CAR_Public/180517.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Thursday, May 17, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 99



                            Headlines


ABA PROTECTION: Doesn't Pay OT to Security Guards, Plata Alleges
ABSA BANK: Shareholder Group Plans Lawsuit Against Banks
ACCURATE COLLECTION: Faces "Cintron" Suit in New Jersey
AIDEN A.S.: Faces "Schroeder" Suit in E.D. New York
AKAL SECURITY: Seeks to Quash Subpoena in "Dean" Suit

ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Olberg et al Sue over Insurance Claims
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Hagens Berman Accuses Firm of Cheating
ALTA LOS ANGELES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Tobar" Suit Claims
AM RETAIL: Court Narrows Claims in First Amended "John" Suit
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Court Dismisses "Beckington" With Prejudice

AMG QUICKSERVE: "Mejia" Class Suit Underway in New York
ANTHEM INC: Class-Action Lawyers Rebuked Over Fee Request
ARKANSAS: Court Narrows Claims in Seized Children Suit
ARRIS INT'L: Bid to File SACC, TACC in "Reyna" Under Seal OK'd
ARS NATIONAL: Intervenor Dismissed From "Koby" Without Prejudice

AT&T MOBILITY: Removes "Atkins" Suit to S.D. Western Virginia
ATLAS FINANCIAL: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Hymes" Suit over Interest on Advances
BAYFRONT HMA: Court Narrows Claims in MSPA Claims Suit
BAYHEALTH MEDICAL: Court Narrows Claims in "Ridley" Suit

BCFORWARD RAZOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Rodriguez" Suit Says
BP OIL: Thousands of Cleanup Workers Haven't Had Day in Court
CANADA: Proposed Settlement of LGBT Purge Class Action
CAPITAL ACCOUNTS: Faces "Berkowitz" Suit in E.D. New York
CARGILL INCORPORATED: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Tavares" Claims

CC VENICE: Underpays Door Hosts & Security Guards, Perkins Claims
CENTRAL RADIOLOGY: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
CHICO'S: Faces "Schroeder" Suit in E.D. New York
CLIF BAR: Milan et al Sue over Sale of High-Sugar Nutrition Bars
COAST EAST: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York

COAST PROFESSIONAL: Faces "Harper" Suit in M.D. Tennessee
COLUMBIA SUSSEX: Faces "Brodie" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
COOK COUNTY, IL: Suit, Rally Draws Attention to Bail Reform
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces "Pearlstone" Suit in E.D. Missouri
CP ADVANCED: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York

CREDIT ONE: "Burke" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
CYAN INC: SCOTUS Affirms Denial of Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
DE BEERS: Settles Monopoly Class-Action Lawsuit
DELAWARE COUNTY: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
DISH NETWORK: May Owe Customers $1,200

DMG MORI: "Bebault" Suit Alleges FCRA Violation
DOLPHIN DINER: Faces "Valle" Suit in E.D. New York
DOOR PRO: Class in "Thornburn" FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified
DOORDASH INC: Faces "Magada" Suit in California Superior Court
DYNAMIC MEDICAL: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York

EMERGENCY CONSULTANTS: Removes "Keller" Suit to W.D. Michigan
ERICSSON: June 5 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
FACEBOOK INC: CA Over Facial Recognition Could Mean More Lawsuits
FIRST NATIONAL: Lundquist Sues over Underpaid Insurance Claims
FLAGSTAR BANK: Faces "Smith" Suit in N.D. California

FORD MOTOR CREDIT: Denial of Arbitration Bid in "Jones" Reversed
FOUR SEASONS: Faces "Feinstein" Suit over Data Breach
FOUR SEASONS: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in "Zyda" Suit
GEORGE CHIALA: Fails to Pay for Overtime, "Jacobo" Suit Claims
GOBUYSIDE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Stevens" Suit Claims

GRUPO TELEVISA: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
HARVARD COLLECTION: Faces "Gardner" Suit in N.D. Illinois
HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Class Action Judge Leans Towards Plaintiffs
HENRY COUNTY, IN: Objection to "Baker" Class Notice Sustained
HOME DEPOT: Abramov Appeals N.D. Ill. Ct. Ruling to 7th Circuit

