00799 (S.D.
Tex., March 14, 2018) seeks to recover damages caused by
defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Chicago Bridge provides a range of services, including conceptual
design, technology, engineering, procurement, fabrication,
modularization, construction, commissioning, maintenance, program
management and environmental services, to customers in the energy
infrastructure market throughout the world.

McDermott International, Inc. and its affiliates, McDermott
Technology, B.V., McDermott Technology (Americas), LLC and
McDermott Technology (US), LLC. will combine their business with
Chicago Bridge beginning with McDermott launching an offer to
exchange any and all of Chicago Bridge common stock for 2.47221
shares of McDermott common stock. McDermott stockholders will own
approximately 53% of the outstanding shares of McDermott common
stock and Chicago shareholders will own approximately 47% of the
outstanding shares of McDermott common stock.

However, the registration statement failed to disclose potential
conflicts of interest involving Centerview Partners LLC, the
Chicago Bridge's financial advisor, its financial forecasts and
the valuation analyses prepared by Centerview in connection with
the rendering of its fairness opinion, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J. Simmons, Esq.
      Stephen Higdon, Esq.
      DEANS & LYONS, L.L.P.
      325 N. Saint Paul St., Suite 1500
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Telephone: (214) 965-8500
      Facsimile: (214) 965-8505
      Email: csimmons@deanslyons.com
             shigdon@deanslyons.com

             - and -

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290
      Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
      Email: denright@zlk.com
             etripodi@zlk.com


CIGNA CORP: Faces ERISA Class Action in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------
Adam Lidgett, writing for Law360, reports that Cigna and American
Specialty Health have been hit with a proposed ERISA class action
in Pennsylvania federal court accusing them of colluding to
saddle members and plans with the charges ASH incurs for
processing claims and administering a network on Cigna's behalf.

Cigna Corp., Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co., American
Specialty Health Inc. and American Specialty Health Group Inc.
were hit with an Employee Retirement Income Security Act
complaint -- dated April 12, but entered on April 13 -- by
Kathleen Kilroy.

The case is styled Kilroy v. Cigna Corporation et al, Case
No. 2:18-cv-01557 (E.D. Pa.).  The case is assigned to Judge
Honorable Nitza I Quinones Alejandro.  The case was filed
April 13, 2018. [GN]


CIGNA CORP: Misrepresents ASH Charges, Class Action Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
Evan Sweeney, writing for Fierce Healthcare, reports that Cigna
was hit with a class-action lawsuit accusing the insurer of
colluding with a claims administrator in a cost-shifting scheme
to overcharge members.

Filed in the United States District Court Eastern District of
Pennsylvania by a Macy's employee who was insured by Cigna, the
complaint alleged that the insurer "misappropriates millions of
dollars every year" from members by diverting administrative
costs from vendors.

The lawsuit also accused Cigna of falsifying Explanation of
Benefits (EOB) forms to misrepresent charges from American
Specialty Health, a company contracted by the insurer to process
and administer healthcare claims and build provider networks,
including chiropractors.  Rather than paying for the
administrative charges from ASH using plan fees and subscriber
premiums, the complaint alleged Cigna disguises the charges as
medical expenses.

The class-action complaint claims the insurer violated the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), which
sets minimum standards for health plans.

"By their uniform misrepresentations, Cigna and ASH are able to
shift the cost for ASH's charges from Cigna to Cigna's members
and ERISA Plans," the complaint (PDF) reads.  "Defendants deplete
the members' HRA and HSA funds and the assets of the plans to pay
for these charges, rather than using them to pay for medical
services."

The suit further argued that the scheme could mean Cigna is
reporting inaccurate Medical Loss Ratios, used to calculate the
percentage of premium income versus medical expenses. The
Affordable Care Act established minimum MLR thresholds for
individual and small-group markets as well as large-group
markets.

A Cigna spokesperson said the insurer cannot comment on pending
litigation.  A spokesperson for American Specialty Health also
declined to comment.

The lawsuit comes on the heels of another class-action lawsuit,
accusing Cigna of overcharging its members with artificially
inflated drug costs.  The insurer is looking to close a $67
billion deal to acquire Express Scripts, which has drawn scrutiny
from lawmakers. [GN]


COCONINO COUNTY, AZ: Inmate Sues Over Jail's Immigration Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a lawsuit is challenging a
Northern Arizona jail's practice of detaining inmates longer than
required by local or state charges through holds requested by
federal immigration officials.

Inmate Guillermo Tenorio-Serrano filed the suit in March against
Coconino County officials to challenge the constitutionality of
the jail policy that honors immigration detainer requests, the
Arizona Daily Sun reported.

The Coconino County jail has held inmates for up to two days
longer than required, allowing Immigration and Customs
Enforcement agents to take custody of people suspected of being
in the country illegally.

Mr. Tenorio-Serrano was arrested on misdemeanor charges related
to driving under the influence in December.  Jail staff notified
immigration agents who then sent an administrative warrant and a
detainer request.

While Mr. Tenorio-Serrano, 32, could have made bail, he chose not
to so he could avoid being taken into custody by ICE agents.

Jail policy requires staff to comply with detainer requests.
Sheriff Jim Driscoll, who is named in the suit, said the policy
adheres with a state law that mandates agencies to generally
cooperate with and assist in the enforcement of federal
immigration laws.

"Cooperation to me is that a federal agency makes a request of
us, I am going to try to comply with that," Mr. Driscoll said.
"Is the request legal? That's for the courts to determine."

In a statement, the Coconino County Board of Supervisors said the
lawsuit will serve as an opportunity to get a final ruling on the
constitutionality of parts of the state law.

Kathryn Mahady, the attorney for Mr. Tenorio-Serrano, claims that
prolonging the detention of inmates violates both the Arizona
Constitution and the U.S. Constitution.

Ms. Mahady said she will ask the court to give the lawsuit class-
action status on behalf of additional individuals. [GN]


CONSOLIDATED NUCLEAR: Hatmaker Seeks to Certify 2 Retiree Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned BETTY HATMAKER and
CHARLENE EDWARDS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated v. CONSOLIDATED NUCLEAR SECURITY, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-
00351-TAV-HBG (E.D. Tenn.), move for certification of these two
classes:

   * Post-65 Retiree Class:

     All individuals, spouses, surviving spouses, and/or eligible
     dependents of individuals, who worked at Y-12 as hourly or
     salaried employees and who retired from such employment
     between 1985 and 2015, are Medicare-eligible (at least aged
     sixty-five (65)), and whose negotiated healthcare and
     related benefits have been or may be improperly modified,
     amended or terminated by CNS as of January 1, 2015; and

   * Pre-65 Retiree Class:

     All individuals, spouses, surviving spouses, and/or eligible
     dependents of individuals, who worked at Y-12 as hourly or
     salaried employees and who retired from such employment
     between 1985 and 2015, are below the age of Medicare
     eligibility (under sixty-five (65) years of age), whose
     negotiated healthcare and related benefits have been or may
     be improperly modified, amended or terminated by CNS as of
     January 1, 2015.

The Classes exclude any judge presiding over this action and
members of their family.

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to restore their healthcare benefits
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 as
promised to them during their active employment at the Y-12
National Security Complex.  Having suffered significant changes
to their healthcare plans taking effect on January 1, 2015, the
Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant breached its fiduciary
duties to the Plaintiffs and proposed Class Members under the
ERISA.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives and their attorneys as Class Counsel.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  mark@gregcolemanlaw.com


CORECIVIC: Sued for Violating Anti-Human Trafficking Law
--------------------------------------------------------
Betsy Woodruff, writing for Daily Beast, reports that a private
prison company forced immigrant detainees to work for as little
as $1 per day if they wanted toilet paper, toothpaste, and safe
lodging, according to a new lawsuit filed on April 17.

The class action suit, filed in federal court for the Middle
District of Georgia, pits three plaintiffs -- Wilhen Hill
Barrientos, Margarito Velazquez Galicia, and Shoahib Ahmed --
against CoreCivic, the nation's largest private prison company.
Messrs. Barrientos and Velazquez Galicia are both currently
detained in the Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Ga.
Mr. Ahmed was previously detained there before giving up his
asylum claim.  The three allege that CoreCivic is violating a
federal anti-human trafficking law with the work program that it
oversees.

The detention center characterizes its work program as voluntary.
But according to the lawsuit detainees are paid pennies per hour
-- generally $1 to $4 per day -- for tasks such as mopping
floors, scrubbing toilets, and serving meals.  The lawsuit quotes
a report from the Department of Homeland Security's inspector
general finding that staff at the Stewart facility didn't give
detainees soap, toilet paper, and toothpaste "promptly or at all
when detainees ran out of them."

"In one instance, Mr. Barrientos ran out of toilet paper and
requested another roll from a CoreCivic officer," the lawsuit
says.  "The CoreCivic officer told Mr. Barrientos to use his
fingers to clean himself."

According to the lawsuit, detainees are directed to use their
wages to buy toilet paper and other hygiene products from the
detention center commissary.  And the only way immigrants can
talk to their family outside the detention center is if they buy
costly phone cards from the commissary, according to the lawsuit.

The suit says officers at the facility threatened to revoke
Mr. Barrientos' access to the commissary if he called in sick.

Immigrants who resist participating in the work program can face
criminal charges or up to 30 days in solitary confinement, the
suit says.  They also are subjected to worse living quarters.
[GN]


DE VILLE ASSSET: Faces "Stephens" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against De Ville Assset
Management, Ltd. The case is styled as Maureen Stephens,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. De Ville Assset Management, Ltd, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-02589 (E.D. N.Y., May 1, 2018).

DeVille Assset Management, Ltd is engaged in the collection of
debt.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DOUBLEDOWN INTERACT: Faces Class Action in Washington
-----------------------------------------------------
The Investor reports that Korean social casino game operator
DoubleUGames said on April 15 that a lawsuit filed against its US
affiliate Doubledown Interact would have limited impact.

DoubleUGames' statement came after a class action suit was filed
against four social casino game companies including DDI in
Washington on April 12, following a court ruling on March 28
terming operations of US-based Big Fish Casino as illegal online
gambling as per state law.

"We believe that the ruling of the Ninth Circuit of US Court of
Appeals on Big Fish Casino is quite unusual," the company said in
a statement, citing four previous cases that all rejected
gambling claims. [GN]


DUPONT: GenX Class Action Plaintiffs Respond to Motion Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Henderson, writing for Triangle Business Journal,
reports that plaintiffs in the recently consolidated GenX class-
action lawsuit against DuPont and former wholly-owned subsidiary
Chemours have filed a response to the defendants' motion to
dismiss the case. [GN]


DURHAM SCHOOL: School Bus Drivers File Wage Theft Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Durham School Services school bus drivers working with the
support of ARISE Chicago, Teamsters Local 777, Teamsters Local 50
and the Steering in the Right Direction Coalition have filed 17
individual complaints for lost wages against the National Express
subsidiary Durham School Services with the Illinois Department of
Labor.  National Express is a U.K.-based transportation company,
with their North American operations headquartered in Lisle, Ill.

The 17 complaints are in addition to another complaint filed
against the company in the state of Illinois in March, bringing
the total lost wages alleged by the drivers to $44,930.68.
Durham has paid out over $12 million to workers since 2011,
including a settlement after an audit by the New York State
Attorney General's office, two statewide class action lawsuits
brought by workers in California and one class action suit in
Baltimore, Md.  The most recent class action suit against the
company was settled on April 2, 2018 with California workers for
$3.9 million.

Durham bus drivers in Illinois allege several forms of wage
theft, including not being paid for all hours worked, being
required to work off the clock, not having errors on their
paychecks corrected and being forced to buy supplies that they
needed without being reimbursed.  They question why public
dollars are being paid to a private company that they say steals
wages.

Wage theft is particularly exploitative among school bus
contractors because their workforce is typically composed of
low-wage workers who already struggle to make ends meet.
Sharon Jones is a former Durham bus driver and a charging party
in one of the wage theft complaints filed on April 16.

"As a Durham bus driver, I could not earn a livable wage, so I
had to work a second job," Ms. Jones said.  "I had to work
evenings and weekends just so I could make sure my bills were
paid. I had to sleep in my car because it cost too much time and
money to head home between a.m. and p.m. routes. I even bought an
electric blanket that I could plug into the cigarette lighter so
I could stay warm in the bad weather."

Ms. Jones said she believes that the wage theft complaints being
filed against Durham School Services are not isolated incidents,
but rather part of a pattern of bad behavior that the company
needs to address.

"I could talk all day about the problems Durham school bus
workers face, but I'm here today with solutions," Ms. Jones said.
"I want to ask Durham to sit down and talk with their workers to
create safe, respectful jobs.  I want Durham to pay its drivers
for all of the hours and minutes that they work, and I want
Durham to treat their workers with dignity."

Arise Chicago is a workers' rights organization that trains and
organizes low-wage workers to recover stolen wages and improve
working conditions. Since 2002, Arise Chicago members have
recovered over $8 million in owed wages and compensation.

Steering in the Right Direction is a network of Durham School
Services employees fighting for change that works closely with
Arise Chicago, the Teamsters Union and other community
organizations. SITRD focuses on wage theft, safety and worker
respect issues. Find us on Facebook @steeringintherightdirection.

Founded in 1903, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters --
http://www.teamster.org-- represents 1.4 million hardworking men
and women throughout the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico.
[GN]


DURHAM SCHOOL: Romo's Bid for Prelim. Nod of Settlement Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on April 10, 2018, in the case
titled Yudina Romo v. Durham School Services, L.P., et al., Case
No. 1:17-cv-01929 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before
the Honorable Gary Feinerman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
      class settlement is denied as moot;

   -- Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for leave to file memorandum
      in support of unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
      class settlement in excess of 15 pages is granted;

   -- Plaintiff shall file her memorandum as a separate docket
      entry; and

   -- Amended notice of motion that was set for April 11, 2018,
is
      stricken.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zU7LwWTQ


EASY SPIRIT: Faces "Olsen" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Easy Spirit LLC.
The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Easy Spirit
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02594 (E.D. N.Y., May 2, 2018).

Easy Spirit, LLC comprises business operations that distribute
apparel and accessories under the brand Easy Spirit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENTRUST GROUP: 3rd Amended Complaint in "White" Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, PATRICIA BAILEY WHITE, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. JAY PEARSON
a/k/a JERRY PEARSON a/k/a JERRY O. PEARSON, JR., ENTRUST MID-
SOUTH, LLC n/k/a/MID SOUTH RETIREMENT SERVICES, LLC, THE ENTRUST
GROUP, INC., and ENTRUST ADMINISTRATION, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 2:13-cv-00487-JAM-CKD (E.D. Cal.), remains pending.

The Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint against the
Defendants on March 19, 2018.  Pursuant to the Court's Feb. 26,
2018 Minute Order, the current deadline for the Defendants to
answer or otherwise respond to the Third Amended Complaint is
April 9, 2018.

The Defendants have reviewed the Third Amended Complaint and
investigated the allegations contained therein, and, based on
that review and investigation, do not believe that the Plaintiff
has stated or could state an actionable claim against them.
Their counsel informed the Plaintiff's counsel by telephone on
March 30 and by April 2 letter, of the Defendants' belief that
there is no actionable wrong or damage that can be truthfully
alleged by the Plaintiff against the Defendants in the matter,
and asked whether the Plaintiff would cause a dismissal the case
with prejudice as a result.

The Plaintiff and her counsel are in the process of evaluating
the Defendants' position.  To provide an opportunity for the
Plaintiff and her counsel to complete their evaluation and to
provide an opportunity for the Parties to complete their meet and
confer efforts regarding the foregoing, the Parties agreed to
continue the Defendants' deadline for answering or otherwise
responding to the Third Amended Complaint by 16 days to April 25,
2018.  The Parties through their counsel, stipulated, and Judge
John A. Mendez of the District Court for the Eastern District of
California approved the extension.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 6, 2018 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2r9M22R from Leagle.com.

Patricia Bailey White, Plaintiff, represented by David Keith
Dorenfeld -- David@dorenfeldlaw.com -- Dorenfeldlaw, Inc.,
Michael Winston Brown -- michael@dorenfeldlaw.com --
Dorenfeldlaw, Inc., Cathy Jackson Lerman, Cathy Jackson Lerman,
P.A., pro hac vice & Joseph Fogel -- joefogel@lawfogel.com --
Fogel and Associates.


ESTATE INFORMATION: Faces "Azimov" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Estate Information
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Mina L. Azimov, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Estate
Information Services, LLC, d/b/a eis collections and Navient
Solutions, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03911 (S.D. N.Y.,
May 1, 2018).

Estate Information Services, LLC is a collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


F&M TRUST: Finalizes $10MM Class Action Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------
Shelby White, writing for Central Penn Business Journal, reports
that Chambersburg-based F&M Trust Co. said it finalized a
settlement agreement in a class-action lawsuit arising from a
trust company it bought in 2008, according to a filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

A tentative settlement agreement calls on F&M Trust to pay $10
million to resolve all claims arising or potentially arising from
the issue, according to the agreement.

A hearing for preliminary approval of the agreement is scheduled
for May 4, according to the SEC filing.

F&M Trust recognized the settlement payment as an expense in the
fourth quarter of 2017 and said it expects to fund the payment
out of "available resources," the filing said.  The settlement is
not an admission of wrongdoing on the bank's part.

F&M spokesman Matt Weaver said the company did not have any
additional information to provide beyond what was in the SEC
filing.

The suit, filed in 2015 in federal court, alleged that Community
Trust Co., which F&M Trust acquired in 2008, and F&M Trust did
not exercise proper oversight of funds they held between 2002 and
2010 on behalf of employee-benefit plans created by an
independent lawyer.

The plans covered over 500 participants and included employer-
owned life insurance policies for company principals and
employees.

Those participants are the class covered by the settlement with
F&M Trust.

F&M is a subsidiary of Franklin Financial Services Corp.  The
bank has assets of approximately $1 billion and operates 22
branches throughout Central Pennsylvania. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Class Action Over Face-Tagging in Photos Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Ingram, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. federal
judge ruled on April 17 that Facebook Inc must face a class
action lawsuit alleging that the social network unlawfully
created facial templates for people without their permission.

The ruling adds to the privacy woes that have been mounting
against Facebook for weeks, since it was disclosed that the
personal information of millions of users was harvested by the
political consultancy Cambridge Analytica.

U.S. District Judge James Donato ruled in San Francisco federal
court that a class action was the most efficient way to resolve
the dispute over facial templates. [GN]


FEDERAL RECOVERY: Faces "Cinelli" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Federal Recovery
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Gaitano Cinelli, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Federal Recovery Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02607
(E.D. N.Y., May 2, 2018).

Federal Recovery Group, Inc. is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Certification of Class Sought in "Kaur" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kuldeep Kaur moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit entitled KULDEEP KAUR, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FINANCIAL
RECOVERY SERVICES INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-00556-PP (E.D. Wisc.),
and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FINISAR CORP: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on April 16
disclosed that  it is investigating potential securities claims
on behalf of shareholders of Finisar Corporation (NASDAQ:FNSR)
resulting from allegations that Finisar may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public.

On April 16, 2018, Reuters reported that the U.S. Department of
Commerce has banned American companies, including Finisar, from
selling components to Chinese telecom equipment maker ZTE
Corporation for seven years after ZTE violated the terms of an
agreement relating to a U.S. sanctions violation case.  On this
news, shares of Finisar fell $0.66 per share or over 4% to close
at $15.62 per share on April 16, 2018.

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by Finisar investors.  If you purchased shares of
Finisar please visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1324.htmlto join the class
action. You may also contact Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of
Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.  Rosen Law Firm was ranked
No. 1 in the Nation for Number of Securities Class Action
Settlements in 2017.  The firm has been ranked in the Top 3 each
year since 2013. [GN]


FLINT, MI: Lead-Tainted Water Class Action Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------
Brent Owen, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article
for The National Law Review, reports that the US Supreme Court
has denied review of a July 2017 Sixth Circuit ruling that
revived two federal class action lawsuits seeking redress for
plaintiffs alleging injury as a result of the lead-tainted water
crises in Flint, Michigan.  In addition to ensuring that the
Flint, Michigan water crises remains active in the national
conversation, the Supreme Court's decision leaving in place the
Sixth Circuit's reasoning paves the way for drinking water claims
that might otherwise be preempted by the Safe Water Drinking Act
(SWDA). Practically, the decision may result in additional
monetary relief for Flint residents.

The Crises
In April 2014, Flint's emergency manager switched the source of
the city's drinking water to the Flint River.  The switch --
which eventually resulted in charges of criminal negligence
against some officials -- caused many residents to complain about
the water's quality.  After receiving complaints for months,
officials acknowledged E. coli and total coliform bacteria in the
water but maintained that additional chlorine fixed the issue.

Eventually, officials also revealed that the water supply
contained lead at 13,200 ppb.  (Lead is hazardous waste at 5,000
ppb.)  Although the water supply has since been switched back,
the fallout and litigation from the crises continues.

Preemption
In terms of monetary exposure and scope, the US Supreme Court's
recent certiorari denial implicates some of the most
consequential litigation still winding its way through the
courts.  The Supreme Court left in place the Sixth Circuit's
holding that two groups of plaintiffs' constitutional claims were
not preempted by the Safe Water Drinking Act (SWDA), and that
their constitutional law claims against Michigan government
entities could proceed.  The plaintiffs, Flint residents and
water users, allege race and wealth-based discrimination, state-
created danger, racially-motivated conspiracy, due process
violations, and various contract, tort, and equitable claims.

The Sixth Circuit held that the SDWA did not satisfy the three
requirements to find claims preempted.  First, it held that no
clear legislative intent by Congress precluded section 1983
claims under the SWDA.  Second, SDWA's remedial scheme was not so
broad as to fully redress the harms suffered by the Flint
residents and water users.  Finally, the Sixth Circuit held that
the rights protected by federal law provided greater remedies,
and were different than, the rights protected by the SWDA.

By denying certiorari, the Supreme Court allowed the litigation
to continue in the Eastern District of Michigan.  The district
court is probably several years away from reaching the merits of
the case, but this threshold victory allows plaintiffs to press
forward and seek additional relevant information about the causes
of the crises.

Implications
The continuation of the underlying class action lawsuits may
provide additional relief to Flint residents.  That relief will
likely redress injuries caused by the contaminated water rather
than focus on remediation efforts-which were largely addressed
in a separate settlement between nonprofit groups, including the
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and the Michigan and
Flint governments (and related officials).  Specifically, that
separate settlement will require Michigan to pay $87 million for
the City of Flint to identify and replace at least 18,000 unsafe
water lines by 2020.  In contrast, the ongoing litigation could
result in damages for Flint residents and water users harmed by
the unsafe drinking water. [GN]


FLINT, MI: SCOTUS Won't Review Water Crisis Suit Remand Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Powell, writing for Law360, reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court on April 16 said it will not review a Sixth Circuit
ruling directing that a proposed class action Flint residents
brought against Michigan environmental officials over the water
crisis there be returned to state court.