HYUNDAI MOTORS: Disparate State Laws Prevent Class Action
INSTITUTE OF CULINARY: Faces "Conner" Suit in S.D. New York
INTEL CORP: "Fooshee" Class Suit Underway
INTERNATIONAL PASTRY: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
JETS STADIUM: Removes "Gengo" Suit to District of New Jersey

JPMORGAN CHASE: Llordi et al Sue over Non-Judicial Foreclosures
KIMPTON HOTEL: Faces "Balsamo" Suit in C.D. California
KITOV PHARMA: Claims in "Cohen" Securities Suit Narrowed
KRATON CORP: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Action
LAURA GELLER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Rowe" Suit Alleges

LIVE NATION: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
LIVE NATION: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Action
LIVE NATION: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action
LIVE NATION: Bernstein Liebhard LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit
LOEWS HOTELS: Faces "Jackson" Suit in C.D. California

LONGFIN CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
LONGFIN CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
LOS ANGELES TIMES: Union Preparing Suit Over Pay Disparities
MARKET STRATEGIES: "Deluca" Suit Seeks Damages Under TCPA
MICHIGAN, USA: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Dunbar" Class Suit

MIZUHO BANK: "Carmel" Suit Alleges Negligence and Fraud
MONSANTO COMPANY: Litter Sues over Sale of Roundup Products
MONSANTO COMPANY: Schreibeis Sues over Sale of Roundup Products
MOVE INC: Faces "Herkenrath" Suit over Lead Generation
MYRIAD GENETICS: Pomerantz Firm Files Securities Class Action

NISSAN OF SOUTH BAY: Forged Credit Application, Broman Claims
NIU OF FLORIDA: Faces "Wuest" Suit in California
NORTH CAROLINA: Judge Considering Whether to Dismiss Suit
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Suit
PACIFIC MARITIME: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Galardo" Suit Says

PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Amended PSLRA Notice in "Sgarlata" Suit Granted
PHD FITNESS: Claims in Amended "Sandviks" Class Suit Narrowed
PHILLIPS 66: Claims in Suit Over Contaminated Avgas Trimmed
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Albino" Suit in E.D. New York
PROCARE CRS: Faces "Lawson" Suit in N.D. Oklahoma

PROPARK AMERICA: "Sadino" ADR Cert. Filing Extension Sought
PURACY LLC: Faces "Martinez" Suit in C.D. California
PURDUE PHARMA: Canadian Academics Join Call for Criminal Probe
QUICKEN LOANS: Faces "Mahoney" Suit in M.D. Florida
RADNET INC: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York

REFUGIO OIL: Thousands of Plaintiffs Added to Oil Spill Case
RELIANT CAPITAL: Faces "Avila" Suit in E.D. New York
SAINT ANTHONY HOSPITAL: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Melendez Claims
SBE ENT HOLDINGS: "Hsiao" Privacy Suit Underway
SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE: Removes MSPA Claims' Suit to S.D. Florida

SHASTA COUNTY, CA: Settlement in "Jewett" Has Prelim Approval
SHOE BOX: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS: Ludlow Appeals "Hedlund" Ruling to 2nd Cir
SWATCH GROUP: "Bishop" Suit Alleges ADA Violation
SYNACOR INC: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action

TAG TOWING: 2 Class Lawsuits Filed Against Pittsburgh Companies
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Fernandez" Suit in E.D. California
TEMPOE LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Wagner" Suit Claims
TENET HEALTHCARE: Beats Kickback Class-Action Lawsuit
TEXAS FARM: Class in "Ferguson" FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified

TOMMY HILFIGER: Faces "Olmedo" Suit over Phony Discounts
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Davis Alleges Wrongful Debt Collection
TRUECAR INC: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action
TWO ROADS HOSPITALITY: Faces "Cruz" Suit in C.D. California
UBS: Employee Looks to Mount Age Discrimination Class Action

UNITED STATES: Federal Court Grants Insurers Class Action Status
UNITED STATES: Security-Widefield Contamination Suit Lingers
UNITED STATES: Christy Inc. Files Suit in Court of Federal Claims
VALEANT PHARMA: Quebec Court OKs Bringing of Securities Suit
VOYA FINANCIAL: Patrico Appeals Opinion to Second Circuit

WALMART INC: Faces "Dowell" Suit Over Racial Discrimination
WELLS FARGO: Hammered by Feds for Auto Loan Insurance Scam
WELLS FARGO: Royal Park Strikes Out Again in MBS Trustee Suits
WELLS FARGO: More Refunds Coming After $1 Billion Fine
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Objections to "Abarca" Class Cert. Overruled

XOOM ENERGY: Mirkin Alleges Improper Pricing of Utilities
XPO LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Molina" Suit Claims

* Possible Class Suit After Spirit of 1770 Sinking




                            *********


ABA PROTECTION: Doesn't Pay OT to Security Guards, Plata Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
GILBERTO PLATA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff v. ABA PROTECTION, INC., and DOES 1
through 25, Defendants, Case No. 703123 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., April 20, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for
unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for
missed meal and rest periods.

Mr. Plata was employed by the Defendants as a security guard in
California from September 2016 to December 2017.

ABA Protection, Inc., is a California corporation engaged in the
business of providing security guards to its customers in
California and throughout the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Aaron C. Gundzik, Esq.
         Rebecca G. Gundzik, Esq.
         GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP
         15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920
         Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
         Telephone: (213) 542-2100
         Facsimile: (213) 542-2101
         E-mail: Agundzik@gghslaw.com
                 Rgundzik@gghslaw.com


ABSA BANK: Shareholder Group Plans Lawsuit Against Banks
--------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that a Dutch shareholder group has given notice
that it plans to file a class action lawsuit against Barclays
Plc, Commerzbank AG and Absa Bank Ltd over their roles in a 2015
share sale by South African retailer Steinhoff International, the
Financial Times reported on April 18.

As required by Dutch law, shareholder group VEB gave the three
banks two weeks' notice of its plan to file the lawsuit and
invited them to open talks on "an amicable settlement", the
report said.

VEB maintained the banks are "liable for damages incurred by
Steinhoff shareholders" because of their roles in the listing of
Steinhoff on the Frankfurt and Johannesburg stock exchanges as
part of its creation of a holding company in Amsterdam, the FT
said.

Steinhoff declined to comment. VEB, Barclays, Commerzbank, and
Absa were not immediately available for comment outside regular
business hours.

Steinhoff, which has more than 40 retail brands including
France's Conforama and British chain Poundland, faced a fight for
survival after admitting accounting irregularities in December,
wiping about 85 percent off its market value and triggering a
liquidity crisis. [GN]


ACCURATE COLLECTION: Faces "Cintron" Suit in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Accurate Collection
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Lazarao Cintron,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Accurate Collection Services, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:18-cv-08959 (D. N.J., May 8, 2018).

Accurate Collection Services, LLC is a debt collection agency in
Morristown, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   TODD D. MUHLSTOCK, Esq.
   BAKER SANDERS LLC
   100 GARDEN CITY PLAZA, SUITE 500
   GARDEN CITY, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 741-4799
   Email: ECF@MuhlstockLaw.com


AIDEN A.S.: Faces "Schroeder" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aiden A.S. Inc. The
case is styled as Arlene Schroeder, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aiden A.S. Inc. and
Alexis A.D. Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02743 (E.D.
N.Y., May 8, 2018).

Aiden designs, manufactures, and markets household electric
appliances, wiring electric appliances, and plastic molded
products. Aiden Co., Ltd. was founded in 1970 and is based in
Shinshiro, Japan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   James E. Bahamonde, Esq.
   James E. Bahamonde, P.C.
   2501 Jody Court
   North Bellmore, NY 11710
   Tel: (516) 783-9662
   Fax: (646) 435-4376
   Email: James@civilrightsNY.com


AKAL SECURITY: Seeks to Quash Subpoena in "Dean" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of Hayward Dean, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Akal
Security, Inc., Defendant, Bracewell LLP, Non-Party Respondent,
Case No. 1:18-mc-0060-APM (D. Col., April 23, 2018) has filed a
motion to quash third party subpoena.

The case is assigned to Judge Amit P. Mehta.