The justices rejected a certiorari petition current and former
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality officials filed in
an effort to challenge a September ruling by the Sixth Circuit,
which upheld a federal judge's decision to send back to state
court the Flint residents' proposed class action.

The case is styled Patrick Cook, et al., Petitioners v.
Melissa Mays, et al., Case No. 17-1144 (U.S.).  The case was
filed February 15, 2018. [GN]


FLORIDA: Orlando City Council Joins Gun Control Class-Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Holfeld, writing News6, reports that Orlando city
commissioners voted 6-1 on April 16 to join a lawsuit that
challenges the constitutionality of a 2011 state law that
penalizes local governments for violating preemption of the
firearms regulations.

Orlando becomes the largest of an estimated 12 cities joining a
class-action lawsuit filed by the city of Weston on April 2.

Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer told News 6 on April 16 that in his
view, the state's gun control statute (790.3) "goes too far."

"It's one thing to pre-empt a local government from taking action
in a specific area, it's another to try to penalize local
government officials for acting in their official
responsibilities," Mayor Dyer said.

City Councilman Jim Gray was the sole no vote.  Mr. Gray argued
the resolution could prove to be a political mistake.

"The return on this investment isn't a good one," Mr. Gray told
the council.

Under the existing legislation "any such existing ordinances
rules or regulations (established by local governments) are
hereby declared null and void."

The penalties for establishing gun ordinances is $5,000 for each
government official and up to $100,000 for city governments.

Orlando city attorney Mayanne Downs said the penalties are
unconstitutional. She recommended that the council approve the
resolution.

"There's no need to go this far," she said.  "If we  pass an
ordinance and it was pre-empted then the ordinance traditionally
becomes null and void.  That's enough.  We don't also have to get
smacked down in the process."

Ms. Downs said the lawsuit doesn't ask for a compromise but
rather a "declaration" from the court so the city knows the legal
boundaries.

The city is not challenging the state Legislature's ability to
pre-empt local government's ability to establish gun-related
ordinances.  It only challenges the language that allows strict
consequences.

"They could remove any of us from office, they could put us in
jail or they could fine us," Mayor Dyer said.

As far as winning the lawsuit, Ms. Downs smiled and said, "We
don't enter lawsuits we don't win, usually."

Ms. Downs said lawsuits of this nature could take months or even
years. [GN]


FMA ALLIANCE: Certification of Class Sought in "Defalico" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Penny Defalico moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit titled PENNY DEFALICO, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FMA ALLIANCE
LTD. and JH PORTFOLIO DEBT EQUITIES LLC d/b/a JH CAPITAL GROUP,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00559-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the
Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant
the Plaintiff (and the Defendants) relief from the Local Rules
setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and
supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DDXS7UJL

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FRANKLIN COLLECTION: Gochet Moves for Certification of Class
------------------------------------------------------------
Keanna Gochet moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit titled KEANNA GOCHET, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FRANKLIN
COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-00560-JPS (E.D.
Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for
class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the
Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing
schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be
filed with the Motion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Kem7fvuK

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GEC RESTAURANT: "Keyes" Labor Suit Seeks Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Britny Keyes, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. G.E.C. Restaurant Management & Design,
LLC (d/b/a Green Eggs Cafe) and Green Eggs Cafe 1306, Inc. (d/b/a
Green Eggs Cafe), Case No. 18-cv-02233 (E.D. Pa., March 14,
2018), seeks to recover minimum wage compensation, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Green Eggs Cafe operates three restaurants in Philadelphia where
Keyes worked as a server. Defendants never provided Keyes a
paycheck, paystub, or any other accounting of wages and tips
earned, says the complaint. Keyes' tips would allegedly be shared
with runners, busboys and baristas. Keyes was compensated solely
from customer tips when she was employed as a server by
Defendants. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James E. Goodley, Esq.
      Marc L. Gelman, Esq.
      Maureen W. Marra, Esq.
      Daniel Keenan, Esq.
      1835 Market Street, Suite 2800
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 351-0613
      Facsimile: (215) 922-3524
      Email: jgoodley@jslex.com


GEMFIELDS: Mozambican Miners File Human Rights Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Greve, writing for miningmx, reports that a group of over
100 Mozambican miners have filed a class action lawsuit against
coloured gemstone miner Gemfields, alleging "serious human rights
abuses" at the group's Montpuez ruby mine, in northeastern
Mozambique.

Bloomberg reported on April 16 that the group would be
represented by London-based law firm Leigh Day, which claim that
the company's security team at the mine shot, beat and humiliated
miners.  The firm further alleges that mine security sexually
abused and unlawfully detained workers on the mine.

The claimants include family members representing four miners who
were allegedly killed, the law firm said in a statement on
April 16.

Gemfields has since said that it would "vigorously defend" itself
against the claim. [GN]


GETSWIFT: One Shareholder Class Action Likely to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
Misa Han, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that
more class action lawyers are piling onto GetSwift over the
alleged breach of continuous disclosure rules but one class
action is likely to go ahead.

On April 13, boutique shareholder class action law firm Phi
Finney McDonald filed a class action against GetSwift, with
funding from Therium Australia.

This means there are now three separate shareholder class actions
filed against the ASX-listed GetSwift, including the one filed by
Squire Patton Boggs and another filed by Corrs Chambers
Westgarth.  Quinn Emanuel is defending GetSwift.

On April 17 GetSwift shares were trading at $0.465, down nearly
90 per cent from the December high of $4.60 around the time when
the company announced a deal with Amazon.

But Justice Michael Lee of the Federal Court said at a case
management hearing on April 13 that GetSwift should face only one
class action case.

"I think we can say we've crossed the Rubicon that I am persuaded
that you won't be vexed with multiple proceedings," Justice Lee
said to GetSwift's barrister Alan Shearer.

"It's a question of what goes forward," he said.

'I'm a bargain'
Peter Brereton, SC, who is acting for the Corrs class action,
said the claim was estimated to be worth between $120 million and
$140 million and about 200 people have signed up to the action.

Squire Patton Boggs' class action barrister William Edwards said
the claim was estimated to be between $75 million and $100
million, with 100 people signed up to the action.

International Litigation Partners, which is funding the Squire
Patton Boggs class action, would take a 22.5 per cent commission
on the settlement sum, Mr Edwards said.

Squire Patton Boggs in its initial media announcement in February
"estimates that the total claim size may exceed $300 million",
although Mr Edwards denied that was the case and blamed the media
for publishing the figure.

"There's no evidence about whether or not that was in fact an
accurate record [. . .] the press likes to exaggerate these
things," he said on April 13.

The court heard on April 13 the Phi Finney McDonald's partners
working on the case had a charge-out rate of $737 an hour,
compared to $962 at Corrs and $1045 for Squire Patton Boggs'
Amanda Banton.

"We're, by far, the least expensive," Phi Finney McDonalds' class
action barrister David Collins, QC, said.

When Justice Lee asked whether Mr Collins' personal rates were
"marginally more expensive than a partner at Corrs but
significantly cheaper than Ms Banton's", Mr Collins quipped: "I'm
a bargain. Everyone knows that."

The class actions and an Australian Securities and Investments
Commission investigation of the company were triggered by an
investigation in The Australian Financial Review into GetSwift's
market announcements and failure to disclose contract losses.
[GN]


GIMAC DIVISION: Cardona Moves for Conditional Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned ROSSEL CARDONA, et al, on
behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated v.
GIMAC DIVISION INC, et al, Case No. 2:17-cv-11665-SM-JCW (E.D.
La.), move for conditional class certification, judicial notice,
and for disclosure of the names and addresses of potential "opt-
in" plaintiffs.

The action arises from a "generally applicable rule, policy, or
practice" pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3MID0S8m

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          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
          E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com
                  whbeaumont@gmail.com
                  eaw@beaumontcostales.com


GIRARD, OH: Faces Class Action Over I-80 Speed Camera Tickets
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Gauntner and Michelle Nicks, writing for 21WFMJ, report that
a federal class action lawsuit has been filed against the City of
Girard in protest of speed camera tickets received on Interstate
80.

Speed camera tickets in Girard have always been a source of
controversy.

According to a Cleveland law firm it's suspected hundreds if not
thousands of people wrongly received tickets for driving faster
than 55 along I-80 in Girard between December 7th, 2017 and
January 7th of 2018.

Attorney Marc Dann with Dann Law in Cleveland says, "It's a
little confusing.  My understanding is that when the construction
was completed on I-80 the speed limit was restored back to 65
miles an hour.  Apparently one sign was left on the road saying
that the speed limit was 55 in that zone."

It was on that basis that Girard issued the speeding tickets, but
Attorney Dann says that was not the correct speed.

He says the city refuses to reimburse drivers who dispute the
tickets.

"The other thing we just learned this morning and we're
interested in talking to people about is that some of these
tickets have been referred to collection agencies.  If a
collection agency is trying to collect a debt that somebody
doesn't actually owe then they may have claims against the
collection agency as well," Attorney Dann said.

In response Girard's Mayor James Melfi says what's ironic is who
filed this federal class action lawsuit.

"Attorney Marc Dann used to represent the citizens of this
community first as a state senator and then as the attorney
general.  So it will be interesting to see him on the other side.
Maybe he can find his way to Girard.  Because I really don't
remember the times he was here when he served the citizens of our
city," Mayor Melfi said.

The speeding tickets in this case range from $104 to $179 and
Mayor Melfi says they are used to make the streets safer and
generate revenue.

Since August of 2016 Girard has collected $2-Million and that
money has been used to buy ten new police cruisers and pave
$750,000 in streets along with other projects.  And as far as
safety.

"422 is now a street you can pull out on from a side street, that
wasn't the case before," according to Mayor Melfi.

Attorney Dann says, "The way class action lawsuits work is that
everybody that had a ticket during that time frame is
automatically a member of the class.  So if the class gets
certified people don't actually have to sign up.  In fact, the
only people that might want to pay attention are those who have
damages out of the ordinary and you think you might want to bring
your own lawsuit.  So there's no need to call necessarily.
There's no need to sign up anywhere.  But just pay attention to
the case as it goes forward.  Girard will have to notify all the
people who were issued tickets in that time frame and give them
an opportunity to make a claim."

But Attorney Dann would like to hear from anyone who has been
contacted by a collection agency because those could end up being
separate claims.

A Canfield couple and a Stark County woman are already part of
the lawsuit, claiming they received civil fines ranging from $104
to $179 after being ticketed for driving between 60 and 75 mph on
I-80 during the period.

The lawsuit, which asks for a trial by jury, asks the court to
invalidate the tickets as well as award attorney fees unspecified
actual and punitive damages.

The city has not yet answered the suit.

This isn't the first time speed cams have been challenged in
Girard.

In 2010 Girard settled a class action suit filed after the city
used an unmanned speed camera to collect fines.

Since then the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that cities and
townships are permitted under law to use traffic cameras without
a law enforcement officer present to witness the violation.

Ohio lawmakers are considering a bill that would cut state
funding to Ohio communities using traffic cameras to issue
tickets and collect fines. [GN]


GRASSY SPRAIN: Faces "Castro" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grassy Sprain
Group, Inc. The case is styled as George Castro, individually and
on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Grassy
Sprain Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02608 (E.D. N.Y.,
May 2, 2018).

Grassy Sprain Group, Inc. is a Florida Corporation based in Boca
Raton.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GREENCORE: U.S. Subsidiary Faces Wage Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
The Irish Times reports that Greencore boss Patrick Coveney is
facing a further headache over the food company's US business as
it has been named as a defendant in a potential class-action suit
over wage polices at one of its plants.

A Greencore US subsidiary is named alongside local staffing
agency Elite in a case filed last month that concerns a facility
in Romeoville, Illinois. [GN]


GROUPON INC: Dancel Moves to Certify Class & Subclass
-----------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled CHRISTINE DANCEL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
GROUPON, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-02027
(N.D. Ill.), moves the Court to certify these Class and Subclass:

   * Instagram Class:

     All persons in the United States who maintained an Instagram
     account and whose photograph (or photographs) from such
     account was (or were) acquired and used on a groupon.com
     webpage for an Illinois business (the "Class").

   * Personal Photo Subclass:

     All members of the Instagram Class whose likeness appeared
     in any photograph acquired and used by Groupon (the
     "Subclass").

     Excluded from the Class and Subclass are (1) Defendant,
     Defendant's agents, subsidiaries, parents, successors,
     predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or its
     parents have a controlling interest, and those entity's
     current and former employees, officers, and directors, (2)
     the Judge to whom this case is assigned and the Judge's
     immediate family, (3) persons who execute and file a timely
     request for exclusion from the Class and Subclass,
     (4) persons who have had their claims in this matter finally
     adjudicated and/or otherwise released, and (5) the legal
     representatives, successors, and assigns of any such
     excluded person.

The Plaintiff filed this matter in the Circuit Court of Cook
County on February 5, 2016, and, following a period of class
discovery, filed a motion for class certification.  Groupon
removed the case to the Court on March 20, 2018.

Ms. Dancel also asks the Court to appoint her as representative
of the Class and Subclass and to appoint her counsel as class
counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Ben Thomassen, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 N. LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jededelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  bthomassen@edelson.com

               - and -

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212-9300
          Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com


HEINZ: Retirees Mull Class Action Over Health Benefit Cuts
----------------------------------------------------------
WPXI.com reports that retirees from the former Heinz Plant in
Troy Hill say the company that took over operations has slashed
their promised health benefits.

They told Channel 11 saw this coming, but when the contract was
rejected on April 15 and members didn't support a strike vote,
the company pushed their own contract.

"They took our medical, our healthcare away, and we're at the
point in life where we need our health care," said Janie Carter
Williams, who worked at the plant for 37 years.

According to the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local
23, on April 15 Riverbend Foods, which currently owns the
facility, implemented a new contract that includes a payout of
the retiree health care plan at the end of the year.

"These are immoral monsters!" said retiree Nancy Plecenik.

Retirees younger than 65 will receive a $10,000 check, and those
65 and older will receive a $2,500 check.

"Do you know how much that would do for us? . . . Not even 10
months of health care. Break a leg! Break a finger!" Ms. Williams
said.

When Channel 11 reached out to the company, a spokesperson sent
this statement: "The agreement provides a very good and
competitive wage and benefit package and provides for continued
retiree health care through the end of this year."

"I actually talked to one of the guys on the phone that owns the
company," said retiree Larry Thompson.  "I tried talking to him
about health care and he said I'm not going to talk about health
care because it's dead! You're never gonna see it again."

Retirees are looking into the possibility of filing a class-
action lawsuit. [GN]


HOME DEPOT USA: Faces "Stumbrice" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Home Depot USA,
Inc. The case is styled as James Stumbrice and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Home Depot USA, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 7:18-cv-03929-KMK (S.D. N.Y., May 2, 2018).

The Home Depot, Inc. or Home Depot is an American home
improvement supplies retailing company that sells tools,
construction products, and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jordan Alexander El-Hag, Esq.
   El-Hag and Associates, P.C.
   91 New Street
   Ridgefield, CT 06877
   Tel: (914) 755-1579
   Fax: (914) 206-4176
   Email: jordan@elhaglaw.com


HORING WELIKSON: Faces "Razilova" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Horing Welikson &
Rosen, P.C. The case is styled as Olessia Razilova, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Horing Welikson & Rosen, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02610
(E.D. N.Y., May 2, 2018).

Horing Welikson & Rosen, P.C. is a law firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IDERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Raatz Files Suit Over Holdco Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Raatz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Idera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., James
Geraghty, Vincent Milano, Julian C. Baker, Mark Goldberg, Maxine
Gowen, Kelvin M. Neu, William S. Reardon, Biocryst
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Nautilus Holdco, Inc., Island Merger Sub,
Inc. and Boat Merger Sub, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-10485
(D. Mass., March 14, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all
persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating or closing the merger between Biocryst
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Idera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Nautilus
Holdco, Inc., and rescinding it in the event defendants
consummate the merger. The complaint also seeks rescissory
damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for
plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and
further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Shareholders of Idera will receive 0.20 of a newly issued share
of common stock of Holdco for each share of Idera common stock
that they own.

Merger agreement provides for a "no solicitation' clause that
prevents Idera from soliciting alternative proposals and
constrains its ability to negotiate with potential buyers.
Plaintiff claims that the consideration paid to the company's
shareholders is inadequate considering that the intrinsic value
of the company is more than the amount offered in the proposed
mergers.

Idera is a clinical-stage patient-focused biopharmaceutical
company developing novel nucleic acid therapeutic approaches for
the treatment of certain cancers and rare diseases. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq.
      MATORIN LAWOFFICE, LLC
      18 Grove Street, Suite 5
      Wellesley, MA 02482
      Tel: (781) 453-0100
      Email: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com

             - and -

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

             - and -

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


INDEPENDENT TRUCKERS: Northrup Moves to Certify Class Under TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled John Northrup, Individually
and on Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Individuals v.
Independent Truckers Group, Inc., David E. Lindsey, Innovative
Health Insurance Partners, LLC, and Cyberx Group, LLC, Case No.
8:17-cv-01890-CEH-JSS (M.D. Fla.), asks the Court to certify this
class:

     all persons within the United States who received a text
     message from a Defendant, as listed in documents produced in
     this case, identified as CXG028 - 32, and attached as
     Exhibits B through F to Cory Fein's declaration.

Mr. Northrup also asks the Court to appoint him as class
representative and his counsel as class counsel, and to order the
parties to confer on a class notice plan.

The Defendants obtained a database of truck drivers' mobile phone
numbers and engaged in a text message advertising campaign trying
to sell their services to the truck drivers in the database, the
Plaintiffs contends.  Without the consent of the truck drivers,
he asserts, the Defendants used an automatic telephone dialing
system that sent thousands of text messages within a couple of
hours in clear violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6Uw2i5nm

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cory S. Fein, Esq.
          CORY FEIN LAW FIRM
          712 Main St., #800
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (281) 254-7717
          Facsimile: (530) 748-0601
          E-mail: cory@coryfeinlaw.com

               - and -

          Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
          425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 524-2820
          Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
          E-mail: seth@epllc.com


JAMAICA: CRH Junior Doctors Plan to Pursue Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Erica Virtue, writing for The Gleaner, reports that junior
doctors at the Cornwall Regional Hospital (CRH) have indicated
that they will pursue a class-action suit against the Government
regarding the unhealthy environment at the western Jamaica
hospital.

The incensed doctors informed the Jamaica Medical Doctors
Association (JMDA) of the impending lawsuit at a meeting held on
April 11, minutes of which were obtained by The Gleaner.  The
JMDA, represented by president Dr Elon Thompson, heard that the
Western Regional Health Authority (WHRA) had moved out of the
hospital complex two years ago, and was paying rent at US$100,000
per month.

"If they were moved out so long in advance, it suggests that
something else was known and hidden from them (the junior
doctors)," read a section of the minutes.

In a no-holds-barred meeting, the JMDA was bashed by the
membership and accused of abandoning them.  However, the
association apologised and reiterated that calls and attempts at
meetings with the ministry have been denied.

The doctors are of the view that the public is not fully aware of
what is happening at the hospital.  The meeting was asked why the
JMDA had not taken legal action to get the Pan American Health
Organization report when its efforts were unsuccessful.  The JMDA
said it had made repeated attempts to get the PAHO and
environmental reports and was denied.  It only received a leaked
copy.

The JMDA representative "stated that we will engage an attorney
re class action lawsuit/equivalent in Jamaica," the minutes read.
The meeting was also told that "the dockets seen in staff clinics
[were] to be kept and photocopied for information purposes".

Meanwhile, Health Minister Dr Christopher Tufton on April 17
reacted calmly to the junior doctors' decision to pursue a class-
action suit against the Government:

"I have said publicly that persons have a right to act in their
best interest," Dr. Tufton stated.

He said he had met with doctors some weeks ago and had never
denied any meeting with them.  On the relocation of the WHRA, he
was unable to say how much was paid for rent, but said it was his
understanding that they had moved because of space.

The Gleaner has learned that lawyers are actively scouting
patients to represent them in impending lawsuits. [GN]


JARDINE LLOYD: May Face Class Action Over Brokerage Advice
----------------------------------------------------------
Katie Walsh, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that global insurer Jardine Lloyd Thompson faces a possible class
action based on allegations brokerage advice may have led local
councils across Australia to pay excessive premiums, possibly for
years.

Law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan revealed it is "well
advanced" in looking into possible proceedings against JLT,
arguing it owed a duty of care to councils.

"The fact that many local councils have, since leaving JLT, made
substantial savings on their premiums, indicates that JLT may not
have acted in the best interest of local councils or their
ratepayers, who really are the ones 'paying the cost' for these
insurance schemes," said QE managing partner Michael Mills.

JLT provides insurance services to more than 500 of the almost
550 councils across Australia.

QE claims local councils "regularly procured some or all of their
insurance through various insurance schemes that were managed by
JLT and its related entities", after receiving advice from JLT
acting as their insurance broker.  Insurance related services
were also provided.

JLT has specialized in local government services since the 1970s,
at a time when councils found it hard to secure insurance.  Each
state has a mutual scheme grouping local councils, behind which
JLT delivers services.

But in 2015, the Victorian Auditor-General's Office criticised
the scheme in that state.

No competitive tender

The Auditor-General noted management agreements had not been
subjected to a competitive tender process since an original
agreement entered in 1993 by the Municipal Association of
Victoria (MAV), the statutory body which represents the state's
79 local councils and has voluntary insurance schemes.

That was despite a 2010 independent review which raised "concerns
about the performance of the provider" and recommended
competitive tendering. In 2012, MAV entered a new decade-long
agreement with JLT, with a 5-year extension clause.

"With no market testing for the past 10 years, MAV cannot
reliably demonstrate value for money from its insurance business
activities or that the arrangements with its service provider are
appropriate for the needs of member councils," the report said.

In 2014, the City of Ballarat told ratepayers it was saving more
than $600,000 after putting its insurance out to tender, equating
to a one per cent cut in rates.

Quinn Emanuel said it was "well advanced in its investigations"
into bringing proceedings.

In February, it obtained access to JLT documents relating to the
scheme on behalf of Mornington Peninsula Shire Council.

'No case': JLT

Granting access in a ruling handed down just before Christmas,
Federal Court chief justice James Allsop said in all
circumstances, "the belief that the council may have a right to
relief is one that is reasonably held".

"Though the language of the Auditor-General's report is somewhat
opaque, it provides a reasonable basis for the council to believe
that there may be a right to obtain relief from JLT concerning
the levels of fees and costs if there be, as there may be, a
fiduciary relationship between JLT and member councils," he
ruled.

Without resolving the disagreement over whether a fiduciary duty
was owed, he held it was "plausible".

"The relationship is potentially one in which members of the LMI
scheme were vulnerable to any abuse by JLT of its position and,
depending on the terms of the management agreement between MAV
and JLT, it may also be one in which JLT has undertaken to act in
the interests of the members of the LMI scheme."

A spokeswoman for JLT said the company was "confident that the
council has no case for compensation against JLT".

"This case involved no more than a preliminary decision that the
council is entitled to discovery of certain documents so that it
may decide whether or not to start a proceeding," she said.

She emphasized the court "did not receive evidence [or] form a
view as to whether there are reasonable prospects of a case for
compensation".  [GN]


JARDINE LLOYD: Law Firm Calls on Local Councils to Join Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mills, Managing Partner at QE says, "Jardine Lloyd
Thompson (JLT), as a broker of insurance, owed a duty of care to
our clients.  The fact that a number of local councils have,
since leaving JLT, made substantial savings on their premiums,
indicates that JLT may not have acted in the best interest of
local councils or their ratepayers, who really are the ones
'paying the cost' for these Insurance Schemes."

JLT may also have breached its fiduciary duties owed to local
councils as members of the Insurance Schemes, in its capacity as
manager of those Insurance Schemes.

Local councils who were advised by JLT in relation to their
insurance arrangements and/or were members of the Insurance
Schemes from 30 June 2006 should register their interest in the
class action by contacting Nicholas Lennings on (02) 9146 3500 or
CouncilsClassAction@quinnemanuel.com.

Eligible local councils may be entitled to damages if the class
action is commenced and is successful. [GN]


JFK MEDICAL: Mendez Must Amend Bid to Certify Class on May 21
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Kenneth A. Marra entered an order in the lawsuit
entitled SANDRA LOIS MENDEZ, AMY R. BRAZEE, SETH GATES, and LORI
R. SINGER, f/k/a Lori R. Kogan, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. JFK MEDICAL CENTER LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP d/b/a JFK MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Case No. 9:17-cv-
80866-KAM (S.D. Fla.):

   (1) granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Supplement
       Motion for Class Certification.  The Plaintiffs shall file
       an amended motion on May 21, 2018; and

   (2) denying as moot, without prejudice to raising any
       arguments or grounds previously asserted in the amended
       motion, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class and the
       Defendants' Motion Requesting Judicial Notice in
       Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion.

The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on
January 26, 2018.  Since then, the parties have engaged in
discovery disputes and the Defendants have provided additional
documents to the Plaintiffs, according to the Order.  The
Plaintiffs state that they expect additional documents on April
13 and April 20, 2018.  Consequently, the Plaintiffs seek to
supplement their motion for class certification.

After reviewing the record with respect to the discovery disputes
among the parties, the Court believes that the Plaintiffs should
have the opportunity to supplement their motion.  For the ease of
the Court, Judge Marra notes, the best course of action is for
the Plaintiffs to file an amended motion for class certification
as opposed to filing a supplement.

Hence, Judge Marra rules that the Plaintiffs' amended motion is
due May 21, 2018, and the Federal and Local Rules shall govern
the deadlines for the response and reply memoranda.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=j8KJsceu


JOHN DOES: "Musso" Alleges Volatility Index Derivative Rigging
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Musso, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. John Does, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-
02269 (S.D. N.Y., March 14, 2018), seeks treble damages arising
out of the alleged manipulation of the prices of financial
instruments linked to the Chicago Board Options Exchange
Volatility Index in violation of the Sherman Act and the
Commodities Exchange Act.

Defendants allegedly colluded with each other to manipulate the
trading prices of Volatility Index Derivatives through the
placing of manipulative S&P 500 Index options orders that were
intended to cause Volatility Index Derivative settlement prices
to spike artificial.

Musso transacted in Volatility Index Derivative, including
Proshares Ultra Volatility Index Derivative Short-Term Futures
and Velocity Shares. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
      Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
      Donald R. Hall, Esq.
      Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
      Ralph E. Labaton, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 687-1980
      Fax: (212) 687-7714
      Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
             ffox@kaplanfox.com
             dhall@kaplanfox.com
             jcampisi@kaplanfox.com
             rlabaton@kaplanfox.com

             - and -

      Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq.
      KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
      Two International Drive, Suite 350
      Rye Brook, NY 10573
      Tel: (914) 934-9200
      Fax: (914) 934-9220
      Email: jak@klafterolsen.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: "Khosroabadi" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Interest
--------------------------------------------------------------
Badri Khosroabadi, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02147 (C.D. Cal., March 14, 2018),
seeks damages for breach of contract, reasonable attorney's fees
and costs, prejudgment interest, costs of suit and such other and
further relief in violation of the California Business &
Professions Code.

Khosroabadi purchased a house, and simultaneously entered into a
home loan agreement in which Chase is the lender. The bank
required her to maintain escrow accounts, into which she deposit
significant funds for the payment of property tax and insurance
on the property. However, she never received from interest on the
monies she pre-paid and held by J.P. Morgan for the payment of
the taxes and insurance. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
      Nicholas Barthel, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      Email: ak@kazlg.com
             jason@kazlg.com
             nicholas@kazlg.com


KEURIG GREEN: July 12 Final Approval Hearing on "Sanchez" Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALVARO SANCHEZ on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. KEURIG GREEN
MOUNTAIN, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 15-CV-04657-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Jose Division, granted Sanchez's Motion for Preliminary
Approval of the Class Action Settlement.

Sanchez's motion came on for hearing on March 22, 2018.  Having
reviewed the terms of the Settlement, including the plan of
allocation and the release of claims, Judge Davila concludes that
the proposed Settlement meets the criteria for preliminary
settlement approval.  The Settlement has no obvious defects and
falls within the range of possible approval as fair, adequate,
and reasonable, such that notice to the Class is appropriate.

The Judge conditionally certified the settlement class of all
former non-exempt, hourly associates who worked for temporary
staffing agencies, including but not limited to Select Staffing,
at any time between July 14, 2011 and July 3, 2017, who were
assigned by such temporary staffing agencies to work at the
Defendant's Castroville Plant.

He appointed Sanchez to serve as the Class Representative, and
the Plaintiff's counsel, Fitzpatrick, Spini & Swanston as the
Class Counsel.  He also appointed Simpluris, Inc. as the
Settlement Administrator.

The Judge approved the Class Notice Packet and the manner of
distributing the Class Notice Packet to the Class.  Under the
plan, the Defendant will provide the Settlement Administrator
within 15 calendar days after the Court enters its Preliminary
Approval Order, the Class Information.  Within 21 days after the
Settlement Administrator receives the Class Information, the
Settlement Administrator will mail the Class Notice Packets in
both English and Spanish to all Class Members at their last known
address, unless modified by any updated address information that
the Settlement Administrator obtains in the course of
administration of the Settlement.  Prior to the mailing of the
Class Notice Packets, the Settlement Administrator will update
any new address information for Class Members as may be available
through the National Change of Address database or equivalent
system.

The Settlement Administrator will trace all returned
undeliverable Class Notice Packets and re-mail them to the most
recent address available no later than seven calendar days
following receipt of the returned mail.  For any Class Notice
Packets returned to the Settlement Administrator without a
forwarding address, the Settlement Administrator will conduct a
skip-trace and will promptly re-mail the Class Notice Packet to
any newly found address or addresses.  The re-mailed Class Notice
Packet will be identical to the original Class Notice.

The Judge set the Final Approval Hearing for July 12, 2018, at
9:00 a.m.  No later than 10 court days before the Final Approval
Hearing, the Plaintiff will file a motion for final approval of
the Settlement.  No later than 14 calendar days before the
deadline for the Class Members to object or opt-out from the
Settlement, the Plaintiff will file a motion for approval of the
Class Counsels attorneys' fees and costs

The Class Members will have 60 calendar days after the date on
which the Settlement Administrator mails the Class Notice Packets
to submit to the Settlement Administrator a valid Opt-Out Form.
A valid Opt-Out Form will be deemed timely submitted to the
Settlement Administrator if it is mailed to the Settlement
Administrator by first-class mail and postmarked by no later than
60 calendar days after the Settlement Administrator first mails
the Class Notice Packets to the Class Members.

The Defendant may, at its election, rescind the Settlement and
all actions taken in its furtherance of it will be thereby null
and void, if more than 10% of the Class Members opt-out of the
Settlement.  The Defendant must exercise this right of
rescission, in writing, within seven calendar days after the
Settlement Administrator first notifies the parties that the
conditions expressed have been satisfied.

Any Class Member who wishes to object to the fairness,
reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement must do so in
writing, and filed with the Court no later than 60 calendar days
after the date that the Class Notice Packets are first mailed to
Class Members by the Settlement Administrator.

The Class Members will have 180 calendar days to cash their
settlement checks.  Checks allocated to those who cannot be
located during the notice process will be cancelled by the Claims
Administrator who will promptly place the funds in a Reserve Fund
to be used to pay amounts allocated to the Class Members who
cannot be located within the time provided, but who are later
located up to six months after the Effective Date, and who are
otherwise qualified for such payment.  All payments made from the
Reserve Fund will be made as soon as practicable after the Class
Members are located.  Any funds remaining in the Reserve Fund
after six months and any remaining funds from "uncashed checks"
will be distributed to the Watsonville Law Center --
http://www.watsonvillelawcenter.org-- which provides free legal
services to low-income individuals on the Central Coast.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 6, 2018 Amended Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2JGFJuP from Leagle.com.

Alvaro Sanchez, Plaintiff, represented by Bernard James
Fitzpatrick -- bjfitzpatrick@fandslegal.com -- Fitzpatrick Spini
& Swanston & Charles Swanston, Fitzpatrick Spini & Swanston
Attorneys at Law.

Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., Defendant, represented by Laura P.
Worsinger -- lworsinger@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett & Jon David
Cantor -- jdcantor@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett, LLP.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Settles Workers' Wage Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Amy Baxter, writing for Home Health Care News, reports that
Kindred Healthcare (NYSE: KND) and one of its subsidiaries,
Gentiva Certified Healthcare, agreed to settle a class action
suit alleging the companies failed to pay some workers minimum
wage or provide them adequate breaks, a violation of California
law. Kindred and Gentiva agreed to pay $12 million to roughly
1,600 people.  Kindred's home health and hospice business is
currently undergoing an acquisition by Humana (NYSE: HUM) and two
private equity groups.


LAS VEGAS, NV: June 5 Deadline to Amend "Moore" Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL T. MOORE, Plaintiff(s), v. LAS VEGAS
METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendant(s), Case No.
2:17-cv-02022-RFB-NJK (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted the
Plaintiff's motion to extend time to file an amended complaint.

The Plaintiff is proceeding in the action pro se and requested
authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 to proceed in forma
pauperis.  On Feb. 27, 2018, the Court granted his application to
proceed in forma pauperis, and screened his complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 1915.  The Court identified numerous
deficiencies in the Plaintiff's complaint, and therefore
dismissed his complaint with leave to amend to provide him an
opportunity to cure those defects.

The Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint, which alleges
violations of his and the public performers he represents' rights
under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Thirteenth Amendments based
on encounters and incidents involving the Defendants.  The
Plaintiff has also filed a motion to extend time to file his
amended complaint.  He submits that he has been injured, and asks
for additional time to file an appropriate complaint if the Court
determines that his amended complaint is deficient.

The Plaintiff submits that he is not petitioning for a class
action on behalf of himself and the Sonic Laborers and Visual
Entertainers Union members who are public performers on the Las
Vegas Strip and Fremont Street.  However, Magistrate Judge Koppe
finds that the Plaintiff submits numerous times that he intends
to pursue his claims and seek relief on behalf of other
individuals.  As the Court previously states, the Plaintiff
cannot proceed with a class action as a pro se litigant.

The Plaintiff further alleges that he is General Counsel of The
Sonic Laborers and Visual Entertainers Union, and that he was
granted an admission to the Federal Courts in 1997 in San
Francisco by Judge Burton Litvack in two cases as Special
Representative/Esquire of the United Food and Commercial Workers'
Union.  According to the Magistrate Judge, the Plaintiff is also
not a licensed attorney under the laws of the State of Nevada
and, therefore, cannot use what he alleges was admission to the
Federal Courts over 20 years ago in the State of California by an
Administrative Law Judge to override Clark County's use of NRS
for bar membership.

Even construing the Plaintiff's amended complaint liberally, the
Magistrate Judge finds that his allegations consist solely of
conclusory statements such as, the Defendants operate under the
direction and control of the casinos and violate public
performers' human, labor, civil and constitutional rights; and
the Defendants are maliciously prosecuting us to terminate their
livlihoods.  The conclusory allegations fail to state how the
allegations support any claim against any Defendant and,
therefore, fail to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Koppe granted the Plaintiff's
motion to extend time to file an amended complaint.  She
dismissed with leave to amend the Plaintiff's amended complaint.
The Plaintiff will have until June 5, 2018, to file a second
amended complaint, if the noted deficiencies can be corrected.
If he chooses to amend his complaint a second time, the Plaintiff
is informed that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading in
order to make the second amended complaint complete.  In a second
amended complaint, as in an original and any previous amended
complaints, each claim and the involvement of each Defendant must
be sufficiently alleged.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 6, 2018 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2HDSqFX from Leagle.com.

Michael T. Moore, Plaintiff, pro se.


LE ARLINGTON: 4th Bid to Dismiss "Ecoquij-Tzep" FLSA Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PASCUAL ECOQUIJ-TZEP, and all others similarly
situated under 29 USC 216(b) Plaintiff, v. LE ARLINGTON, INC.
d/b/a MW HAWAIIAN GRILL also d/b/a MW'S HAWAIIAN GRILL also d/b/a
LITTLE TOKYO and f/k/a SHUN FAR EL PASO, INC., GRAND FAST FOOD
INC d/b/a FAMOUS CAJUN GRILL and also d/b/a FAMOUS WOK, SHIZHONG
ZHANG, YING HUI WANG, and KONG SHEN WANG, Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-625-BN (N.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge David L. Horan of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division, denied the Defendants' Fourth Motion to Dismiss
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1).

Ecoquij-Tzep, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, sued Defendant Hawaiian Grill, as his former employer,
alleging that it failed to pay him the minimum wage or overtime,
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  Ecoquij-
Tzep asserted that the case is brought as a collective action
under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

Hawaiian Grill filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which was granted in part and denied in
part.  This pattern has repeated itself with each amended
complaint -- although Ecoquij-Tzep added Defendants in his Second
Amended Complaint -- until the Court denied the Defendants'
Amended Third Motion to Dismiss as to Ecoquij-Tzep's Third
Amended Complaint Under 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-216 Overtime and
Minimum Wage Violations.

In the Third Amended Complaint, Ecoquij-Tzep brings the FLSA
claims on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and again asserts that the case is
brought as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).
By the time he filed the Third Amended Complaint, the Court had
already granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional
Certification Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

In a Feb. 28, 2018 Notice that the Plaintiff's Counsel Has Not
Received Any Signed Consent Forms, Ecoquij-Tzep reported that,
pursuant to the Court's Amended Phase 2 Scheduling Order, the
Opt-In Period lasted until Feb. 13, 2018 and the deadline for the
Plaintiff's counsel to file consent forms with the Court was Feb.
27, 2018; that, as of the end of business on Feb. 27, 2018, the
office of the Plaintiff's counsel had not received any signed
consent forms and thus there were no consent forms to file with
the Court; and that he respectfully requests that the Court take
notice that his counsel did not receive any signed consent forms
during the Opt-In Period.

Thereafter, in a March 13, 2018 Status Report regarding the
Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Order Requiring Parties to
Mediate Within Forty-Five Days, Ecoquij-Tzep reported that, while
a class was conditionally certified in the case on June 21, 2017,
no opt-in Plaintiffs returned opt-in consent forms during the
Opt-In Period and that, therefore, at this time the Plaintiff
will proceed only on his individual claim.  Ecoquij-Tzep has not
filed a consent form in the case.

The Defendants have filed a Fourth Motion to Dismiss under Rule
12(b)(1).  They assert that the Plaintiff brought the action as a
collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(B) on behalf of all
other similarly situated; that Ecoquij-Tzep has not filed a
written consent form and there are no other prospective
Plaintiffs similarly situated as defined and required under the
FLSA; that Ecoquij-Tzep has not filed for relief on an individual
basis; and that, acccordingly, the Defendants respectfully
request that the Court dismisses the Plaintiff's lawsuit for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction and awards them just costs under
28 U.S.C. Section 1919.  Ecoquij-Tzep filed a response, and the
Defendants filed a reply.

Magistrate Judge Horan holds that pursuing both an individual
action and a putative collective action is neither logically
inconsistent not legally mutually exclusive.  Ecoquij-Tzep's
failure to timely file a written consent had major implications
as to the collective action -- he is not a part of the certified
class -- and as to the running of the statute of limitations as
to any claimant as a part of the collective action.

But there now effectively is no collective action, and Ecoquij-
Tzep seeks to proceed only on his individual action, which he
contends did not require him to plead more than he has.  This,
the Magistrate Judge determines, he may do, and may do without
the need for any separate written consent based on Allen v. Atl.
Richfield Co. or the need for any additional or different
allegations in his complaint and without any limitations issues,
since he filed his March 4, 2016 complaint well within Section
255(a)'s two-year statute of limitations.

For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Horan denied the Defendants'
Fourth Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1).

A full-text copy of the Court's April 6, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://bit.ly/2JFKSDf from Leagle.com.

Pascual Ecoquij-Tzep, and all others similarly situated under 29
USC 216(b), Plaintiff, represented by Robert Lee Manteuffel, J H
Zidell PC, Jamie Harrison Zidell, J H Zidell PC & Joshua Aaron
Petersen, J H Zidell PC.

Le Arlington Inc, doing business as MW Hawaiian Grill, doing
business as MW'S Hawaiian Grill, doing business as Little Tokyo,
formerly known as Shun Far El Paso Inc, Defendant, represented by
Xenos Man-Wah Yuen -- office@syhlaw.com -- Siegel Yuen & Honore
PLLC, pro hac vice & David Mullican, Jr., Siegel Yuen & Honore
PLLC, pro hac vice.

Le Arlington Inc, doing business as MW Hawaiian Grill, doing
business as MW'S Hawaiian Gril, doing business as Little Tokyo,
formerly known as Shun Far El Paso Inc, Defendant, represented by
Trevin Rayvon Ware -- trwarelaw@gmail.com.

Grand Fast Food Inc, doing business as Famous Cajun Grill, doing
business as Famous Wok, Shizhong Zhang, Ying Hui Wang & Kong Shen
Wang, Defendants, represented by Xenos Man-Wah Yuen, Siegel Yuen
& Honore PLLC, pro hac vice, David Mullican, Jr., Siegel Yuen &
Honore PLLC, pro hac vice & Trevin Rayvon Ware.

Grand Fast Food Inc, Counter Claimant, represented by Xenos Man-
Wah Yuen, Siegel Yuen & Honore PLLC, David Mullican, Jr., Siegel
Yuen & Honore PLLC & Trevin Rayvon Ware.

Pascual Ecoquij-Tzep, and all others similarly situated under 29
USC 216(b), Counter Defendant, represented by Robert Lee
Manteuffel, J H Zidell PC, Jamie Harrison Zidell, J H Zidell PC &
Joshua Aaron Petersen, J H Zidell PC.


LG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Action Phone Boot Loop Problem
----------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Roseman, writing for Toronto Star, reports that in
April 2017, LG Electronics faced a U.S. class action lawsuit
involving a defect with its phones, including the G4, G5 and the
Google Nexus 5X.

LG admitted to a manufacturing issue, caused by loose contact
between components, which would make the phone attempt to restart
endlessly until the battery was completely drained.

Nicknamed "boot loop," this can be a fatal condition for
smartphones, rendering them useless.

"High usage or physical damage can cause internal pressure on the
central processing unit in smartphones, which can lead to boot
loop," said Puneet Jain, head of marketing for LG Electronics
Canada.

"When developing the LG G4 and Nexus 5X, LG introduced new
upstart technology to the CPU in order to increase the
performance of our devices."

The boot loop issue was identified in early versions of the LG G4
and Nexus 5X phones manufactured in mid-2015.  The phone has been
modified to correct the problem, he said, and the problem isn't
expected to recur after repair.

After settling the U.S. class action suit, LG informally extended
the warranty to 24 months for phones with the boot loop defect,
which often kicks in after the one-year warranty expires.

But in the past few weeks, I've been hearing from people who
don't qualify for LG's warranty extension.  They feel stuck in an
endless loop of being shuffled from retailer to manufacturer and
back again.

Victor Liang bought his Nexus 5X phone from Google Store Canada.
He asked Google for help when he found the boot loop problem and
was directed to LG Canada.

LG refused to do a warranty repair because the Nexus 5X phone he
had, sold by Google in Canada, was a U.S. model.

"If we contact LG in the U.S., we need a U.S. address to get a
free repair.  Not all of us have U.S. friends who will let us use
their U.S. address.  There are also costs to send a phone to the
U.S. and then back to a Canadian address," Mr. Liang said.

"It's like you drive a Japanese car and the dealer tells you to
get a warranty repair in Japan."

Another Nexus 5X owner, who preferred not to be named, chose the
phone because of good reviews and a reasonable price ($500).
Google's new line of Pixel phones, the successor to the Nexus
brand, is in the $800 to $1,000 range.

His boot loop problem showed up 22 months after purchase.  Again,
LG Canada refused service because the serial number of his phone
indicated it was from a batch meant for the U.S. market.

"LG referred me to Google, which said I was past the one-year
warranty and I had to speak to LG to get the extended warranty.
Both sides refused to take responsibility and blamed the other.

"Just to clarify, these phones were bought through Google Canada
(not Google U.S.), paid for in Canadian dollars and shipped from
their Toronto warehouse, as clearly stated on the invoice."

I wrote to both LG and Google, asking why they were refusing to
fix a known defect in these cases.  They blamed communication
errors and apologized for turning Nexus 5X owners away.

"We experienced a misunderstanding in our call centre regarding
LG's service support of Nexus 5X devices purchased directly from
Google," said Jain of LG Electronics Canada.

"This misunderstanding has been addressed and all LG service
representatives are now fully aware of the policy and are able to
support it accordingly.

"We ask anyone experiencing issues with their Nexus 5X to contact
LG's service centre at 1-888-542-2623."

Google Canada said Nexus 5X customers with problems should get in
touch with its customer support team, which has out-of-warranty
solutions available.

In another case, Carlos Martins bought his Nexus 5X phone in
September 2016. Within 17 months, the boot loop problem made his
phone unusable while he was spending time in Florida.

He called his carrier (Freedom Mobile) in Toronto for help and
was told the phone was no longer under warranty after one year.

"Since I was not leaving Florida for another month, I went to a
phone repair shop I know well in Daytona Beach.  They lent me a
phone while mine was in repair."