Akal Security, Inc., a contract security company, provides
judicial security services for federal courthouses. Akal
Security, Inc. was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in
Espanola, New Mexico. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          KAPLAN YOUNG & MOLL PARRON
          600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1715
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 330-6090
          E-mail: msarelson@kymplaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joseph Erwin Schuler, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          10701 Parkridge Boulevard, Suite 300
          Reston, VA 20191
          Telephone: (703) 843-8300
          Facsimile: (703) 843-8301
          E-mail: schulerj@jacksonlewis.com

The Non-Party Respondent is represented by:

          Shelby J. Kelley, Esq.
          BRACEWELL LLP
          2001 M Street, NW, Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 828-5859
          Facsimile: (800) 404-3970
          E-mail: shelby.kelley@bracewell.com


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Olberg et al Sue over Insurance Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Olberg and Cecilia Ana Palao-Vargas, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AllState
Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00573 (W.D. Wash.,
April 18, 2018) alleges that the Defendant underpaid the
Plaintiffs' total insurance loss claims. The Plaintiffs seek
damages, treble damages, attorney's fees, as well as declaratory
and injunctive relief.

The Plaintiff Olberg was the owner of a 2013 Ford Fusion Hybrid
that was totaled in an accident in 2016. The Defendant offered to
pay, and did pay, $16,805.99, minus deductible, attributable to
the value of the vehicle, citing its CCC valuation report. The
valuation report listed values of nine different comparable
vehicles and applied a uniform condition adjustment of $775 to
all nine of them without itemizing or explaining the basis of the
adjustment as required by Washington law. The report reduced the
amount of these comparable vehicles by exactly the same amount,
regardless of any individual differences in the condition of the
vehicles. These blanket adjustments were arbitrary and
unjustified, and they resulted in an underpayment of $775.

The Plaintiff Palao-Vargas was the owner of a 2011 Hyundai Sonata
that was totaled in an accident in 2015. Allstate offered to pay,
and did pay, $15,034.93, minus deductible, attributable to the
value of the loss vehicle, citing its CCC valuation report. The
valuation report listed values of nine different comparable
vehicles and applied a uniform condition adjustment of $684 to
all nine of them without itemizing or explaining the basis of the
adjustment as required by Washington law. The report reduced the
amount of each comparable vehicle by exactly the same amount,
regardless of individual differences in the condition of the
vehicles. These blanket adjustments were arbitrary and
unjustified, and they resulted in an underpayment of $684.

Allstate Insurance Company is an Illinois corporation engaged in
the insurance business. The Company offers auto, home life
insurances policies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Robert B. Carey, Esq.
          John M. DeStefano, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85003
          Telephone: (602) 224-2628
          E-mail johnd@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Marc A. Goldich, Esq.
          AXLER GOLDICH LLC
          1520 Locust Street, Suite 301
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 534-7400
          E-mail: mgoldich@axgolaw.com

               - and -

          David Woloshin, Esq.
          ASTOR WEISS KAPLAN & MANDEL LLP
          200 South Broad Street, Suite 600
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 790-0100
          E-mail: dwoloshin@astorweiss.com


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Hagens Berman Accuses Firm of Cheating
----------------------------------------------------------
The Virginian-Pilot reports that two new class-action lawsuits
accuse Allstate Insurance Company and First National Insurance
Company of America (a Safeco company), of deliberately reducing
the value of vehicles in total loss insurance claims, using phony
data to reduce the claim payments to consumers "by hundreds or
thousands of dollars," according to Hagens Berman. Attorneys say
other auto insurance providers are likely engaging in the same
fraud.

If you wrecked your car and your insurer bought it from you, your
insurer may have underpaid you by thousands.

The lawsuits accuse Allstate and First National of underpaying
consumers by manipulating the data used to value the cars. The
suits were filed Apr. 18, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, and say the two auto
insurance companies flagrantly violated state laws regulating the
handling of these claims and making it even tougher for
vulnerable insureds whose cars were destroyed. Plaintiffs Cecilia
Palao-Vargas and Jeff Olberg allege that Allstate underpaid them
by at least $684 and $775 for their wrecked Hyundai Sonata and
Ford Fusion. Cameron Lundquist alleges that after he totaled his
Dodge Ram, First National shaved almost $1000 off his claim.

Specifically, the lawsuits say Allstate and First National use
what they call "condition adjustments" to reduce the value of
comparable vehicles without itemizing or explaining the basis for
the adjustment as required by Washington law. The complaints
describe a "uniform 'condition adjustment' to multiple comparable
vehicles involved in a valuation without even distinguishing one
vehicle from the next." The suit also accuses Allstate of valuing
the wrecked cars by comparing them to "gray market" vehicles --
vehicles manufactured for use in foreign countries and often
worth less than those produced for the U.S.