He later bought the used phone because the attempted repair was
not successful.  On his return to Toronto in late March, he asked
LG to fix it under the extended 24-month warranty.

LG turned down his request, saying he had voided his warranty by
using an unauthorized repair service to check his phone.

The repair cost would be $478.70 for a phone that originally cost
$500.  And if he didn't accept, LG would charge him $35 to
analyze his phone and ship it back.

I argued that Martins went to a Florida repair shop only after
being told his phone was out of warranty.  If he'd known of the
24-month coverage of the boot loop problem, he'd have waited to
return to Toronto.

LG reconsidered and decided to cover him after all.

"We understand he was in another country and might not have
understood the difference between an authorized service centre
using original parts vs. a non-authorized repair centre using
third-party parts that would void his warranty," said
spokesperson Corina Fisher.

"As such, we sympathize with Carlos and would be pleased to make
an exception to our policy and offer him repair at no cost."

In my view, LG had a duty to fix these defective phones, no
matter where they were made, which retailers sold them and when
customers bought them.  Let's hope it will finally do so. [GN]


LONGFIN CORP: June 4 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on April 15 disclosed that a
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
investors who purchased Longfin Corp. ("Longfin") (NASDAQ:LFIN)
securities between December 13, 2017 and April 2, 2018.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
Company issued materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) Longfin had material weaknesses in
its operations and internal controls that hindered the Company's
profitability; (ii) Longfin did not meet the requirements for
inclusion in Russell indices; and (iii) as a result of the
foregoing, the Defendants' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you suffered a loss in Longfin you have until June 4, 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.  To obtain additional information, contact
Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone
at 212.425.1140, or visit http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-c/longfin-
corp?wire=3.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has
represented investors in securities litigations involving
financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. [GN]


LUMENTUM HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on April 16
disclosed that it is investigating potential securities claims on
behalf of shareholders of Lumentum Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ:LITE)
resulting from allegations that Lumentum may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public.

On April 16, 2018, Reuters reported that the U.S. Department of
Commerce has banned American companies, including Lumentum, from
selling components to Chinese telecom equipment maker ZTE
Corporation for seven years after ZTE violated the terms of an
agreement relating to a U.S. sanctions violation case.  On this
news, shares of Lumentum fell $5.83 per share or over 9% to close
at $58.47 per share on April 16, 2018.

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by Lumentum investors.  If you purchased shares
of Lumentum please visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1323.htmlto join the class
action. You may also contact Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of
Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.  Rosen Law Firm was ranked
No. 1 in the Nation for Number of Securities Class Action
Settlements in 2017.  The firm has been ranked in the Top 3 each
year since 2013. [GN]


MCDONALD'S CORP: "Killeen" Suit Over Value Meal Prices Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Elaine E. Bucklo of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, dismissed the
case, Kelly Killeen, Plaintiff, v. McDonald's Corporation and
Salabad, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 17 CV 874 (N.D. Ill.).

In this putative class action, the Plaintiff sues McDonald's and
one of its franchisees claiming that they violated the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), and
unlawfully enriched themselves, by deceptively advertising and
marketing certain "Extra Value Meals" for sale in their
restaurants.  The Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint
on various grounds, but the Judge confines her analysis to a
single, dispositive issue.

According to the complaint, (i) the Defendants market and sell
Extra Value Meals that bundle together several menu items that
can also be purchased a la carte; and (ii) the Defendants
marketed Extra Value Meals as "a value," meaning that the
marketing suggested that the cost of an Extra Value Meals was
less than the aggregate cost of its individual components
purchased separately, when that was not always the case.  The
Plaintiff claims that the Defendants' advertising and marketing
was intended to dupe consumers (two classes of whom she seeks to
represent) into paying more for items they could have bought at a
lower cost.

Judge Bucklo finds that the Plaintiff's theory has superficial
appeal: common experience favors her assertion that consumers
expect to pay less for items bundled together and billed as a
"value" package than they would pay if they purchased the items
separately.  But even assuming the Defendants' marketing of the
Extra Value Meal had a tendency to mislead consumers in this
respect, Illinois law is clear that where other information is
available to dispel that tendency, there is no possibility for
deception.  The Plaintiff does not claim that the prices the
Defendants charged for their menu items were unavailable to her
at the time she made her purchase.  Indeed, anyone familiar with
fast-food restaurants such as McDonald's surely knows that prices
are typically displayed on menus located near the registers.

Understandably, Judge Bucklo finds that the Plaintiff may not
have wished to take the time to compare prices, but there is no
question that doing so would have dispelled the deception on
which her claims are based.  Judge says a straightforward, price-
to-price comparison based on information available at the point
of purchase would unequivocally dispel any misleading inference
that could be drawn from the name "Extra Value Meal."

A full-text copy of the Court's April 6, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://bit.ly/2FuHWqq from Leagle.com.

Kelly Killeen, Plaintiff, represented by Samuel Abraham Shelist,
Shelist Law Firm, LLC.

McDonald's Corporation, Defendant, represented by David James
Doyle -- ddoyle@freeborn.com -- Freeborn & Peters, LLP & David J.
Ogles -- dogles@freeborn.com -- Freeborn & Peters LLP.

Salabad, LLC, Defendant, represented by Nathan H. Lichtenstein --
nlichtenstein@agdglaw.com -- Aronberg, Goldgehn, Davis & Garmisa
& Amy Rapoport Gibson -- agibson@agdglaw.com -- Aronberg Goldgehn
Davis & Garmisa.


MDL 2804: River Forest Joins Opioid Crisis Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Nona Tepper, writing for Oak Park, reports that River Forest
village trustees unanimously approved joining a class action
lawsuit against manufacturers and distributors of prescription
opioids at a regular board meeting on April 9.

The class action suit, which is pending in the Federal District
Court in Cleveland, consolidates complaints by hundreds of cities
like Chicago, counties like Cook and Native American tribes
across the nation, said Village Attorney Greg Smith.  Defendants
include such pharmaceutical giants as Johnson & Johnson; large
health-care distributors like Cardinal Health; and pharmacy
chains like the Deerfield-based Walgreens, according to a report
in the New York Times.  Village President Cathy Adduci said
opioid abuse is "plaguing our nation."

"The village has expended taxpayer funds in response to
prescription opioid abuses, and the village seeks to recover
these expenditures that are attributable to the wrongful acts and
omissions of those involved in manufacturing, distributing and
promoting opioids," reads the new village resolution.

River Forest will retain the Chicago-based Edelson PC law firm
for representation.

The village will not pay any attorneys' fees or expenses unless
it achieves recovery, settlement or judgment in the opioid
matter, according to the new resolution.  If the judge rules an
outcome in the case -- Mr. Smith said the judge was pushing for a
settlement sometime in 2018 -- River Forest will pay 23 percent
of the net recovery if the matter is resolved pre-complaint; 28
percent if the matter is resolved after a complaint is filed but
before a summary judgment briefing is completed; and 32 percent
of the net recovery if the matter is resolved after summary
judgment briefing is completed in either the village's lawsuit or
in any related consolidated proceeding, according to the
resolution.

"The president and board of trustees of the village find that
approval of the agreement and pursuit of the litigation best
serve the public's health, safety and welfare," the resolution
reads. [GN]


MERCK & CO: Filing of Amended Suit in Mumps Vaccine Case Barred
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania remanded the case, IN RE:
MERCK MUMPS VACCINE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Master File No. 12-3555
(CDJ)(E.D. Pa.), holding that the Defendant would be
significantly prejudiced if the Plaintiffs were permitted to file
a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint at this juncture.

Magistrate Judge Sitarski cited the Plaintiffs' undue delay in
seeking leave to amend coupled with the maturity of the case, the
extensive discovery that has already taken place, and the fact
that fact discovery is closed.

The case is a consolidated putative antitrust and consumer
protection class action.  On June 25, 2012, Chatom Primary Care
P.C., Andrew Klein, M.D., and John I. Sutter, M.D., filed the
complaint against Defendant Merck alleging monopolization in
violation of the Sherman Act, and various state consumer
protection laws.  The Plaintiffs are direct purchasers of a mumps
containing vaccine from Merck.

A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on Sept. 20, 2012.
The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
Nov. 19, 2012.  After a ruling on the Defendant's motion to
dismiss, discovery commenced in October 2014.

The parties engaged in extensive discovery over a protracted
period of time.  The Defendant began rolling productions on Oct.
31, 2014.  The discovery included, inter alia, Merck's production
of nearly 144,000 documents, depositions of 24 current and former
Merck employees, and third party discovery.  After multiple joint
requests for extension of the scheduling deadlines, fact
discovery closed on June 1, 2017.

On Aug. 21, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
amend the Consolidated Amended Complaint to add a claim for
attempted monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman
Act.  The Defendant opposed the proposed amendment, arguing that
the Plaintiff unduly delayed seeking leave to add a new cause of
action after the close of fact discovery, thereby prejudicing
Merck's ability to defend against the new claim.

On Oct. 30, 2017, the Court agreed with the Defendant, and denied
the Plaintiffs' motion.  The Court's decision focused on the
Plaintiff's undue delay in seeking leave to amend, which would
prejudice Merck if a new claim was added after fact discovery
closed.

The Plaintiffs filed objections to the Oct. 30, 2017, Order.  On
March 13, 2018, Judge C. Darnell Jones, II issued an Order
remanding the matter to the Magistrate Judge for an in-depth
analysis of the extent to which the Defendant would be prejudiced
by amendment, and the extent to which undue delay was the basis
for the Court's ultimate decision not to grant the Plaintiffs'
motion.

Based on the unreasonably long time between "uncovering" the
documents that form the factual basis of the attempted
monopolization claim and seeking leave to file a second amended
complaint, Magistrate Judge Sitarski finds that the Plaintiffs
have acted with undue delay in attempting to assert a new theory
of recovery after the close of discovery.

While delay played a factor in the Court's decision to deny the
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend, delay was certainly not
the sole basis for the Court's Oct. 27, 2017, ruling.  The
Magistrate Judge also considered other factors outlined by the
Third Circuit in deciding whether to grant leave to amend,
including whether any undue delay would cause prejudice to the
Defendant.  In so doing, she weighed the Plaintiffs' purported
reason for their delay against the harm likely to be suffered by
the Defendant, and concluded that the Defendant would face
significant prejudice if the Plaintiffs were allowed to add a new
theory of liability after the close of fact discovery.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 6, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://bit.ly/2HD3Sps from Leagle.com.

CHATOM PRIMARY CARE, P.C., ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by ANDRA WANIEK --
AWaniek@herzfeld-rubin.com -- HERZFELD & RUBIN PC, BERNARD PERSKY
-- BPersky@RobinsKaplan.com -- ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, EAMON O'KELLY
-- EOKelly@RobinsKaplan.com -- ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, ELIZABETH L.
FRIEDMAN -- efriedman@labaton.com -- ROBINS KAPLAN MILLER &
CIRESI LLP, HOLLIS L. SALZMAN -- hsalzman@labaton.com -- ROBINS
KAPLAN LLP, JAMES B. ZOURAS, STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP, KELLIE LERNER --
klerner@labaton.com -- ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, LISA A. FURNALD, ROBINS
KAPLAN LLP, M. STEPHEN DAMPIER -- stevedampier@dampierlaw.com --
THE DAMPIER LAW FIR PC, RICHARD M. GOLOMB, GOLOMB & HONIK, RYAN
F. STEPHAN, STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP, AARON M. SHEANIN --
ASheanin@RobinsKaplan.com -- ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, DAN DRACHLER --
ddrachler@zsz.com -- ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING LLP, DAVID
ROCHELSON -- DRochelson@RobinsKaplan.com -- ROBINS KAPLAN LLP,
DIANA J. ZINSER -- dzinser@srkattorneys.com -- SPECTOR ROSEMAN &
KODROFF, P.C., FREDERICK A. BRAUNSTEIN --
FBraunstein@RobinsKaplan.com -- ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, JAYNE A.
GOLDSTEIN , SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP, JEFFREY L.
KODROFF -- jkodroff@srkattorneys.com -- SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF
PC, JOHN A. MACORETTA -- jmacoretta@srkattorneys.com -- SPECTOR
ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C., LEE ALBERT -- lalbert@glancylaw.com --
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, NATALIE FINKELMAN BENNETT, SHEPHERD
FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLC, REENA JAIN -- RJain@RobinsKaplan.com
-- ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, ROBERT S. KITCHENOFF -- kitchenoff@wka-
law.com -- WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC & STEVEN D. RESNICK,
GOLOMB & HONIK PC.

DR. ANDREW KLEIN, Plaintiff, represented by EAMON O'KELLY, ROBINS
KAPLAN LLP, JAMES B. ZOURAS, STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP, JEFFREY L.
KODROFF, SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF PC, JOHN A. MACORETTA, SPECTOR
ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C., LISA A. FURNALD, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, MARY
ANN GEPPERT , SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C., RYAN F. STEPHAN,
STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP, WILLIAM G. CALDES, SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF,
P.C., AARON M. SHEANIN, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, BRIAN D. PENNY,
GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY PC, DAN DRACHLER, ZWERLING SCHACHTER &
ZWERLING LLP, DAVID ROCHELSON, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, DIANA J.
ZINSER, SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C., FREDERICK A. BRAUNSTEIN,
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, HOLLIS L. SALZMAN, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, JAYNE A.
GOLDSTEIN, SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP, KELLIE LERNER,
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, LEE ALBERT, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
NATALIE FINKELMAN BENNETT, SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLC &
REENA JAIN, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP.

JOHN I. SUTTER, M.D., Plaintiff, represented by EAMON O'KELLY,
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, JAMES B. ZOURAS, STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP, JEFFREY
L. KODROFF, SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF PC, KEVIN PETER RODDY --
kroddy@wilentz.com -- WILENTZ GOLDMAN & SPITZER, PA, LISA A.
FURNALD , ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, RYAN F. STEPHAN , STEPHAN ZOURAS
LLP, AARON M. SHEANIN, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, DAN DRACHLER, ZWERLING
SCHACHTER & ZWERLING LLP, DAVID ROCHELSON, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP,
DIANA J. ZINSER, SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C., FREDERICK A.
BRAUNSTEIN, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, HOLLIS L. SALZMAN, ROBINS KAPLAN
LLP, JOHN A. MACORETTA, SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C., KELLIE
LERNER, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, NATALIE FINKELMAN BENNETT, SHEPHERD
FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLC & REENA JAIN, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP.

MERCK & CO., INC., Defendant, represented by DINO S. SANGIAMO --
dssangiamo@Venable.com -- VENABLE LLP, ERIC W. SITARCHUK --
esitarchuk@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, EYITAYO
ST. MATTHEW-DANIEL, MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, KATHLEEN SULLIVAN
HARDWAY -- kshardway@Venable.com -- VENABLE LLP, LISA DYKSTRA --
ldykstra@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, SALLY W.
BRYAN -- srbryan@Venable.com -- VENABLE LLP, SCOTT A. STEMPEL --
scott.stempel@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, MARGARET
E. RODGERS SCHMIDT -- margaret.rodgers-schmidt@morganlewis.com --
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP & R. BRENDAN FEE --
brendan.fee@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP.


MERITER HEALTH: Morgan Lewis Didn't Admit to Mishandling Conflict
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lizzy McLellan, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
in a $30 million dispute over an alleged conflict of interest,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius contends it never admitted to allegations
lodged by its former client, Towers Watson Delaware.

Towers has alleged that Morgan Lewis represented another company,
Meriter Health Services, and assisted Meriter's separate counsel
in suing Towers.  Towers moved for judgment on the pleadings in
March, arguing that Morgan Lewis has admitted or "must be deemed
to admit" that it knew there would be a conflict between
Meriter's and Towers' interests, and that the firm never informed
Towers of the conflict.

But Morgan Lewis, in a brief in opposition to Towers' motion for
judgment, said its denials in an answer to Towers' complaint
preclude the judge from ruling on the case at its current stage.

"Towers confuses the existence of evidence that it believes
relates to its claims with the absence of a genuine dispute of
material fact," Morgan Lewis said in the April 13 brief.

Contrary to Towers' motion, Morgan Lewis argued, the firm in its
answer to the complaint said it declined to participate in any
litigation against Towers, and that Meriter hired another law
firm to represent it in litigation against Towers.  Morgan Lewis
did not assist Meriter in the decision, the firm said in its
brief, citing its answer.

The firm also argued that while Towers has said it learned about
the conflict through a source other than Morgan Lewis, the source
of the information did not matter.

"Towers cannot pretend that its consent was uninformed simply
because its actual knowledge of the alleged conflict and
surrounding circumstances was based on information that it
learned from sources in addition to defendants," Morgan Lewis
said in its filing.  "The source of Towers' knowledge is
immaterial to the question of whether it gave informed consent."

Additionally, Morgan Lewis argued, Towers has not shown that it
was harmed by Morgan Lewis' alleged conduct.

According to Towers' complaint, Morgan Lewis represented Towers
from 2009 to 2016. In 2010, the suit says, Morgan Lewis began
defending Meriter in a retirement plan class action.  After the
class action settled in 2014, Meriter then sued a Towers entity
that designed the retirement plan at issue, alleging that Towers
was responsible for Meriter's liability in the class action.

Towers has alleged that Morgan Lewis used its representation of
Towers to assist another law firm, referred to in the complaint
as "Law Firm 2," in developing Meriter's lawsuit.  Morgan Lewis'
filings identify Law Firm 2 as Nixon Peabody.

William Trask of Sprague & Sprague, who is representing Towers,
declined to comment on Morgan Lewis' filing. [GN]


MYEXPERIAN INC: Vinsant Seeks to Certify Supervisors/CSRs Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned CHARLES VINSANT, TARA
BEAL, CHELSEA DYER, ASHLEY HAMILTON, ANTWAN HENDRY, BELINDA
MAXWELL, BRITTANY MORRIS, KIMBERLY ROLAND, and BETTY FULLER, Each
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
MYEXPERIAN, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-02056-PKH (W.D. Ark.), moves
for conditional certification, for approval and distribution of
notice and for disclosure of contact information.

The class is defined as:

     Each hourly-paid supervisor and/or customer service
     representative who worked for Defendant since March 20,
     2015.

The Plaintiffs brought this suit on behalf of certain former and
current hourly-paid call center employees of the Defendant to
recover overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, among other claims.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UMa5E4gV

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Eric R. Magnus, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          1155 Peachtree Street, Suite 1000
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3600
          Telephone: (404) 525-8200
          Facsimile: (404) 525-1173
          E-mail: magnuse@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Don A. Smith, Esq.
          SMITH, COHEN & HORAN, PLC
          1206 Garrison Ave.
          Post Office Box 10205
          Fort Smith, AR 72917-0205
          Telephone: (479) 782-1001
          Facsimile: (479) 782-1279
          E-mail: das.smcrh@mac.com


NESTLE: Faces SweeTARTs Candies False Advertising Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that
Nestle is facing a suit from a California woman who alleges its
SweeTARTs candies are falsely advertised as having no artificial
flavors.

Jessica Littlejohn, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated and the general public, filed a complaint on April 2 in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
against Nestle USA Inc. over alleged violation of California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False
Advertising Law.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she and
class members were deceived by defendant's alleged unlawful
conduct when they purchased defendant's SweeTARTS candies. She
alleges the candies all contain artificial flavors but this fact
was not disclosed or labelled in the packaging.  The plaintiff
alleges the products all contain a synthetic flavoring chemical
identified in the ingredient list as malic acid, which confers a
"tart, fruit-like" flavor and simulates the flavor of an actual
fruit.

The plaintiff holds Nestle USA Inc. responsible because the
defendant allegedly concealed its use of artificial flavoring,
deceived consumers, illegally cut costs and increased profits and
competed unfairly and unlawfully in the marketplace.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks award of
punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorney fees,
costs and such other and further relief as the court may deem
just, equitable or proper.  She is represented by Ronald A.
Marron, Michael T. Houchin of the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron
in San Diego.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California case
number 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG [GN]


NEW LONDON HOUSING: Judge Reardon Reopens Thames River Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Greg Smith, writing for theday, reports that with residents
steadily moving out of the troubled Thames River Apartments, the
New London Housing Authority has turned some of its attention to
the security of the buildings and their remaining residents.

There has been little in the way of security at the Crystal
Avenue high rises historically -- there are no locking doors at
the entrances to the three high rises, and a police substation
remains unmanned.  With fewer people around, the concern has
focused on the possibility of increased crime and squatters.

City police have increased patrols in the area as the number of
families in the 124-unit outdated low-income complex dwindles,
though more costly security measures are on hold until there is
an identified need.

New London Housing Authority Executive Director Kolisha Fiore
said that 77 of the 114 families have moved out and more continue
to leave every week.  All of the families were issued housing
choice, or Section 8, vouchers as part of the housing authority's
disposition of the federally subsidized property.

The goal is to have the entire complex vacated by the end of
June, at which time the housing authority expects to sell the
property to the city.  New Haven-based Glendower Group, hired by
the housing authority, is working with the residents to find
homes and move.

Betsy Gibson, the chairwoman of the Housing Authority's Board of
Commissioners, said she expects that one by one the buildings
will be closed and secured.

"As the buildings empty we have to make sure the safety of the
residents and security of the buildings is maintained,"
Ms. Gibson said.  "We're not in a position now to start moving
residents from building to building.  That time will eventually
come."

Ms. Gibson expects that once the number of families in one
building reaches a certain threshold -- that number is
undetermined -- they will be moved and consolidated into another
building.

Police Chief Peter Reichard suggested as much during a meeting
with the board at the end of February following a stabbing in the
parking lot and the fatal drug overdose of a homeless man in one
of the stairwells at the complex.

Mr. Reichard's suggestion was to seal off floors as they are
emptied and close buildings to allow them to be sealed off
completely.  He also suggested getting rid of abandoned cars in
the parking lot, something that Ms. Gibson said is already
underway.

He suggested ensuring all outside lights are working and perhaps
increasing their intensity.  Ms. Gibson said that security
cameras on the site are an added crime deterrent.

Meanwhile, a Superior Court judge involved in a 2014 stipulated
judgment is monitoring the progress of the move, at the behest of
New London attorney Robert Reardon.  It was Judge Reardon's pro
bono work fighting the housing authority for more than a decade
on behalf of Thames River residents that ultimately led to a
court-stipulated judgment that ended the class-action lawsuit and
mandated new housing for the tenants of Thames River by November
2017.

When it became clear deadlines would not be met, Judge Reardon
reopened the case and has been holding monthly status meetings
with the Judge David M. Sheridan, the original judge in the case,
along with housing authority and city officials.

Representatives from both the Connecticut Fair Housing Center and
Connecticut Legal Services have remained on site to monitor the
progress and ensure residents are not being discriminated
against.

Fionnuala Darby-Hudgens, Community Education & Outreach at The
Connecticut Fair Housing Center, had expressed concern last month
about notices to vacate that were poised to be issued to
remaining residents.

The 90-day notices might have been a cause for angst, but thanks
to a collaborative effort with Connecticut Legal Services and the
housing authority, now run by Imagineers, explanatory letters
were included with the notices.

Connecticut Fair Housing is also providing remaining residents
with help to fill out extension requests for the Section 8
vouchers.  They have hosted three different forums with
Connecticut Legal Services and plan another from 5 to 7 p.m.
April 23 at Thames River Apartments to help residents fill out
the second extension.

Vouchers, the first batch issued on Dec. 28, expire after 90 days
without an extension request.  Residents can apply for two
extensions if they are having trouble finding a place to live.

"Connecticut Fair Housing will continue to do outreach to ensure
everyone has found safe and affordable housing," Ms. Darby-
Hudgens said. [GN]


NEW YORK: Linden Plaza Tenants File Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Two years ago, City Limits wrote about an affordable housing
preservation deal under Mayor Bloomberg that tenants and
advocates say was disastrous and non-transparent, leading to
skyrocketing rents and evictions for many tenants.  Those
tenants, with the support of Legal Services Corporation A and the
Cypress Hills Local Development Corporation, have now filed a
class-action federal lawsuit against the owner as well as the
federal and city agencies who signed off on the deal.

"We all have suffered in one way or another for 10 years, as a
result of pure greed; a total disregard of the housing protection
laws," wrote Pamela Lockley and Mary de Suze of the Linden Plaza
Tenants Council in a press release in late March.  "We are a
large, close-knit, extended-family of American born and
immigrants from the Caribbean, Latin America, South America, West
Africa and the Ivory Coast.  We owe it to the tax payers of New
York, current and former tenants -- to make sure we all receive
justice."

Linden Plaza is a 1,525-unit apartment complex in East New York
that was built in 1971 under the state's Mitchell-Lama program
for middle-income housing creation.  In 2008, the city's
Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), with
approval from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), signed off on deal that permitted the owner, an affiliate
of the DeMatteis Organizations, to refinance its mortgage with
the New York City Housing Development Corporation and acquire
additional investment through the use of Low Income Housing Tax
Credits. With the refinancing, the owner was also expected to
fund about $50 million in renovations.

To cover a number of new expenses, including larger loan
repayments, the owner was permitted to raise rents by an average
of 93 percent, phased in from 2008 through 2010.  The deal was
supposed to keep the complex affordable for the next 30 years,
with tenants with lower incomes receiving vouchers to assist with
some of the rent increase.

But the Tenant Council says some low-income tenants didn't
receive the vouchers and that middle-income tenants were crippled
by the rent increases -- which, coupled with further rent hikes
in later years, the Tenant Council says has increased rents by an
average of 130 percent over the past decade.  By the Tenant
Council's estimates, which they say is also confirmed by voter
registration records, about 60 percent of the building's longtime
residents left or were evicted after the preservation deal.  They
also say that from 2008 through 2013, there was an average of 100
to 150 open cases in housing court emanating from Linden Plaza.
DuBois Thomas, director of tenant organizing and counseling at
Cypress Hills LDC, says he also noticed such unusually high
levels of eviction cases emanating from the complex.

But tenants argue that the deal was not only harmful, but also
illegal, and have gone to court several times without legal
representation to argue their case.  While no judge so far has
nullified the preservation deal, that process has helped to
uncover numerous documents that Legal Services Corporation A is
now using to bolster their case.  They'll argue that there was
"$140 million dollars of government funding that ownership was
never awarded, but has been the justification for rent increases
since 2008."  They say their documents prove that the owners did
not take on bond debt, or spend as much on renovations as
claimed, in order to justify rent increases.  They'll also argue
that there were many other financial irregularities in the deal
and that the rent increases were not permitted according to the
rules of the Mitchell-Lama program.

Neither HPD, the DeMatteis Organizations or HUD returned a
request for comment, but the building's management company has in
the past disputed the notion of a mass exodus of residents.  City
officials, meanwhile, have said most tenants received vouchers
and that prior to 2008 there hadn't been significant rent
increases, suggesting that the property needed large increases in
order to catch up with costs, and that middle-income residents
were paying less prior to the refinancing deal than they could
afford.  They've also insisted in the past that the renovations
cost $50 million and that the rent increases were completely
legal.

Linden Plaza is one of 269 buildings with a total of 105,000 co-
op and rental apartments that were built under the Mitchell-Lama
program.  Those buildings operated under time-limited
restrictions on rent increases and owner profit, but many left
the program when their restrictions expired.  As earlier reported
by City Limits, a 2013 report by the Community Service Society
found that 30,622 Mitchell-Lama rental units had exited the
Mitchell-Lama program between 1990 and 2008.

Elected officials on multiple levels of government have been
making efforts to prevent the loss of Mitchell Lama units: The De
Blasio administration said in October it had preserved or
extended the affordability of 11,000 Mitchell-Lama apartments in
its first term and was allocating another $250 million to
preserve another 15,000 Mitchell-Lama apartments for at least 20
more years.  On April 15, Representative Adriano Espaillat and
Senator Charles Schumer announced they'd secured support for an
East Harlem Mitchell-Lama in the federal funding package.
Governor Andrew Cuomo has also launched Mitchell-Lama specific
initiatives aimed at preserving affordability and funding
rehabilitation.

But expiring affordability will continue to be an expensive
problem throughout the city as affordability agreements tied to
other forms of financing, like the Low Income Housing Tax Credit,
the dominant form of affordable housing financing constructed
since the late 1980s, come up for expiration -- including at
Linden Plaza.

The Linden Plaza Tenant Council further argues that they would
have been better off if, instead of entering the city-approved
preservation deal, the building had exited the program: Mitchell-
Lamas built prior to 1974 are at least subject to rent
stabilization rules if they leave the program, with rent
increases set by the Rent Guidelines Board.

The lawsuit has the support of several local elected officials,
including Assemblyman Charles Barron and Councilmember Inez
Barron.  "Theirs is a just fight against unwarranted rent
increases, ones that have been imposed upon struggling tenants
who can hardly keep up with the volume of increases coming at
them," wrote the Barrons in support.

The battle at Linden Plaza comes as there are concerns in the
neighborhood at large about the De Blasio administration's first
neighborhood rezoning, which is playing out just a few blocks
northwest of the complex.  While so far all the large-sized
development projects under planning in the rezoning area are
slated to be 100 percent affordable housing, there is concern
that the rezoning is hastening changes in the real-estate market
and exacerbating speculation. [GN]


NISSAN NORTH: Townsend Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
James F. Bogan III, Esq. -- jbogan@kilpatricktownsend.com -- of
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, in an article for Lexology,
wrote that alleging a "price premium" or "benefit of the bargain"
damages theory is one thing. Proving it is another.  A recent
decision by Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California
shows the difficulty of establishing such a damages theory, where
the evidence does not show that a challenged product is
completely without value.  Class action defendants should
therefore pay close attention to the Supreme Court's decision in
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013) and its requirement
of proving class-wide damages, as a potent tool to defeat
predominance under Federal Rule 23(b)(3).

In Nguyen v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case No. 16-CV-05591-
LHK, Slip op. (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2018), the plaintiff (Mr.
Nguyen) bought a brand-new Nissan 370Z for his son.  Two years
later, his son was driving on the freeway when the car's clutch
pedal lost pressure and did not return from its depressed
position.  The son took the car to a Nissan dealership, which
fixed the car at no charge, because it was still under warranty.
Nearly two years later, he experienced a similar problem.
Because the car was no longer under warranty, it cost $270 to fix
it.

Mr. Nguyen filed a putative class action against Nissan and later
moved for class certification.  At the time he moved for class
certification, his claims against Nissan consisted of damages
claims under California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and the federal
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.  In his class certification motion,
he sought the certification of a class of all individuals in
California who purchased or leased from an authorized Nissan
dealer a new Nissan vehicle equipped with the specific manual
transmission at issue (a FS6R31A manual transmission).

Claiming that the class overpaid for their Nissan vehicles,
because Nissan allegedly had failed to disclose that a
transmission component (the concentric slave cylinder or CSC) was
defective, Mr Nguyen submitted the opinion of a damages expert to
prove class-wide damages.  The expert's "benefit of the bargain"
damages model assumed that class members had bargained for a
Nissan vehicle with a working CSC, and that if Nissan had
disclosed the alleged CSC defect, all class members would have
paid less for their vehicles, or would not have purchased them at
all.  The model set each class member's damages as the full cost
to replace the defective part with a functioning part.  According
to the expert, each class member was entitled to receive roughly
$724 in damages (the cost for a functioning CSC, new hydraulic
fluid, other necessary parts, and roughly four hours of labor).

Judge Koh found this approach to be "problematic," because it
essentially assumed that consumers had received no value from the
allegedly defective CSC. Id. at 9.  Indeed, the 370Z Mr. Nguyen
bought for his son was driven over 26,000 miles before the
original CSC malfunctioned, and Nissan replaced the part at no
charge during the warranty period.  The son then drove the car
another 25,000 miles before the replacement CSC failed, and the
repair cost that second time was only $270.  According to Judge
Koh, "[t]he extended use of the defective CSCs indicates that
they hold at least some value." Id. at 10.  For that reason,
"[t]he damages model therefore errs in assuming that all
consumers would discount the amount they would be willing to pay
for the vehicle by the full replacement cost of a CSC even though
the consumer received some value from the defective CSC." Id.

Judge Koh noted "that it is certainly possible that the defective
CSC is completely valueless, in which case the replacement cost
may be an appropriate damages measure." Id.  The damages expert,
however, failed to address this issue, which was "all the more
striking" in light of the evidence showing the CSC was not
valueless. Id.

Reviewing the caselaw, she explained that "this Court has
rejected class action damages models because they assumed that a
challenged product was valueless." Id. at 11.  Quoting the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S.
27, 35 (2013), she concluded: "In sum, the benefit of the bargain
damages model fails to 'measure only those damages attributable
to' Plaintiff's theory of liability because it awards damages
equal to the value of a non-defective CSC (the benefit of the
bargain) without deducting the value of the defective CSC." Id.
at 12.  Accordingly, she denied class certification on
predominance grounds, for failure to establish class-wide
damages: "Therefore, Plaintiff 'cannot show Rule 23(b)(3)
predominance: Questions of individual damages calculations will
inevitably overwhelm questions common to the class.'" Id. at 13
(quoting Comcast, 569 U.S. at 34). [GN]


NORTHLAND GROUP: Wins Final OK of "Santiago" Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Cathy L. Waldor grants final approval of the class
action settlement in the lawsuit titled NORMA I. SANTIAGO, on
behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. NORTHLAND GROUP
INC.; and PINNACLE CREDIT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-03608-
CLW (D.N.J.).

The Settlement Class previously certified by the Court was
defined as:

     All consumers residing in the State of New Jersey, to whom
     Defendant Northland Group Inc. sent a collection letter;
     which letter (a) was dated May 28, 2014 through and
     including May 28, 2015, (b) was seeking to collect a
     consumer debt allegedly owed to Pinnacle Credit Services,
     LLC which arose out of a Verizon Wireless account, and (d)
     was sent in a windowed envelope such that the account number
     associated with the debt was visible from outside the
     envelope.

The parties are ordered to consummate the settlement according to
the terms of the Settlement Agreement.  As set forth in the
Settlement Agreement, the Defendant shall fund the bank account
to be established by the Settlement Administrator in the amount
of $4,698 within 14 days from the date this Order is entered.
Within 30 days of the date of this Order, the Settlement
Administrator shall mail each Settlement Class member their check
according to the formula and process set forth in the Settlement
Agreement.

For efforts on behalf of the Class and to settle individual
claims, the Defendant shall pay $5,000 to Plaintiff Norma I.
Santiago in the manner set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
The Defendant shall pay Class Counsel's fees and costs in the
amount of $99,750, which payment includes costs and expenses,
time already spent and time to be spent attending hearings, and
the monitoring of the settlement.

Judge Waldor also rules that the action against the Defendant is
dismissed with prejudice, but the Court shall retain exclusive
and continuing jurisdiction over the action and all parties to
interpret and enforce the terms, conditions and obligations of
the Settlement Agreement.

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


OWL INC: Perez Renews Bid to Issue Notice to Supervisors, Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled JOSE PEREZ, ALFREDO SANTOS,
and DOUGLAS RICHEY, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. OWL, INC., Case No. 6:17-cv-01092-CEM-GJK
(M.D. Fla.), renewed their motion for issuance of notice pursuant
the Fair Labor Standards Act to these subclasses of Owl drivers:

   1. Road Supervisors:

      Drivers employed by Owl since June 15, 2014, who have been
      labeled as "road supervisors" and paid on a salary basis;
      and

   2. Hourly Drivers:

      Drivers employed by Owl since June 15, 2014, who have been
      paid on an hourly basis.

The Plaintiffs brought this case on behalf of drivers employed by
Owl at various locations throughout the United States to
transport Veterans Administration patients pursuant to federal
government service contracts.  The Plaintiffs note that the Court
have already found that Owl pays some drivers a salary and its
other drivers on an hourly basis, but that it has a company-wide
practice of failing to pay those drivers overtime when they work
more than 40 hours in a week.

A copy of the Renewed Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AjB7ihFE

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Weber, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  bweber@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Egan, Esq.
          Eric Lindstrom, Esq.
          EGAN, LEV, LINDSTROM & SIWICA, P.A.
          231 E. Colonial Drive
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (352) 672-6901
          E-mail: jegan@eganlev.com
                  elindstrom@eganlev.com


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: June 12 Deadline to Amend "Sgarlata" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RONALD SGARLATA, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC.,
DANIEL H. SCHULMAN, JOHN D. RAINEY JR., and HAMED SHAHBAZI,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-06956 (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M.
Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California ordered that (i) the Interim Co-Lead Plaintiffs must
file an amended complaint on or before June 12, 2018; and (ii)
Defendant Shahbazi must file his response to the amended
complaint within 30 days after the filing of the amended
complaint.

The action is a proposed class action alleging violations of the
federal securities laws against the Defendants.  The action is
subject to the requirements of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), which sets forth specialized
procedures for the administration of securities class actions.

On March 16, 2018, the Court entered an order appointing movants
Michael Eckert and Edwin Bell as the Interim Co-Lead Plaintiffs
and approving their choices of Pomerantz LLP and The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A. as the Interim Co-lead Counsel.

On March 30, 2018, the Court entered an order regarding the
timing of the filing of an amended complaint and Defendants
Paypal, Schulman, and Rainey's response thereto.

Shahbazi was not a party to the previously entered Scheduling
Order and at the time of the filing of the previous stipulation,
the Interim Co-Lead Counsel was negotiating the issue of service
of process with Shahbazi's Canadian counsel.

So that the schedule of Shahbazi's response to an amended
complaint is consistent with the schedule for PayPal, Schulman,
and Rainey's response, the parties, by and between their counsel,
stipulated, and Judge Chen approved, that (i) pursuant to the
Court's Order dated March 30, 2018, the Interim Co-Lead
Plaintiffs will file an amended complaint on or before June 12,
2018; (ii) Defendant Shahbazi will file his response to the
amended complaint within 30 days after the filing of the amended
complaint; and (iii) if Defendant Shahbazi moves to dismiss the
amended complaint, the Interim Co-Lead Plaintiffs' opposition
will be due within 30 days after the filing of the motion(s) to
dismiss, and any replies will be due within 20 days after the
filing of the Interim Co-Lead Plaintiffs' opposition.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 6, 2018 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2raHCbs from Leagle.com.

Ronald Sgarlata, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, J. Alexander Hood, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy A.
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac
vice, Louis C. Ludwig -- lcludwig@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP,
pro hac vice & Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice.

PayPal Holdings, Inc., Daniel H. Schulman & John D. Rainey, Jr.,
Defendants, represented by James Neil Kramer --
jkramer@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP,
Alexander K. Talarides -- atalarides@orrick.com -- Orrick
Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP & Suzette Barnes --
sbarnes@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP.

Hamed Shahbazi, Defendant, represented by Jay L. Pomerantz --
jpomerantz@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West.

Michael Eckert, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Jonathan Stern
-- jstern@rosenlegal.com -- Rosen Law Firm & Phillip C. Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice.

Edwin K. Bell, Movant, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz
LLP, Laurence M. Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. & Jonathan
Stern, Rosen Law Firm.


PLATINUM CORRAL: Wins Approval of Settlement in "Johnson" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. George C. Smith grants the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion
for Approval of Collective Action Settlement, Service Awards, and
Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed in the lawsuit entitled SCOTT
JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. PLATINUM CORRAL LLC and PLATINUM CORRAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case
No. 2:17-cv-00399-GCS-EPD (S.D. Ohio).

The Court finds that the parties' settlement in this action is
fair, reasonable, and just.  The parties' settlement is approved
and the terms of the parties' agreement are incorporated in the
Order.  For settlement purposes alone, the case is certified as a
collective action under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The parties' agreed form of Notice of Settlement and Opportunity
to Join and the plan for its distribution are approved.  The
Service Awards for Scott Johnson and Robert Cooper are approved.

The Plaintiff's Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and out-of-
pocket costs and expenses is granted.  American Legal Claim
Services LLC is approved as the Settlement Administrator.

Judge Smith also dismissed the action without prejudice, with
leave to reinstate on or before 30 days after the Settlement is
fully funded.  The action shall be deemed dismissed with
prejudice without further order of the Court if no such motion to
reinstate is filed within that time.  The Court will retain
jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.

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


RACK ROOM: Wins Prelim. OK of $26,866 Settlement in "Stebbins"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Carol B. Whitehurst granted the joint motion for
conditional class certification, for appointment of class
counsel, for preliminary approval of proposed class settlement,
and for approval of the form and contents of the Notice of
Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement Agreement filed
by the parties in the lawsuit entitled TIFFINEY N. STEBBINS v.
RACK ROOM SHOES, INC., Case No. 6:17-cv-00619-CBW (W.D. La.).

Judge Whitehurst preliminarily approves the proposed remaining
class recovery of $26,866, as provided in the Settlement
Agreement.  The Court also preliminarily approves the proposed
award of attorneys' fees and expenses to Class Counsel in the
amount of $7,000.

The Court conditionally, and for purposes of settlement only,
certifies this Settlement Class:

     All former employees of Defendant who worked at any of
     Defendant's Rack Room Shoes stores located in Louisiana, who
     separated from such employment during the period from
     March 17, 2014 through March 17, 2017, and who had a
     positive balance of unused "PTO" at the time of their
     separation from employment with Defendant as shown in the
     records of Defendant (the "Settlement Class").

Plaintiff Tiffiney N. Stebbins is certified as the Class
Representative, and Kenneth D. St. Pe, APLC, is certified as
Class Counsel, on the condition that this certification is for
settlement purposes only and any related designations shall be
automatically vacated if the Settlement Agreement is terminated
or is disapproved in whole or in part by the Court, any appellate
court, or any of the parties to the Settlement Agreement pursuant
to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

The Defendant as claims administrator, as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement, shall serve the Notice by April 23, 2018.
Settlement Class members must submit requests for exclusion by
opting-out from the Settlement no later than May 20, 2018.
Settlement Class members must submit a written notice to the
Clerk of Court indicating the intent to appear to support or
oppose the Settlement Agreement, including a statement as to why
the member opposes or supports the Settlement Agreement no later
than May 30, 2018.

A Fairness Hearing on final approval of the Settlement Agreement
shall commence on June 20, 2018, at 10:00 a.m.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WZilp63y


RICHARDSON, TX: Bowman to Take Red Light Camera Suit to Sup. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas Monitor reports that what began with a challenge to a
red light camera ticket the city of Richardson issued to him six
years ago, continues with Russell Bowman preparing to take a
lawsuit to the Texas Supreme Court.

Mr. Bowman, an Irving lawyer, has made getting rid of red light
cameras in Texas a career.  And with the help of a few equally
committed people, his fight is gaining momentum.

State Sen. Don Huffines, R-Dallas, who has carried bills to
outlaw the cameras statewide in the last two legislative
sessions, told The Texas Monitor on April 13 he is considering
including language in a similar bill that would force cities to
refund some or all of an estimated $537 million in fines
collected over the last decade.

"These cities were breaking the law when they were issuing these
tickets," Sen. Huffines said in a phone interview from Israel.
"We're looking for relief for those who were fined.  I think they
deserve a refund.  It's very disheartening.  If citizens are
expected to obey the law, cities should be expected to obey the
law, too."

The law Sen. Huffines is referring to -- Senate Bill 1119, passed
in 2007 -- is at the heart of all of the legal work Mr. Bowman
has done over half of dozen years in dozens of Texas cities.

The bill requires cities considering installing any kind of red
light camera system to prepare and approve an engineering study
to justify its implementation.

Mr. Bowman argued successfully in a class action lawsuit on
behalf of people who got red light camera tickets in Willis that
the city had done no such study.  Willis, about 50 miles north of
Houston, won an appeal last August.

Bowman told The Texas Monitor on April 13 he expected to file a
brief for a hearing before the state Supreme Court.  "These cases
have been languishing but it's all delaying tactics," Mr. Bowman
said. "These cities know they don't have a leg to stand on."

A district judge in Richardson helped Mr. Bowman score the first
big win for the anti-camera forces when the judge awarded him
more than $27,000 in attorney's fees in a summary judgment in
July of 2016.  Mr. Bowman had been fighting his single ticket for
three years.

Richardson was forced to suspend its red light camera program,
but as The Texas Monitor reported at the beginning of this year,
Richardson is appealing the ruling.

Mr. Bowman began targeting most of the five dozen Texas cities
with red light camera systems, rolling them into a class action
lawsuit contending the tickets they were issuing were illegal.

Mr. Bowman has been forced to argue cases individually with
judges ruling that the circumstances in each case are different,
and stripping out all but a single city.

Building from Mr. Bowman's case, Byron Schirmbeck, Texas
coordinator for the national Campaign for Liberty, began pressing
the city of Austin to produce an engineering study to validate
its camera program.

With the help of this reporter, Mr. Schirmbeck, who had led a
petition drive in Baytown that led to the city removing its
camera system, made a formal request of Joana Perez, spokeswoman
for Austin's transportation department, to locate the study.

No study was ever produced.

Mr. Schirmbeck contended at the time nearly $6 million in red
light camera citations -- an average of 9,800 valued at $735,000
a year for eight years -- were illegal.

"They never had the authority from the state to issue them since
they didn't meet the statutory requirements to impose the civil
penalty," Mr. Schirmbeck said at the time.

A year later, Mr. Schirmbeck's contention was confirmed when
KXAN-TV in Austin filed requests under the Texas Public
Information Act for the engineering studies from Austin and 49
other Texas cities with red light camera systems.  Only Abilene,
College Station and Southlake could provide one.