"These arbitrary and unjustified condition adjustments
artificially and improperly reduce claim payments by hundreds or
thousands of dollars," the suit reads.

"Consumers who just had their car wrecked in a major accident are
in a tough spot -- they need their insurance money to get back on
the road and get back to their lives. When insurance companies
work to shortchange them instead of protecting them, that's just
wrong," said Steve Berman, Esq. -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- managing
partner of Hagens Berman. "Other insurance companies are doing it
too," he added.

Both auto insurance companies promise their customers they will
pay the "actual cash value" of the vehicle or a comparable
vehicle, according to the lawsuits.

Berman, a nationally renowned lawyer for the three named
plaintiffs, seeks to represent anyone who is insured under
automobile insurance policies issued in Washington whose claim
valuations were based upon the values of comparable vehicles
reduced by artificial, unexplained "condition adjustments," or
didn't get paid in full for the sales tax, registration fees, or
license plate charges that would arise if they bought a new car.

Find out more about the class-action lawsuit on behalf of those
who have suffered a total loss collision and had their claims
undervalued. [GN]


ALTA LOS ANGELES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Tobar" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nelson Tobar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Alta Los Angeles Hospitals, Inc.; Alta
Hospitals Systems, LLC; and Does 1 to 100, Defendants, Case No.
BC703151 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 23, 2018) is an
action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

Mr. Tobar was employed by the Defendant as an hourly non-exempt
employee from the year 2007 to September 5, 2017.

Alta Los Angeles Hospitals, Inc. was founded in 2007. The
company's line of business includes providing general medical and
surgical hospital services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Andrea Rosenkranz, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 w. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  arosekranz@lelawfirm.com


AM RETAIL: Court Narrows Claims in First Amended "John" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MATTHEW JOHN, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. AM RETAIL GROUP, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, dba WILSONS LEATHER, and Does 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 17cv727-JAH (BGS) (S.D. Cal.),
Judge John A. Houston of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted in part and denied in part
Wilson's Leather's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Matthew John's
First Amended Complaint ("FAC").

On April 16, 2016, the Plaintiff entered the Wilsons Leather
Retail located at 5620 Paseo del Norte in Carlsbad, California.
Upon entering, he immediately observed signs that hung above each
rack of merchandise, advertising both a "Ticket" and "Sale"
price.  He proceeded to the wallet kiosk in the store and
selected a black Wilsons Leather brand, trifold wallet.  Next to
the wallet was a sign which advertised the wallet as having a
"Ticket" price of $60 and a "Sale" price of $23.99.

The Plaintiff alleges that he relied on this "fraudulent discount
pricing scheme" believing he was receiving a good deal by saving
close to 60% discount off the "Ticket" price of the wallet.  He
further alleges that an investigation conducted by his attorney
revealed that the particular wallet he purchased was not offered
for sale at the "Ticket" price of $60 at any store in California,
within 90 days before the Plaintiff's purchase.  As a result, the
Plaintiff alleges that he relied on this "sham discount," and had
he known the discount was false he would not have purchased the
wallet.

Additionally, the Plaintiff further alleges his attorney's
investigation revealed identical and uniform "fraudulent pricing
schemes" being used at other Wilsons Leather retail outlet
stores.  For that reason, he contends all consumers were
subjected to the identical pricing scheme and suffered identical
harm regardless of the product purchased.  The Plaintiff seeks to
bring this cause as a class action on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated consumers who purchased one or more
Wilsons Leather brand items offered at a discounted "Sale" price
from Defendant's retail outlet stores.

On June 15, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the FAC, asserting
violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), False
Advertising Law ("FAL"), Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), as
well as a claim for Unjust Enrichment.  On June 29, 2017, the
Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's FAC, wherein it
attacks the Plaintiff's standing to bring his claims and argues
the Plaintiff fails to state a claim with sufficient
particularity.  Furthermore, the Defendant requests the Court to
dismiss the Plaintiff's Equitable Relief claims because he has an
adequate remedy at law.

Judge Houston finds that the Plaintiff has standing to sue on
behalf of purchasers of other Wilsons Leather products with in
store signage reflecting both a "Ticket" and "Sale" price.  The
Defendant's concerns regarding the differences in the signage-
such as their size, font, or placement- are best addressed at the
class certification stage.  Accordingly, this portion of the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss will be denied.