Willis had provided a study, but it had been done after Bowman
filed his lawsuit.

Reporters for the station using Texas Comptroller data found the
cities they studied had collected $537 million since 2008.

In October, Helwig Van Der Grinten, founder of Houston Coalition
Against Red Light Cameras, signed up Bowman to appeal a lower
court dismissal of his class action lawsuit against the city of
Sugar Land.

And earlier, Mr. Bowman marked the third anniversary of fighting
James Watson's red light camera ticket in Southlake.  When the
judge dropped 52 other cities from the lawsuit, Mr. Bowman vowed
he would appeal.  Mr. Bowman told The Texas Monitor he believed
the appeal would be successful, but was prepared to fight the
case as long as was necessary.

Sen. Huffines is hoping to save Bowman a lot of trouble.  Bills
to get rid of red light cameras have made it through the Senate
in the past two sessions, only to stall in the House.
Sen. Huffines blames it on House leadership.  With the choice of
a new speaker at the beginning of the session in January to
replace outgoing Joe Straus, he is optimistic a red light camera
bill will pass.

"The key here is that this has never been about public safety,"
Sen. Huffines said.  "Police departments and city officials have
provided no evidence that this is the case. It's about revenue.
And I don't think cities should be balancing their books on the
back of Texans." [GN]


NTT DATA: Faces "Watkins" Suit in E.D. Virginia
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NTT Data Federal
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Donny Watkins for himself
and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v.
NTT Data Federal Services, Inc. and NTT Data, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00517-AJT-TCB (E.D. Va., May 2, 2018).

NTT DATA Federal Services, Inc. provides information technology
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Colt North, Esq.
   The Consumer & Employee Rights Law Firm PC
   5629 George Washington Memorial Highway
   Suite D
   Yorktown, VA 23692
   Tel: (757) 873-1010
   Fax: (757) 873-8375
   Email: cnorthlaw@aol.com


PERSOLVE LEGAL: Faces "Johnson" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Persolve Legal
Group, LLP. The case is styled as Ericka Johnson, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Persolve Legal Group, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02605
(E.D. N.Y., May 2, 2018).

Persolve Legal Group, LLP is a law firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PURDUE PHARMA: Faces "Klodzinski" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P.
The case is styled as Michael Klodzinski, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma Inc., Purdue Frederick Company, Insys
Therapeutics, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Cephalon, Inc., Johnson & Johnson,
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Actavis plc, Actavis, Inc., Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc., McKesson
Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc. and Amerisourcebergen
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03927 (S.D. N.Y., May
2, 2018).

Purdue Pharma L.P. is a privately held pharmaceutical company
owned principally by parties and descendants of Mortimer and
Raymond Sackler.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


RED ROSE NAIL: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Ruling in "Fu" FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Wen Chen, Red Rose Nail Salon Inc. and Ying Zhou filed
an appeal from the District Court's opinion and order, and
judgment, both entered on March 26, 2018, in the lawsuit styled
Fu, et al. v. Red Rose Nail Salon Inc., et al., Case No. 15-cv-
7465, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York (New York City).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Fu, et al. v. Red Rose Nail
Salon Inc., et al., Case No. 18-965, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Xiao Dong Fu, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and Chau Lan Ng, individually, are
represented by:

          William M. Brown, Esq.
          HANG AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-18 39th Avenue
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          E-mail: wbrown@hanglaw.com

Defendants-Appellants Red Rose Nail Salon Inc., DBA Red Rose Nail
& Spa, Wen Chen and Ying Zhou are represented by:

          Brian Patrick Fredericks, Esq.
          SCHILLER LAW GROUP, P.C.
          675 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 768-8700


RODAN + FIELDS: Faces Class Action Over Lash Boost Product
----------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Wischhover, writing for Racked, reports that if you've
spent any time on Facebook in the past few years, there's a good
chance you've seen someone you know selling the skin care brand
Rodan + Fields.  The company is a multilevel marketer, which
means its main sales strategy involves employing an army of
200,000 consultants, some of whom you probably went to high
school with. Products are also sold on the brand's site.  You
might want to pause before letting her convince you to buy the
brand's eyelash serum, Lash Boost, though.

Rodan + Fields was just slapped with a potential class-action
lawsuit.  The suit was filed on April 13 on behalf of four
plaintiffs, two in New York and two in California.  It takes aim
specifically at Lash Boost, an eyelash growth serum the company
launched in 2016.

The product has been a hit for the brand; a company
representative told WWD it did more than $200 million in sales
its first year.  Lash Boost is marketed as an "eyelash-enhancing
conditioner" and claims to provide "the appearance of lush,
longer-looking lashes in as little as four weeks."  It costs $150
for a tube.

All those tubes have certainly helped the company's bottom line.
Rodan + Fields just announced that it is now the No. 1 beauty
brand in both the US and North America, according to Euromonitor,
a market research provider. (Neutrogena and Olay are in second
and third place, respectively.)  The company claims it hit $1.5
billion in sales in 2017, up from $1.15 billion in 2016,
according to WWD.

Racked obtained a copy of the complaint from attorneys at Keller
Rohrback LLP, who are representing the plaintiffs and have
requested the court certify the complaint as a class action.  It
alleges that the four plaintiffs all suffered adverse eye
reactions after using the product, which is meant to be applied
to the upper eyelids.

They said they experienced symptoms including bumps on the eyes,
flaky patches, burning, swelling, crusting, and pain, among other
things.  The complaint alleges "deceptive labeling and unlawful
marketing" of Lash Boost and that Rodan + Fields "failed to
disclose the harmful side effects linked to an ingredient in
their Lash Boost product."

A representative for Rodan + Fields provided the following
statement to Racked:

The Company vigorously denies the allegations in the Complaint,
and stands behind the safety and efficacy of Lash Boost.  We are
going to let the specifics of our legal defense play out in
court.  Lash Boost is intended for use as a cosmetic and as such,
has been consistently advertised as improving the appearance of
eyelashes.  As with any cosmetic, Lash Boost may cause irritation
in some users, especially if it is misused.  R+F provides clear
directions to users, including those who experience irritations.
Many of the allegations involve unrelated products, including
prescription products that have different ingredients and
formulations.

The ingredient in question is isopropyl cloprostenate, which is
commonly used in lash growth products.  It has a controversial
history, both legally and in terms of its alleged side effects.

Before you understand Lash Boost, though, you have to understand
the OG lash growth product, Latisse.  Latisse was released in
2008 as a prescription-only eyelash growth serum after Allergan,
its parent company, discovered that a medicine it was using for
glaucoma also gave patients long, lush lashes.

It then developed the serum as a topical drug specifically for
eyelash growth, which was approved by the Food and Drug
Administration.  The active ingredient is bimatoprost, a
prostaglandin analog. (A prostaglandin is a chemical in the body
made of fatty acids that has hormone-like effects; an analog is a
synthetic version that has similar qualities to the original.)

Latisse was a hit, and celebs like Brooke Shields and Claire
Danes shilled it.  It became clear, though, that Latisse had some
worrisome side effects, including causing eyelid discoloration
and possibly even changing iris color permanently.

In 2009, the FDA issued a warning to Latisse that some claims
were misleading and safety warnings were not adequately stated,
which the company later rectified.  There were even rumors back
in 2010 that Danes actually experienced some of these side
effects.

Then the copycats came.  Allergan ended up suing several
companies that were selling products as over-the-counter
cosmetics that contained prostaglandin analogs.  It won on the
basis that they were unfair competitors.  But these types of
products have been popular ever since; you can find several at
Sephora, including some that contain isopropyl cloprostenate, the
prostaglandin analog at the center of this new Rodan + Fields
lawsuit.

Isopropyl cloprostenate has never been approved by the FDA as a
drug.  Because of the lax cosmetics oversight regulations in the
US, brands can sell it as a cosmetic product, bypassing the
rigorous testing that prescription drugs are subjected to. (It's
banned in Canada, which is why Rodan + Fields can't sell Lash
Boost there.)

In 2011, the FDA issued a warning letter to the company that
makes the lash serums RapidLash and Neulash.  Based on the
labeling the company was using at the time and the known side
effects of prostaglandin analogs, the agency called the products
"unapproved" and "misbranded" drugs.

The FDA also noted that as prostaglandin analogs, they carried
the risk of serious side effects like irritation, iris color
change, inflammation, and eye pressure changes.  RapidLash has
been reformulated, but it appears that Neulash still contains
isopropyl cloprostenate.  The FDA has not appeared to issue this
type of warning to any eyelash serum manufacturer since then.

This brings us back to Rodan + Fields.  The FDA is not involved
in this situation at all.  The lawsuit does reference the 2011
FDA warning letter in the complaint against the company, though,
and alleges that Rodan + Fields "failed to disclose the harmful
side effects linked to an ingredient in their Lash Boost
product."

Lash Boost notes on its warnings page: "For external use only.
Avoid getting in the eye; in the event of direct contact rinse
with cool water.  If you develop irritation or swelling,
discontinue product usage.  If irritation is significant or in
the first instance of any swelling, consult your physician.  If
you're pregnant or nursing, being treated for any eye-related
disorder, undergoing cancer treatment, prone to dry eyes or
styes, consult your physician before use. If you notice
irregularities in appearance of lashes, discontinue use. Keep out
of reach of children."

Wording definitely matters, both in the warnings section and in
descriptions of product claims, and Rodan + Fields addresses that
on its website.  Part of the reason those older companies
attracted the attention of the FDA is that they made claims that
their product can actually grow lashes.  Lash Boost is careful to
say things like "improves the appearance of lash volume and
length." By focusing on appearance and making no specific claims
about changing function or structure of the lashes, Lash Boost
seems to adhere to the letter of the law for cosmetic versus drug
product labeling.

As far as side effects, this is not the first time users have
reportedly experienced unpleasant reactions from Lash Boost --
product users online and on YouTube allege various side effects.
Obviously, the plaintiffs (and any others that come on board if
this lawsuit gets certified as a class action) will have to
convince the court their arguments have merit.

Isopropyl cloprostanate is not technically a drug, but should it
be? That's the crux of this lawsuit.  It's a complex issue that
the courts and ultimately the FDA will have to address. [GN]


ROSICKI ROSICKI: "Reizes" Suit Disputes Debt Collection
-------------------------------------------------------
Mendel Reizes on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers Plaintiff, v. Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates,
P.C., Uwanyne A. Mitchell, Esq. and Megan Suttell, Esq.,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01567, (E.D. N.Y., March 14, 2018),
seeks treble damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees and
such other and further relief for violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Defendants are debt collection agencies who attempted to collect
an alleged consumer debt from the Reizes arising from a home loan
with HSBC Bank. It fell into default status sometime in 2009 and
HSBC Bank filed for foreclosure on June 1, 2010. On or about
November 10, 2017, Rosicki sent the Plaintiff a collection letter
seeking to collect the balance. The accelerated mortgage debt
became time-barred on March 6, 2016 and was deemed unenforceable
and lost its legal attachment to the real estate. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam J. Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C. ATTORNEY AT LAW
      735 Central Avenue
      Woodmere, NY 11598
      Telephone: (516) 668-6945
      Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


SELECT COMFORT: TCCWNA Class Action Returns to 3d Cir.
------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey S. Jacobson, writing for Ad Law Access, reports that on
April 16, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a much-anticipated
decision construing New Jersey's Truth-in-Consumer Contract,
Warranty, and Notice Act ("TCCWNA").  The decision affirmed that
one who has not suffered actual harm from an allegedly unlawful
provision in a contract or notice is not "aggrieved" and
therefore cannot sue under the TCCWNA.  Importantly, the Court
held that the harm need not necessarily be monetary, but it does
have to exist.  This unanimous decision should bring an end to
the recent wave of speculative class action lawsuits asserting
TCCWNA claims based, for example, on standard provisions in
online Terms of Service.

The TCCWNA imposes a steep $100-per-violation penalty whenever a
"contract" or "notice" contains a term that violates "clearly
established" New Jersey or federal law.  If a contract or notice
says that some of its terms may not apply in "some states,"
without specifically identifying provisions that are unlawful and
thus inapplicable in New Jersey, the same $100 penalty attaches.
In a landmark decision last October, the New Jersey Supreme Court
curtailed the circumstances in which TCCWNA claims can be pursued
on behalf of a class by holding that the statute's requirement
that a consumer must be "aggrieved" requires proof that every
putative class member at least was "presented with" the offending
notice (in that case a restaurant menu).  The court also put real
teeth in the requirement that the "right" a notice supposedly
violates must be "clearly established."

The October decision did not address other important TCCWNA
issues, including whether one can be an "aggrieved consumer"
without having suffered any actual harm.  Just after oral
argument in the October-decided case, however the Supreme Court
accepted a certified question from the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals as to whether one without damages can sue under the
TCCWNA.

In Spade v. Select Comfort Corp., the plaintiffs purchased an
allegedly faulty adjustable bed and received a refund after the
defendant could not fix it.  The plaintiffs nevertheless sued the
seller under the TCCWNA, contending that its contract failed to
conform to New Jersey regulations for selling household furniture
regarding delivery timing.  A district judge dismissed those
claims, finding the consumers were not "aggrieved" because they
received their refund and because their claim against the seller
had nothing to do with delivery timing.

In Wenger v. Bob's Discount Furniture LLC, the plaintiffs ordered
goods from the defendant and received them without complaint, but
still sued under the TCCWNA based on allegedly unlawful aspects
of the customer agreement, including font size, the company's
refund policy, and several of the contract's other provisions.
The same district judge dismissed those claims, too, on
essentially the same basis, and both cases found their way to the
Third Circuit.

On November 23, 2016, the Third Circuit asked the New Jersey
Supreme Court to decide whether (1) a consumer who receives a
non-conforming contract, but who has not suffered any adverse
consequences, is "aggrieved" and therefore can sue under the
TCCWNA; and (2) a contract provision that violates the state's
Furniture Delivery Regulations satisfies the "clearly established
right" provision of the TCCWNA.  That is what led to the April 16
decision.

The Supreme Court answered the first question by holding that
contracts containing provisions at odds with regulations do
violate the TCCWNA.  That aspect of the April 16 ruling cannot be
ignored.  Among other things, it means that the New Jersey
Attorney General's Office absolutely can pursue businesses for
TCCWNA violations if they include such unlawful provisions.

The Court very clearly and strongly held, however, that consumers
cannot sue unless they are "aggrieved."  The plaintiffs tried to
define "aggrieved" to mean anyone who is offered or enters into a
contract containing an offending term, but the Court held that
such an expansive interpretation would effectively write the word
"aggrieved" out of the statute.  The term "aggrieved consumer,"
the Court held, must "denote[] a consumer who has suffered some
form of harm as a result of the defendant's conduct."

Although there is much for the business community to celebrate in
the April 16 decision, attention must be paid to the last section
of the Court's opinion, beginning with "[w]e do not, however,
view [cognizable] harm to be limited to injury compensable by
monetary damages." TCCWNA, the Court held, "contemplates that a
consumer may be entitled to a remedy notwithstanding the absence
of proof of monetary damages."  This might include, for example,
someone who received a late delivery and was dissuaded from
seeking a refund because an unlawful provision told her she could
not do so.  Allegations like this would seem to be highly
individualized, however, and therefore not proper subjects for
class actions.

Wenger and Spade now return to the Third Circuit, which
presumably will uphold the district court's dismissals.  A
cascade of dismissals of other suits then should follow. [GN]


SIMM ASSOCIATES: Gustafson Nicolaic Files FDCPA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Gustafson Nicolai pc, a full-service law firm based in Los
Angeles, California and specializing in civil and business
litigation, recently filed a Class Action Complaint against debt
collection agency Simm Associates, Inc., for violations of the
Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

The lawsuit, entitled Leah Roscoe, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated vs. Simm Associates, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation, was filed on March 15, 2018 in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
Case No. 8:18-cv-00417.

The class action lawsuit alleges that Ms. Roscoe and other
putative class members were contacted directly by Simm Associates
after their attorneys had informed Simm Associates in writing to
cease and desist all direct communications with the class
members, a clear violation of the FDCPA.  If found liable, Simm
Associates could be responsible for paying $500,000 to the class,
plus attorneys' fees and costs.

Gustafson Nicolai pc -- http://www.gnlawpc.com-- can be reached
through its principals, Adam C. Nicolai or Ryan Gustafon:
310.361.0787; acn@gnlawpc.com; jrg@gnlawpc.com.  Messrs. Nicolai
and Gustafson are investigating this matter further and are
interested in speaking to anyone adversely impacted by Simm
Associates or who otherwise have knowledge of the matter. [GN]


SONAM'S STONEWALLS: Bids to Dismiss "Gonpo" Suit Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Mark G. Mastroianni entered a memorandum and order in
the lawsuit styled JAMPA GONPO, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. SONAM'S STONEWALLS & ART LLC, et al., Case
No. 3:16-cv-40138-MGM (D. Mass.), regarding the report and
recommendation on the Defendants' motions to dismiss, the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification, and the
Plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling.

The Court adopts the recommendations in the R&R in part and
rejects the recommendation to deny certification.  Therefore, the
Court orders as follows:

     (i) Defendants' motions to dismiss are denied in part and
         granted in part;

    (ii) Plaintiff's "Motion to Certify Class Conditional FLSA
         Collective" is granted except to the extent it seeks an
         advisory order on equitable tolling;

   (iii) Plaintiff's "Motion for Order for Equitable Tolling" is
         denied without prejudice;

    (iv) Plaintiff's motion to supplement his objections is
         dismissed as moot; and

     (v) because the Plaintiff has been in part granted leave to
         file an amended complaint, he is directed to file an
         amended pleading consistent with the order within two
         weeks of the order's issuance.

Plaintiff Jampa Gonpo filed a six-count wage and hour complaint
against his former employer, Sonam's Stonewalls & Art, LLC, and
Sonam Rinchem Lama, Stonewall's owner-operator, in September
2016.  The claims are brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Internal Revenue Code, and state statutory and common law,
all stemming from alleged failure to pay mandatory minimum and
overtime wages and failure to maintain proper bookkeeping and
reporting practices relating to payroll.

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


SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Class Action Over Quake Insurance Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
RNZ reports that a Christchurch homeowner with an unresolved
earthquake insurance claim said he would begin a hunger strike
outside Southern Response's office in the city on April 17.

Peter Glasson said his 1920s home with rubble foundation was
badly damaged in the 2011 quake and needs new foundations, but
he's still fighting with the government owned insurer to have his
policy honoured.

Mr Glasson said after delays in assessments and court hearings,
increasing financial costs and the emotional toll of never making
meaningful progress, he's run out of options.

"We're at the end of our tether," he said, speaking on Checkpoint
tonight.

"We've had enough."

He said he weighed up the decision in his mind for a long time.
His wife and kids support his decision to go on a hunger strike.

"If you went through seven and a half years of it, you'd know
that continuous stress, the bullying and the intimidation, the
dirty tricks that the lawyers play, after a while have quite an
affect on you psychologically.

"I'm one of those people that say enough's enough."

Mr Glasson said he was one of the people spied upon by Southern
Response.

"Back in 2014 I was one of the small group of people who
organised class action against Southern response and it's now
been confirmed to me that Thompson and Clark in Auckland were
hired by Southern Response to spy on me."

He said there was never any behaviour of his that would be
considered as threatening and that he was simply organising
meetings.

"We've spent a massive amount of money fighting Southern
Response, they know that," he said.

Mr Glasson said he will continue the hunger strike until he's
achieved a resolution for his claim.

Southern Response was not able to provide a comment at the time
this article was published. [GN]


SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Out-of-Court Class Action Settlement Likely
--------------------------------------------------------------
Liz McDonald, writing for Stuff, reports that Southern Response
could be approaching an out-of-court settlement with insurance
claimants who have battled for nearly three years for their day
in court.

The 27 Canterbury property owners filed a court class action over
their earthquake claims in 2015, and received the legal go-ahead
in October.

They say Southern Response, a Government-owned claims management
company, committed both a breach of contract and a breach of good
faith.

The company is now understood to have been in facilitated
mediation with the group.  The move follows Greater Christchurch
Regeneration Minister Megan Woods' urging of both sides to settle
the claims.

In a letter to Southern Response chairman Ross Butler obtained by
Stuff under the Official Information Act, Ms. Woods said she was
concerned at the time being taken to resolve the matter.

She encouraged the board to seek an agreement with the class
action group through a facilitator acceptable to both sides.

"I am concerned that policyholder claims are progressed in a
manner that allows all claimants to move on with their lives as
soon as reasonably practicable."

In a letter to the action group at the same time, Woods asked
them to consider "a facilitated agreement between the parties of
the rules that are to govern any settlement process to be
undertaken outside the court setting".

"I trust that a timely resolution to your claims can be found,"
the minister's letter said.

The group's lawyer, Grant Cameron -- grant@gcalawyers.com -- of
GCA Lawyers, said he was unable to say much about the resulting
discussions, except to confirm them.

"The facilitations have been helpful," he said.

Southern Response chief executive Anthony Honeybone confirmed the
company was "in discussions and we are entering the last part of
that process".

"Southern Response will release a statement when the negotiations
conclude.  Southern Response is appreciative of the efforts and
encouragement of Minister Woods in this matter."

The group first lodged court action with 47 members in 2015, but
faced opposition from Southern Response.  The Court of Appeal
ruled in October that the case could be heard in the High Court.

The claimants are alleging, according to court documents, that
Southern Response had a deliberate strategy designed to minimise
its financial claims liability, including relying on builders'
quotes in preference to Quantity Surveyors' reports.

Southern Response was set up to settle insurance claims for
customers of failed insurer AMI after the Canterbury earthquakes.
It hit the headlines earlier this year when it was revealed to
have hired Auckland security firm Thompson and Clark
Investigations to spy on customers with outstanding Canterbury
insurance claims. [GN]


SPECIALIZED LOAN: Discovery Bid in "Kimble" Suit Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ZARAH KIMBLE, SEHER BASAK, SARAH SAKINAH GROZA
O'LOUGHLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 16cv2519-GPC (BLM)(S.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Barbara L. Major of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (i) granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Responses to
Interrogatories; and (ii) denied the Defendant's Motion for a
Protective Order.

Smith filed a purported first amended class action complaint
against the Defendant for alleged violations of Regulation X of
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"); and
California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").  Prior to the filing
of the FAC, Smith died on April 18, 2017.

On Sept. 13, 2017, the Court granted movants Kimble, Basak, and
O'Loughlin's motion to substitute in as the Plaintiffs.  A second
amended class action complaint was filed on Sept. 21, 2017.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent these classes:

     (1) Nationwide Class: All persons in the United States that
submitted a loss mitigation application to SLS on or after Jan.
10, 2014;

     (2) California Class: All California residents that
submitted a loss mitigation application to SLS on or after Jan.
10, 2014.

On March 6, 2018 the parties called the Court regarding a
discovery dispute.

The Plaintiffs move to compel the Defendant to produce all
documents and information in response to the Plaintiffs' First
Set of Requests for Production and First Set of Interrogatories.
The Plaintiffs explain that the Defendant has refused to produce
any of the documents or information that the Plaintiffs require
in order to move for class certification.  They state that SLS
has not even responded to a single interrogatory and the only
documents the Defendant has produced are the documents related to
the named Plaintiffs and an incomplete set of policies and
procedures.  They contend that their requests seek information to
determine, among other things, the size, scope, and membership of
the class, as well as SLS's conduct towards the class and damages
suffered by class members.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek a Court order compelling the
Defendant to:

     (1) provide electronic data in response to RFP Nos. 1, 2, 3,
8, 9 10, 13, 26 and Interrogatory No. 4: RFP Nos. 8 and 10 seek
relevant documents and data stored in the electronic databases
that SLS uses to service mortgages and process loss mitigation
applications.  RFP No. 9 seeks database dictionaries for all such
databases.  Interrogatory No. 4 requests that SLS describe each
database, program, software or system used to process loan
modification applications submitted to SLS from Oct. 7, 2012
through the present.  RFP Nos. 1, 2, 3, 13 and 26 seek documents,
including internal documents, related to SLS' compliance or non-
compliance with RESPA's loss mitigation procedures, including but
not limited to training materials and relevant communications
with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

     (2) produce a witness for a 30(b)(6) deposition regarding
its databases;

     (3) produce documents and data necessary for class-wide
discovery;

     (4) describe how it processes loan modification applications
in response to Interrogatory Nos. 5-8;

     (5) produce internal compliance documents in response to RFP
No. 4;

     (6) produce training materials in response to RFP No. 28;
and

     (7) produce communications with the CFPB in response to RFP
No. 3.

The Defendant responds that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to
class discovery at this stage of the case.  The Defendant argues
that the Plaintiffs' requests are disproportionate to the needs
of the case, especially when considering that their standing to
maintain their individual claims, much less their class claims,
is untenable at best.  It further argues that the Plaintiffs'
discovery requests are objectionable on their face.  Finally, it
argues that the Plaintiffs' deposition notice, which seeks to
depose an SLS employee on class-related issues, is
disproportionate to the needs of this case to the same extent as
the Discovery Requests.

The Defendant also filed its Motion for a Protective Order
Requesting a Stay of Discovery.  It filed its Motion on the basis
that good cause exists to stay class discovery in this case
because of (1) the Plaintiffs' factual misrepresentations in the
SAC; and (2) the possibility that they lack standing under
Regulation X.  The Plaintiffs further argue that the Defendant's
positions on the merits of the individual Plaintiffs' claims have
never warranted staying class discovery and that they're entitled
to obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is
relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the
needs of the case.

On March 15, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to withdraw as
the named Plaintiffs and substitute Nick Nikki as the named
Plaintiff.  On March 16, 2018, the District Judge issued a
briefing schedule for the pending motion to withdraw and
scheduled a hearing on April 20, 2018 at 1:30 p.m.

As to RFP Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 13, 26 and Interrogatory No. 4,
Magistrate Judge Major finds that the Defendant's objection to
the Plaintiffs' discovery requests on the basis that they are not
proportional due to the Plaintiffs' alleged lack of standing is
without legal or factual support.  Accordingly, she overruled
this objection.  The Defendant provides no legal authority for
its position that a standing objection relieves it of its
discovery obligations.  Moreover, the Defendant continues to
refuse to provide discovery even though it has not filed a motion
challenging the Plaintiffs' standing, the Plaintiffs have filed a
motion to substitute in a new named Plaintiff, and the Court has
not bifurcated or stayed discovery.

Because the Magistrate Judge has denied the Defendant's
proportionality objection based on the standing issue, the only
remaining dispute in connection with the Plaintiffs' request for
a 30(b)(6) deposition regarding the Defendant's databases appears
to be in connection with the timing and location of the
deposition.  Accordingly, the Judge granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Compel the testimony of a 30(b)(6) witness
knowledgeable about the electronic databases, systems, and
software used by the Defendant to service mortgages, including,
but not limited to, any activities relating to RESPA,
foreclosure, loss mitigation applications, or compliance.  She
ordered the noticed deposition to occur in Colorado on or before
April 20, 2018 unless the parties agree on another time or place.

The Magistrate Judge also granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 3-4, 6,
15-17, 19, 21-23, and 25-28 and Interrogatories 1-3 and 5-8.  She
ordered the Defendant to produce responsive information and
documents to these requests on or before April 20, 2018.  For
electronically stored information ("ESI") responsive to these
requests, she ordered the Defendant to meet and confer with the
Plaintiffs and agree on search terms on or before April 13, 2018.
For the disputed requests where the Plaintiffs seek a sampling,
she ordered the Defendant to produce responsive information and
documents consistent with the Plaintiffs' sampling proposal.

Finally, turning to the Defendant's Motion for a Protective
Order, the Magistrate Judge finds no basis to stay discovery.
She says the Defendant has not established that the Plaintiff
made material factual representations in the SAC which affect the
validity of the claim(s) nor has it filed a motion for Rule 11
sanctions, the two articulated bases for this motion.  In
addition, she finds that it is appropriate and important for
discovery to continue.  For these reasons, and in light of the
upcoming hearing before the District Court Judge regarding the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Withdraw as Named Plaintiffs and Substitute
Nick Nikki as Named Plaintiff on April 20, 2018 and the quickly
approaching class certification deadline on May 7, 2018, she
denied the Defendant's Motion for Protective Order staying
discovery.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 6, 2018 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2r9IahD from Leagle.com.

Zarah Kimble, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Seher Basak, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated & Sarah Sakinah Groza O'Loughlin, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Annick Marie Persinger, Tycko & Zavareei LLP,
Geoffrey Bestor -- gbesq@bestorlaw.com -- The Bestor Law Firm,
pro hac vice, Jonathan K. Tycko -- jtycko@tzlegal.com -- pro hac
vice & Katherine Marie Aizpuru -- kaizpuru@tzlegal.com -- Tycko &
Zavareei LLP, pro hac vice.

Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian
Andrew Paino -- bpaino@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford &
Dhruv Mohan Sharma -- dsharma@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey
Stafford.


STEARN'S PRODUCTS: Meyers Sues Over Product Mislabeling
-------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Meyers, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Stearn's Products, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-00557 (S.D. Cal., March 14, 2018), seeks statutory,
compensatory, treble and punitive damages, injunctive relief,
prejudgment interest, restitution and all other forms of
equitable monetary relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and
expenses and costs of suit resulting from fraud, unjust
enrichment and breach of express warranty and in violation of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair
Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code and
California's False Advertising Law.

Stearn's Products, Inc. focuses on personal care products and
facial care. The front packaging of each one of the Products
clearly states that it is "natural" despite containing synthetic
ingredients, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
      NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
      600 W. Broadway, Suite 700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 272-7014
      Facsimile: (619) 330-1819
      Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com

             - and -

      Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
      Joseph Lipari, Esq.
      Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
      THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
      85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
      Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
      Telephone: (854) 705-9460
      Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
      Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com


TTC INVESTMENTS: Faces "Truglio" Suit in D. Connecticut
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TTC Investments I,
LLC. The case is styled as David Truglio, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Thomas P.
Malnati and TTC Investments I, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-
00746-SRU (D. Conn., May 2, 2018).

TTC provides global clinical trial cost benchmarking.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
   Marcus Zelman, LLC
   1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
   Ocean, NJ 07712
   Tel: (347) 526-4093
   Fax: (732) 298-6256
   Email: yzelman@MarcusZelman.com


TESLA MOTORS: Securities Suit Over Model 3 Production Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Sozzi, writing for TheStreet, reports that more details
have emerged on a class action securities lawsuit originally
filed in Oct. 2017 against Tesla CEO Elon Musk, current Chief
Financial Officer Deepak Ahuja and former CFO Jason Wheeler that
alleges the parties misled investors about Model 3 production.
As a result, the two plaintiffs -- Kurt Friedman and Uppili
Srinivasan -- had their investments in Tesla hurt by the negative
market reaction to Tesla's missed Model 3 production goals.

The amended complaint was filed on Mar. 23.

Tesla shares have lost about 22% since hitting an intra-day high
of over $385 in June 2017.  While Musk has continued to refute
the notion Tesla will need to raise capital this year, the market
has increasingly called that into question as well as Musk's
credibility.

What's interesting here is not just the claims on team Tesla (and
former in the case of Wheeler), but that former employees have
started to speak out.

A Tesla spokesman did not immediately return a request for
comment by TheStreet.

Below are several key areas of the lawsuit.

Overview
"Beginning on May 3, 2017 and continuing throughout the Class
Period, Defendants misrepresented to investors the then-current
state of affairs with respect to whether the Company was on track
to mass produce the Model 3 in 2017, and whether progress had
been made supporting Defendants claims that 5,000 Model 3s per
week would be produced before the end of 2017.  Defendants
statements were false."

"Serious supply chain and production problems existed by the
beginning of the Class Period, including incomplete and/or non-
existent automated production lines, causing unresolved
bottlenecks at both the Company's Fremont, California assembly
line and at Tesla's Gigafactory, its purportedly state of the
art, Nevada battery manufacturing facility.  These issues
rendered mass producing the Model 3 in 2017 impossible.
Defendants knowingly or recklessly misrepresented the then-
existing facts on the ground, and misrepresented the Company's
ability to mass produce the Model 3 by the end of 2017."

"All of Defendants statements regarding progress that the Company
had achieved in both Fremont and at the Gigafactory, and the
statements they based on these affirmative declarations of actual
progress in Model 3 mass production, were false."

Background
"As early as mid-2016, Tesla executives responsible for planning
and building the Model 3 production line plainly told Defendant
Musk and the other Defendants in person, providing specific
support for their statements that the Company could never mass
produce the Model 3 by the end of 2017.  These Tesla executives
told Musk and the other Defendants that it was an impossible
goal."

"In May 2017, when Defendants stated that the Company was on
track to meet its mass production goal, as production on a fully
automated production line was supposed to be ready to begin, and
in August 2017, when production on a fully automated production
line was supposed to have already been in place and Model 3s were
supposed to be coming off the line, according to a number of
former employees, the Company had not yet finished building its
automated production lines in wither Fremont or Nevada.  Tesla
was neither ramping up mass production, nor on track to mass
produce Model 3s at any time on or around the end of 2017."

"Defendants Musk and Ahuja, who visited the Fremont facility on a
regular basis, knew that the Model 3 production line was way
behind the publicly announced schedule and that it would never
mass produce the Model 3 in 2017."

"As Defendants claimed to be on track for mass production in 217,
the Fremont facility was assembling Model 3s, by hand, in the
beta or pilot shop, a facility to assemble prototypes.  The
actual mass production line at Freemont was yet to be completed.
Workers in the pilot shop were not even able to build enough
Model 3s to carry out the necessary testing on the vehicles, and
most Model 3 workers were being reassigned, or spending their
days cleaning.  It was evident to anyone who visited the Fremont
facility and Musk himself visited the unbuilt production line
area every Wednesday, known internally as Elon Day that the
production line was not yet built, that parts for the necessary
robots were not present, and that construction workers were
spending most of their shifts sitting around with nothing to do.
Multiple former employees corroborate the fact that there was no
fully functioning automated production line when Tesla was
telling the world that there was, and that the construction site
where the line was being built was clearly and visibly far from
completion."

"Further, in May 2017, when Defendant Musk stated specifically
that, based on what Tesla had already accomplished, the Company
was on track to mass produce Model 3s in 2017, the Gigafactory
did not have sufficient fully functioning production lines,
batteries were being built by hand, and only a handful were being
produced per week.  As in Fremont, the facts on the ground at the
Gigafactory, which Musk himself visited, belied Musk's on track
comment, as well as all of the Company's subsequent statements
during the Class Period."

"Former employees state that there was no chance that the
Gigafactory would produce 5,000 batteries per week at any time in
2017, and mass production of Model 3s required mass production of
Model 3 batteries."

"Multiple former employees, at both the Fremont facility and at
the Gigafactory, have confirmed what was obvious to anybody
walking through those facilities both before and during the Class
Period.  Tesla was never on track for mass production of the
Model 3 before the end of 2017, much less on track├╣ to produce
5,000 Model 3s per week before the end of 2017, and the progress├╣
which Defendants claimed had occurred and supported their mass
production statements was illusory."

"Without a mass production line and without batteries, it was
impossible for Tesla to mass produce the Model 3 in 2017, and
Defendants knew Tesla had neither."

"On October 6, 2017, the Wall Street Journal published an
article, based in part on eyewitness observations by workers at
the Fremont plant, that very few Model 3s were being built, and
the Model 3s that were completed were being built almost entirely
by hand, and not on a finished production line.  On this news,
Tesla's stock dropped $13.94, or 3.91%, to close at $342.94 on
October 9, 2017, damaging investors."

"Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) contrary
to Defendants representations that the Company was prepared for
mass production of its Model 3 sedan by year-end 2017, in
reality, the Company did not have working production lines, and
could not possibly build the production lines in the promised
timeframe, and was woefully unprepared to mass produce the Model
3 sedan and Model 3 battery as claimed; (ii) as a result,
Defendants public statements about the state of affairs in
Fremont and at the Gigafactory necessary to support mass
production, and their statements about the scheduled date for
commencement of mass production of the Model 3 were false and
misleading at all relevant times." [GN]


TIGER BRANDS: Listeriosis Death Toll Rises to 193, NICD Reveals
---------------------------------------------------------------
IOL reports that the National Institute for Communicable Diseases
(NICD) says the listeriosis death toll has risen by two to 193
nationally, with more than 1000 cases having been confirmed.

The institute said 68% of the 1011 recorded cases were known.

Of those who died 81 were infants younger than 28 days, while 10
were children aged between one and 14.

Individuals at high risk of developing severe disease include
newborn babies, the elderly, pregnant women, and people with weak
immunity such as those with HIV, diabetes and cancer.

The Western Cape accounts for the second-highest number of
confirmed cases with 125, after Gauteng with 592 cases.

Two class action lawsuits have been launched against Tiger Brands
and Enterprise Foods in the South Gauteng High Court following
the deaths and illness of people linked to the listeriosis
outbreak.

The NICD has reiterated that the source of the outbreak was the
Tiger Brands Enterprise Foods ready-to-eat meat factory in
Polokwane.

It added that more cases could arise as the listeria bacteria
could remain in the body for 70 days before signs of the illness
show.

The head of the NICD's Centre for Enteric Diseases, Dr Juno
Thomas, said babies born with listeriosis have a high mortality
rate.

Thomas said women had to take extra precautions, and even if they
were not feeling sick, if they showed some symptoms they should
consult a doctor.

"If pregnant women develop fever or flu-like symptoms, or a fever
with diarrhoea, they must see a doctor even if they are feeling
okay.

"Even if they do not feel ill, it can be a sign of listeriosis."

The SA Meat Processors Association said the pork industry had
lost R800million since the minister of health announced the
source of the listeriosis outbreak.

The SA Pork Producers Organisation said 2000 employees in the
pork industry had lost their jobs since the announcement in
March. [GN]


TOWNE PROPERTIES: Court Certifies Class in "Duggan" ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Connie J. Duggan, Plaintiff, v. Towne Properties
Group Health Plan, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:15cv623 (S.D.
Ohio), Judge Michael R. Barrett of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, granted in part
and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.

The Plaintiff filed a putative class action claiming Defendant
Towne, plan administrator and an Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA") fiduciary, failed to provide the plan
documents to participants as required by ERISA and its
regulations; and Defendant MedBen, also an ERISA fiduciary,
failed to provide ERISA-compliant notice of its adverse benefit
determinations to participants of plans it administers.

The Plaintiff seeks an order under Federal Rule Civil Procedure
23(b)(2) and 23(c) certifying two classes for equitable relief
under ERISA Section 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3):

     a. Injunction Class (MedBen Only): All current and past
participants in any ERISA-governed employee welfare benefit plan
for which MedBen serves as third-party administrator.

     b. Equitable Remedy Class: All participants in any ERISA-
governed employee welfare benefit plan for which MedBen acted to
adjudicate claims for benefits and issued at least one
notification of an adverse benefit determination during the class
period, September 25, 2009 to present.

Towne Properties does not oppose certification of the Equitable
Remedy Class; and has agreed in the future to distribute plan
documents to plan participants as required by ERISA.

MedBen argues the class certification is not proper because (1)
MedBen is not a fiduciary under ERISA; and (2) the Plaintiff has
not met the requirements for class certification under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Judge Barrett explains that in Briscoe v. Fine, the Sixth Circuit
held that a third-party administrator does not act as a fiduciary
merely by determining benefits eligibility and processing claims.
The court noted that under its service agreement, the third-party
administrator was responsible for determining eligibility for
benefits, processing claims, and assisting plan administrator in
producing reports required by law.  However, the agreement
provided that the employer retained final authority to determine
whether a claim should be paid and was the entity to which
dissatisfied employees were instructed to direct their appeal.

The Judge finds little to distinguish the functions performed by
MedBen from the third-party administrator in Briscoe.
Accordingly, MedBen was not acting as an ERISA fiduciary when it
allegedly failed to provide the Plaintiff with an ERISA-compliant
adverse benefit determination notice.

Because he has concluded that MedBen was not acting as fiduciary
under ERISA, he says it is unnecessary for him to address the
Plaintiff's arguments with regard to the requirements for class
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Barrett denied the Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification as to MedBen; but granted as to
Towne Properties.  He certified the class f all current
participants in the Towne Properties Group Health Plan who, as of
the filing of the complaint in the action, had not received a
copy of the Plan documents, as amended, in accordance with 29
C.F.R. Section 2520.104b-2(a).

A full-text copy of the Court's April 6, 2018 Amended Opinion and
Order is available at https://bit.ly/2r89JbY from Leagle.com.

Connie J. Duggan, Plaintiff, represented by William Henry
Blessing -- bill@blessing-attorneys.com.

Towne Properties Group Health Plan & Towne Properties Asset
Management Co., Inc., Defendants, represented by Douglas R.
Dennis -- ddennis@fbtlaw.com -- Frost Brown Todd LLC.

Medical Benefits Administrators, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Rodney Alan Holaday -- raholaday@vorys.com -- Vorys, Sater,
Seymour and Pease LLP, Brent Darnell Craft -- bdcraft@vorys.com
-- Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease LLP, Martha Brewer Motley --
mbmotley@vorys.com -- Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease LLP & Steven
A. Chang -- sachang@vorys.com -- Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease.


TRIPLE J: $177,000 Counsel Fee Okayed in "Mateo-Evangelio" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MANUEL MATEO-EVANGELIO, JAIME TREJO-CARDONA,
GILBERTO CERVANTES-VEGA, REYNALDO VILLALOBOS-MARTINEZ, EMILIO
REYES, MARIA DE LOS ANGELES GONZALEZ-ROMAN, RAMIRO CERVANTES-
VEGA, FRANCISCO CARMELO MATIAS-CASTRO, PABLO GONZALEZ-ROMAN,
BENIGNO VILLA-GOMEZ, and SERGIO NARCISO LOPEZ-JUAREZ, Plaintiffs,
v. TRIPLE J PRODUCE, INC.; HOCUTT BROTHERS, INC.; HOCUTT FARMS,
INC., JUDY HOCUTT; JOEY M. HOCUTT; JAMES MICHAEL HOCUTT; and M.
JAY HOCUTT, Defendants, Case No. 7:14-CV-302-FL (E.D.N.C.), Judge
Louise W. Flanagan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, Southern Division, granted the
Plaintiffs' renewed motion for award of attorney's fees and
costs.

The first two named Plaintiffs in the action filed suit on Dec.
31, 2014, asserting violations of federal and state fair labor
standards laws, based on alleged conduct by the Defendants in not
paying properly wages for overtime work packaging sweet potatoes
and other agricultural commodities.

The Plaintiffs amended their complaint several times, most
recently on Oct. 7, 2015, with a third amended complaint brought
by all of the named Plaintiffs against the settling Defendants,
asserting the following claims: (i) two class action claims for
failure to pay the promised wage under the North Carolina Wage
and Hour Act ("NCWHA"); (ii) one collective action claim for
minimum wage and overtime violations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), (except Plaintiff Lopez-Juarez); (iii)
one class action claim failure to pay sufficient wages in
violation of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker
Protection Act ("AWPA"); and (iv) individual claims for wrongful
discharge by Plaintiff Trejo-Cardona and for retaliation by nine
of 11 named Plaintiffs.

The complaint seeks declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory
relief, including unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, and
statutory damages in the full amount authorized by the AWPA ($500
per Plaintiff per violation, or up to $500,000 upon class
certification).

On Sept. 1, 2015, the parties executed a settlement agreement
resolving all claims, which provides for settlement payments
totaling $328,920, by the Defendants to the named Plaintiffs and
to the class members based on the class action and collective
action claims asserted in the complaint, divided as follows: (i)
payments to the named Plaintiffs ranging from $9,000 to $20,800
each, totaling $159,400; (ii) payment of $20,480 to a class of
former packing house employees who have overtime claims,
corresponding to the FLSA collective action claim; (iii) payment
of $20,400 to a class of former packing house employees who have
corresponding employment claims, corresponding to one of the
NCWHA class action claims; and (iv) payment of $128,640 into a
settlement fund for the benefit of a class of the Plaintiffs
including Plaintiff Lopez-Juarez ("Sergio Class"), corresponding
to the AWPA class action claim.  Upon proof of their work, each
class member is eligible to a distribution of $350 per season,
for a maximum of three seasons, or up to $1,050 per class member.

On Jan. 14, 2016, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement
of all claims, granted class and collective action certification,
and approved settlement notices.  It held a fairness hearing on
June 6, 2016, at which no persons appeared with objections or
comments concerning the settlement.  It granted final approval of
the settlement and the final class notice on Sept. 15, 2016.

The parties then filed motions regarding cy pres and reversion of
unpaid settlement funds on Oct. 17, 2016.  Pursuant to
supplemental briefing ordered Dec. 22, 2016, the parties
submitted supplemental filings updating what further claims had
been received, as well as the parties' positions on using Student
Action With Farmworkers ("SAF") as a cy pres recipient.

The Plaintiffs' counsel filed a report of the class counsel, as
corrected, on June 8, 2017, which provided an update as to claims
submitted and disputes then between the parties regarding the
same.  The Court entered a consent order on Aug. 1, 2017, set a
schedule for submission of documentation to claims administrator
Simpluris, Inc., for its review and analysis and final
determination of valid settlement claims, and directed the
parties to file joint report within 30 days of receipt of report
by Simpluris of such claims.