Because the Plaintiff does not demonstrate standing for
injunctive relief, the Judge will not address the Defendant's
argument as to whether the Plaintiff has adequate remedies at
law.  He finds that the Plaintiff has indicated a desire to amend
his CLRA claim to include a claim for damages, which would render
any such analysis premature.  As pled, the complaint does not
include a claim for damages under the CLRA or sufficiently allege
why such damages would be an inadequate remedy.  Accordingly, he
says the Plaintiff lacks standing to assert claims for injunctive
relief based on the allegations in the FAC.  Therefore he will
grant without prejudice this portion of the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss.

The Judge finds that the gravamen of the Plaintiff's claims
concern the Defendant's "deceptive pricing scheme," and not the
actual wallet.  The pricing scheme has been alleged with
requisite specificity to inform both the Court and the Defendant
as to the "who, what, when, where, and how" of the alleged fraud.
Accordingly, he will deny this portion of the Defendant's Motion.

The Judge next explains that a plaintiff is able to survive a
Motion to Dismiss so long as sufficient facts are pled to support
a cognizable legal theory for recovery, regardless of which
theory he so chooses.  Whether the Plaintiff has the substantial
evidence to support that theory is a premature determination at
the pleading stage.  He finds that the Plaintiff alleges that he
would not have purchased the wallet without the misrepresentation
made by the Defendant and therefore seeks to obtain damages,
restitution, and other appropriate relief in the amount by which
Defendant was unjustly enriched as a result of their sales of
merchandise offered at a false discount.  Similar allegations
have been held sufficient to support a claim for restitution.
Accordingly, he will deny this portion of the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss.

Finally, while the Plaintiff has not explicitly pled a quasi-
contract theory in his unjust enrichment cause of action, the
Judge finds the allegations sufficient, and thus construes this
cause of action as a quasi-contract claim for restitution.
Accordingly, he will deny this portion of the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss.

Accordingly, Judge Houston granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's FAC.  He granted the
Motion as to the Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief without
prejudice and denied it in all other respects.  To the extent
that the Plaintiff is able to cure the noted deficiencies, the
Judge allows the Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint
within 21 days from the date of his Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 20, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/1oLR4A from Leagle.com.

Matthew John, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Todd D. Carpenter --
tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela &
Carpenter, LLP.

AM Retail Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Stephanie A. Sheridan -- ssheridan@steptoe.com --
Steptoe & Johnson LLP.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Court Dismisses "Beckington" With Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John J. Tuchi of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case,
Bruce Beckington, et al., Plaintiffs, v. American Airlines
Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. CV-17-00328-PHX-JJT (D. Ariz.).

In 2005, America West Airlines and US Airways merged into an
airline also called US Airways.  The two merged airlines set
forth their reorganization plan in a Transition Agreement, which
among many things provided that the pre-merger America West
pilots, of which the Plaintiffs are three, and the pre-merger US
Airways pilots ("East Pilots") would create a single integrated
seniority list that US Airways would implement after a single
Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") -- or "Single Agreement"
-- was negotiated between the pilots' union and the airline.

Two years after the merger, the West and East Pilots -- both
represented by their union at the time, the Air Line Pilots
Association ("ALPA") -- entered into binding arbitration pursuant
to an ALPA Merger Policy, which resulted in a May 2007 award,
called the Nicolau Award, that established an integrated
seniority list, called the Nicolau List.  The West Pilots claim
that US Airways formally accepted the Nicolau Award in late 2007,
but no Single Agreement was in place.

Apparently unhappy with the Nicolau List, the East Pilots formed
a new union, the US Airline Pilots Association ("USAPA"), and
used their numerical superiority to replace ALPA as the certified
collective bargaining representative of both groups of pilots as
of April 18, 2008.  USAPA took the position that the Nicolau
Award was binding only on ALPA, not USAPA.  As a result, in the
collective bargaining negotiations, USAPA proposed another
integrated seniority list that was more favorable to the East
Pilots.

On Sept. 4, 2008, six West Pilots filed the first of three prior,
related lawsuits in this District.  In that action, the West
Pilots raised claims under the Railway Labor Act ("RLA"), against
USAPA for breach of