By text order entered Sept. 29, 2017, the Court denied without
prejudice the Plaintiffs' then-pending motion for attorney's
fees, where further developments with final claims accounting
could impact the Court's consideration of attorney's fees, and it
directed them to refile an updated and final motion for
attorney's fees and costs at the time of filing of the joint
final report pursuant to the consent order.

The parties filed their joint final report on Nov. 27, 2017, and
the Plaintiffs filed the instant renewed motion for attorney's
fees and costs that same date.  Included with the final report is
a report by Simpluris, in accordance with the consent order,
listing the final accounting of individual members of the NCWHA
and AWPA classes, and the FLSA collective action as follows: (i)
NCWHA - 3 individuals (out of a fund of $20,400); (ii) AWPA - 19
individuals (out of a fund of $128,640); and (iii) FLSA - 5
individuals (out of a fund of $20,480).

Although not specified in either the joint final report or the
report by Simpluris, the parties are in accord that the amount
due to be paid to such class and collective action members totals
$14,476, to be divided between 19 individuals, where all members
of the NCWHA and FLSA classes are also members of the AWPA class.

In sum, out of settlement award totaling $328,920, $159,400 was
awarded and has been paid already to the named Plaintiffs.  This
leaves for determination funds to be paid out of remaining
$169,520 in settlement funds designated for members of the class
and the collective actions.  Based upon the report by Simpluris,
the parties have agreed that $14,476 is due to be paid to the
designated class members, meaning that a total of $173,876 has
been paid or is due to be paid to farmworkers as a result of this
action.  This will leave $155,044 of settlement funds remaining
for distribution as cy pres award.

However, the parties have stipulated in their joint final report
that the Simpluris, fees are allocated as follows: (i) $19,009.83
of Simpluris fees will be paid by the Defendants; and (ii) the
remaining balance of $1,855.17 of Simpluris, fees will be paid
out of the unpaid remainder of the NCWHA and FLSA funds.  Based
upon this information provided to the Vourt, this reduces the
remainder available for cy pres award, after distribution to
designated class members and fees to Simpluris, to $153,188.83.

In sum, in the event Simpluris distributes funds to all claimants
as specified, a balance of $155,044 remains from the aggregate
$169,520 of the class settlement funds, of which $1,855.17 will
be paid to Simpluris, and the remainder $153,188.83 will be paid
as cy pres award to SAF.

In support of the motion for attorney's fees and costs, the
Plaintiffs rely upon a declaration of the class counsel and the
declarations of four local practitioners.  Following the
Defendants' response in opposition, the Plaintiffs filed a reply,
relying upon a supplemental declaration of the class counsel and
the supplemental declaration of legal assistant Yoana Caceres.
As adjusted in their reply, the Plaintiffs seek a maximum of
$257,597.25 in attorney's fees, as well as $4,774.13 in unopposed
costs.

Judge Flanagan granted the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for award
of attorney's fees and costs to the extent set forth in the
Order, and she awarded the Plaintiffs $177,180 in attorney's fees
and $4,774.13 in costs.  In addition, in accordance with parties'
joint final report, the Judge included in the Order a final
distribution order setting forth directions for distributions to
be made by Simpluris.

Within 65 days of the date of the Order, Judge Flanagan directed
the Defendants to file a notice confirming completion of the
foregoing distributions by Simpluris; or, if not confirmed, the
Plaintiffs or Defendants may file a motion, as appropriate, for
further consideration by the Court.  If the Defendants' notice is
filed, without other motion, the Clerk will close the case
without further order of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 6, 2018 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2HIOMuj from Leagle.com.

Manuel Mateo-Evangelio, Jaime Trejo-Cardona, Gilberto Cervantes-
Vega, Reynaldo Villalobos-Martinez, Emilio Reyes, Maria de Los
Angeles Gonzalez-Roman, Ramiro Cervantes-Vega, Francisco Carmelo
Matias-Castro, Pablo Gonzalez-Roman, Benigno Villa-Gomez & Sergio
Narciso Lopez-Juarez, Plaintiffs, represented by Robert J. Willis
-- rwillis@ps-law.com.

Triple J Produce, Inc., Hocutt Brothers, Inc., Joey M. Hocutt, M.
Jay Hocutt, James Michael Hocutt & Hocutt Farms, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by R. Daniel Boyce --
dboyce@nexsenpruet.com -- Nexsen Pruet, PLLC & William H. Floyd,
III -- wfloyd@nexsenpruet.com -- Nexsen Pruet, LLC.

Judy Hocutt, Defendant, represented by L. Lamar Armstrong, Jr.,
Armstrong & Armstrong & L. Lamar Armstrong, III, The Armstrong
Law Firm, P.A.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Must Defend Against Medical Society Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THE MEDICAL SOCIETY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, et
al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. UNITED HEALTH GROUP INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-
5265 (JPO)(S.D. N.Y.), Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York denied United's
motion to strike the class allegations from the Corrected First
Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), alleging that
the Defendants have systematically violated the terms of the
Plaintiffs' health insurance plans.

United serves as a claims administrator on all its health plans,
meaning that United determines whether a given patient's claim is
covered by that patient's health plan.  Historically, United
approved coverage for a category of charges known as "facility
fees" for outpatient surgeries conducted in doctors' offices
(also known as "office-based surgeries" or "OBS").

The Plaintiffs allege, however, that United recently adopted a
uniform policy of refusing to cover facility fees charged by out-
of-network OBS providers.  The Complaint alleges that following
this "Uniform Refusal to Pay" policy, United denied coverage to
Plaintiffs without regard to the terms of -- and in violation of
-- their plans.

The Complaint asserts two claims: a claim for benefits under
ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B), and a claim for injunctive and
declaratory relief under Section 502(a)(1)(B) or (a)(3).

The named Plaintiffs purport to bring their claims on behalf of
themselves and a class defined as all persons who sought a health
insurance benefit payment for an accredited OBS facility fee from
a United health insurance plan governed by ERISA, for covered
services rendered in the State of New York in an out-of-network
OBS practice, and whose claim for payment was denied by United
because it was not for a hospital or ambulatory surgical center,
or for like or similar reasons.

The Defendants have moved to strike those class allegations,
arguing that class certification is impossible.

Judge Oetken finds United's argument is unavailing.  First, at
this stage of the litigation, it would be premature to strike the
Plaintiffs' class allegations.  Second, the pleadings do not
demonstrate that a class is uncertifiable.  To the contrary, the
Complaint alleges that all United plans contain substantively
identical language regarding coverage for OBS facility fees, and
that United adopted a policy uniformly denying coverage in
violation of these terms.  This is sufficient to allege that
there are questions of law or fact common to the class, and there
is at least a possibility that these common questions will
"predominate" over individualized questions.

The bottom line, he says, is that it is too early to guess.  The
Judge needs not continue to speculate about class certification;
the appropriate time for such determinations will come later.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Oetken denied United's motion to
strike the class allegations from the Complaint.  He directed the
Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at Docket Number
75.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 6, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://bit.ly/2Kl4f5z from Leagle.com.

The Medical Society of the State of New York, on behalf of its
members & Society of New York Office Based Surgery Facilities, on
behalf of its members, Plaintiffs, represented by Anant Kumar --
akumar@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman, Spaeder LLP, Cyril V. Smith --
csmith@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Jason Samuel
Cowart -- jcowart@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman, Spaeder LLP, John
William Leardi -- jwleardi@buttacilaw.com -- Buttaci & Leardi,
LLC, Nell Peyser -- npeyser@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman, Spaeder
LLP & Donn Brian Hufford -- dbhufford@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP.

Columbia East Side Surgery, P.C., both directly and as the
representative of PATIENTS C, D, E and F, Plaintiff, represented
by Anant Kumar, Zuckerman, Spaeder LLP, Cyril V. Smith, Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP, Nell Peyser, Zuckerman, Spaeder LLP & Donn Brian
Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP.

UnitedHealth Group Inc., United HealthCare Services, Inc., United
HealthCare Insurance Company, United HealthCare Service LLC,
Optum Group, LLC, Optum, Inc. & Oxford Health Plans LLC,
Defendants, represented by Anton Metlitsky -- ametlitsky@omm.com
-- O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Brian David Boyle -- bboyle@omm.com --
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Danielle Carim Gray, O'Melveny & Myers,
LLP, Gregory Frederick Jacob -- gjacob@omm.com -- O'Melveny &
Myers LLP & Sloane Ackerman -- sackerman@omm.com -- O'Melveny &
Myers LLP.


UNITED OF OMAHA: Awaits Order on Bentley's Bid to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Dolly M. Gee entered a civil minutes in the lawsuit
entitled Jennifer Bentley v. United of Omaha Life Insurance
Company, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-07870-DMG-AJW (C.D. Cal.),
relating to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and
Appointment of Jennifer Bentley as Class Representative and
Joseph Vanek and Jason Zweig as Class Counsel.

"The case is called and counsel state their appearances.  A
tentative order is circulated.  The Court hears argument.  This
matter stands submitted and a separate order to issue," according
to the Civil Minutes.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ppS4vbWY

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Klevatt, Esq.
          KLEVATT & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          33 N LaSalle St #2100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 782-9090
          Facsimile: (312) 896-9298
          E-mail: david@chicagolaw.biz

               - and -

          Joseph Vanek, Esq.
          John P. Bjork, Esq.
          VANEK, VICKERS & MASINI P.C.
          55 W. Monroe, Suite 3500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 224-1502
          Facsimile: (312) 224-1510
          E-mail: jvanek@vaneklaw.com
                  jbjork@vaneklaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher Pitun, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 North Lake Ave., Suite 920
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
          E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Larry M. Golub, Esq.
          Jenny H. Wang, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          633 West 5th Street, 47th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2043
          Telephone: (213) 614-7312
          E-mail: lgolub@hinshawlaw.com
                  jwang@hinshawlaw.com


UNITED STATES: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "D'Apuzzo" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert N. Scola, Jr., denies the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification in the lawsuit captioned Theodore D'Apuzzo,
P.A. v. United States of America, Case No. 0:16-cv-62769-RNS
(S.D. Fla.).

The Court concludes that individual issues of fact will
predominate over common issues of fact, and the proposed class of
plaintiffs is not ascertainable.  The Court finds that the
difficulties in managing such a class action heavily weigh
against class treatment in this case and far outweigh the
remaining factors.

"Ultimately, the underlying individualized inquiry required in
order to identify opinions in this case renders it inherently
unmanageable as a class action," Judge Scola opines.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cV6qUYhf


UTI WORLDWIDE: Court Grants Angley's Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification in the lawsuit styled Michael J. Angley v.
UTI Worldwide Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02066-CBM-E (C.D.
Cal.).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart W. Emmons, Esq.
          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN AND SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
          E-mail: swe@federmanlaw.com
                  wbf@federmanlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Isaac D. Chaput, Esq.
          Gary A. Bornstein, Esq.
          CRAVATH SWAINE AND MOORE LLP
          Worldwide Plaza
          825 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10019-7475
          Telephone: (212) 474-1000
          Facsimile: (212) 474-3700
          E-mail: ichaput@cravath.com
                  gbornstein@cravath.com

               - and -

          David I. Hurwitz, Esq.
          Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks,
          Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.
          1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561
          Telephone: (310) 201-2100
          Facsimile: (310) 201-2110
          E-mail: dhurwitz@birdmarella.com


VENICE HMA: Briggs Moves to Certify Class of Nurse Case Managers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned REBECCA BRIGGS and JOAN
MIKLUSCAK, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. VENICE HMA, LLC d/b/a VENICE REGIONAL
BAYFRONT HEALTH, Case No. 8:18-cv-00478-CEH-JSS (M.D. Fla.), move
the Court to conditionally certify and authorize them to mail and
e-mail notice of the lawsuit to:

     All "nurse case managers" who worked for Defendants within
     the last three years who believe they were not paid for all
     hours worked and the proper overtime compensation for any
     hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a work week.

The lawsuit is a collective action to enforce the overtime and
minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Plaintiffs contend.  They allege that they were not paid overtime
wages in accordance with the FLSA.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nhj66MN5

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Donna V. Smith, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com
                  rcooke@wfclaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alysa J. Ward, Esq.
          BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
          100 North Tampa Street, Suite 2200
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 559-5500
          Facsimile: (813) 229-5946
          E-mail: award@bradley.com


VITAL RECOVERY: Certification of Class Sought in "Johnson" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Johnson moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit styled SUSAN JOHNSON, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. VITAL RECOVERY
SERVICES, LLC, and LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION, Case No. 2:18-cv-
00558-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay
the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff
(and the Defendants) relief from the Local Rules setting
automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting
material to be filed with the Motion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WISE FOODS: Faces Chip Bags "Slack Fill" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Mark Joseph Stern, writing for Slate.com, reports that in April
2017, two chip aficionados filed a class-action lawsuit against
Wise Foods alleging that its chips -- subpar in my opinion, but
sold in much of the United States nonetheless -- violate state
and federal consumer protection laws.  Their complaint argued
that Wise had "tricked" customers "into paying for air,"
illegally giving them "less product than they bargained for." It
exhaustively demonstrated that competing potato chip brands have
significantly less "slack fill" (the extra air in the bag) than
Wise's.  On behalf of everyone in New York and D.C. "injured as a
result" of Wise's "deceptive conduct," the litigants demanded
monetary damages and attorneys' fees.

Are Wise chips genuinely deceptive? The Food and Drug
Administration merely requires that slack fill be "functional" in
packaging -- that is, necessary to protect the product from
damage during shipping and handling.  It's quite difficult to
prove that a company is adding "nonfunctional" slack fill when
the measurement boils down to a judgment call about the best
proportion of chips to air. (More air means fewer chips but also
helps keep them intact; less air means more chips but risks
shattering them into unsatisfying fragments.) Many states build
upon that federal standard through their own consumer protection
laws, asking whether reasonable consumers would expect more
product than they get due to misleading packaging.

The Wise lawsuit made headlines in major outlets last year,
presumably because so many Americans have suffered the injustice
of underfilled potato chip bags.  But slack fill lawsuits are
actually quite common.  These suits have exploded in frequency
over the past few years, with more than 65 filed in 2015 and
2016.  While most of them fail, the rare victory can be extremely
lucrative: In 2016, StarKist settled a class action for $12
million after consumers alleged that it was underfilling its tuna
cans.

More commonly, however, slack fill suits get tossed out at an
early stage in litigation.  Federal courts have dismissed
lawsuits alleging that Pfizer put too few pills in its Advil
containers and that Mondelez International put too few candies in
its Sour Patch Kids Watermelon packages.

Suits attacking Swedish Fish for underfilling its boxes and Pret
a Manger for putting too much space between sandwich halves
appear destined for the same fate.  Dismissing the Advil lawsuit,
a federal judge wrote that the consumers' complaint did "not pass
the proverbial laugh test."  The chief impediment for the
plaintiffs is the fact that each of these companies does list the
weight of the product on the packaging.  A casual consumer might
size up her purchase by eyeing the size of the bag, but she
cannot plausibly claim that the company lied to her.

That's exactly what tripped up the Wise chips lawsuit.  In
March, U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald dismissed the
suit, ruling, "as a matter of law, that the slack-fill enclosed
in the Products would not mislead a reasonable consumer."  In a
caustic opinion, Judge Buchwald pointed out that "the weight of
the chips enclosed is prominently displayed on the front of each
Product, in large sized font, in a color differentiated from the
package background, and there is no allegation that the full
weight represented is not actually in the bag."  This fact,
combined with consumers' well-documented expectation of
"significant slack fill in potato chips," sufficed to doom the
suit.

Don't pity the two chip lovers whose names are on the suit,
though.  This class action was filed by the same firm that
targete d Advil, Sour Patch Kids, Swedish Fish, and Pret a
Manger. Called the Lee Litigation Group, the firm files arguably
frivolous lawsuits against a variety of companies in the hopes of
landing a blow that sticks.  C.K. Lee, who heads the firm, has
unsuccessfully sued Kushyfoot for overstating the euphoric effect
of its pantyhose, as well as an air freshener manufacturer for
claiming that its products eliminate odor when in fact they only
"mask" it.  Mr. Lee has also filed a reported 140 suits against
businesses whose websites are not fully accessible to blind
people; these lawsuits have been called a "shakedown," as the
named plaintiffs typically collect much less than their lawyers.

The next time you recoil at an underfilled bag of chips, then,
resist the urge to call a lawyer or run to the nearest
courthouse.  Americans' litigiousness has undoubtedly helped to
make our society safer, but you can't sue your way to a fuller
bag of chips.  Wise will stop underfilling its bags when we all
stop buying its underfilled bags.  Until then, we'll have to live
with the affront of slack fill -- a frustrating reminder that, in
a free market, sometimes you'll wind up paying for air. [GN]


YANG FAMILY: "Liu" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Late Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Melody Liu, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Yang Family Group, Inc. (d/b/a
Teppanyaki), Xinfa Wu, Bin Yang, Lin Yang, and Ziqi Pang,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00441 (D. Conn., March 14, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid minimum wages and unpaid
overtime compensation, interests, damages for unreasonably
delayed payment of wages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
and disbursements of the action pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Connecticut Wage and Hour Law.

Defendants operated Yang Family Group, Inc. which operated as
"Teppanyaki," a restaurant located at 355 Huntington Turnpike,
Bridgeport, CT 06610. Liu was employed from October 2016 to
October 24, 2017, as a cashier for Defendants' buffet restaurant.
She was required to work for Defendants well in excess of forty
hours per week without overtime, notes the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite #1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Email: jhang@hanglaw.com


ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: Judge Has Yet to Rule on Motion to Dismiss
-------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Kidd, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal
judge has not yet issued an order promised more than two months
ago on a motion to dismiss an amended putative class action
lawsuit claiming a California company negligently misrepresents
its weight-loss-by-freezing product.

Following a hearing in early February in which counsel was given
leave to respond to a tentative ruling, U.S. District Court Judge
Dolly M. Gee announced she would issue a written order on a
motion to dismiss filed by the defendant in the case, Zeltiq
Aesthetics Inc.  The putative class action against Zeltiq
initially was filed last May in U.S. District Court for
California's Central District by consumers Carmen Otero and Abbey
Lerman.

Ms. Otero and Ms. Lerman alleged in their initial and amended
complaints that Zeltiq, based in Pleasanton and marketer and
licenser of the cryolipolysis procedure CoolSculpting,
negligently misrepresents and makes false claims about its
medical treatment product.  Specifically, the two plaintiffs
allege the company falsely advertises its CoolSculpting to be
approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

CoolSculpting is a non-invasive fat reduction procedure that
allegedly works by "freezing unwanted fat away," according to
claims on the company's website.

On Jan. 12, plaintiffs filed a 25-page opposition to Zeltiq's
motion to dismiss, urging the motion "be denied in its entirety,"
claiming Zeltiq "knew or should have known that its
representations could mislead customers."

The plaintiffs' opposition cited a Zeltiq advertising campaign on
television, radio, in print, social media and other outlets to
drive demand for CoolSculpting.

"Plaintiffs allege that defendant acknowledges that 'FDA
Clearance' is material -- both implicitly by the prominent use of
this in their advertising, and explicitly in a recent lawsuit
filed against competitors whose products Zeltiq alleges are
'falsely touted as providing the same treatments as Zeltiq's
CoolSculpting devise' and are described 'using explicit
references to facts that apply exclusively to Zeltiq, such as
'patented', 'clinically proved' or 'FDA-approved'," the filed
opposition said.

In its motion to dismiss filed Jan. 2, Zeltiq said the Otero and
Lerman case against it cannot "survive dismissal" because they
don't claim "that any allegedly omitted information posed a
safety concern to consumers and that Zeltiq was aware of the
safety concern."

"Here, plaintiffs do not even attempt to do so," Zeltiq said in
its motion to dismiss.  "While they contend that FDA-Approved
devices go through more rigorous testing than FDA-Cleared
devices, that cannot be a safety concern, as the FDA has
determined that Class II devices like the CoolSculpting system
need never undergo the FDA Approval process."

Zeltiq's January motion to dismiss is not the first it has filed
in Otero and Lerman's allegations against the company.  In
August, Zeltiq filed a motion to dismiss the initial case, saying
the case must fail because CoolSculpting did receive FDA
clearance.  Counsel for the defense countered that the phrase
Zeltiq uses in its advertisement is "FDA approved," rather than
"FDA cleared" and argued "approved" is a far more difficult FDA
standard to meet than "cleared."

In that first motion to dismiss, Zeltiq claimed it "had no duty
to educate consumers on parameters of the 510(k) process or
clarify that FDA Cleared is not the same as FDA Approved."

In early September, plaintiffs' counsel filed its opposition to
Zeltiq's motion to dismiss the case, but Judge Gee took the
motion under submission and in November granted the motion while
also granting plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint,
which they did on Dec. 12.

Just after the New Year, Zeltiq filed its motion to dismiss the
amended lawsuit and on Jan. 12 plaintiffs filed their opposition
to that motion.  Judge Gee's promise of a written order was
issued Feb. 2. [GN]


* Marshall University, WVU to Launch Consumer Assistance Project
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Marshall University is
launching a joint project with West Virginia University College
of Law to provide consumer-related information for people in West
Virginia.

Each school received $1 million to implement the programs.  The
Joint Consumer Assistance Project was established by lawyers
involved in a consumer class action case from funds not claimed
by class members.

Clarksburg consumer attorney David J. Romano was a lead counsel
in the case.  He said in a news release from Marshall that the
project will establish and maintain a website with consumer
information and tips and references to laws and regulations to
help West Virginia residents with consumer issues.  Also planned
is the development of an interactive website to help people who
must represent themselves in consumer disputes, due to cost. [GN]


* Three Legal Aid Groups Get Class Action Settlement Donations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Max Marbut, writing for Daily Record, reports that Liggio Law
partner Jeff Liggio -- jliggio@liggiolaw.com -- a West Palm
Beach-based trial attorney, visited Jacksonville Area Legal Aid
to deliver donations to three local pro bono legal service
providers.

He presented checks for $69,274.54 to JALA, $57,806.27 to Three
Rivers Legal Services and $15,807.61 to Clay County Legal
Services.

The donations were derived from damage awards that were unclaimed
after Mr. Liggio settled a class action lawsuit.

Mr. Liggio said the litigation against a propane gas company went
on for 12 years on behalf of about 65,000 plaintiffs.

After $7.7 million was distributed to the plaintiffs, nearly $4
million remained.

The court ordered that it be distributed to charitable
organizations, including $2.2 million to help legal aid agencies
provide representation for Florida residents who can't afford to
hire an attorney.

In addition, The Florida Bar Foundation received $500,000
earmarked for legal aid at its discretion, "so get get your
money," Mr. Liggio said to the legal aid executives. [GN]



                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.
Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche
Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G.
Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter A.
Chapman at 215-945-7000.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *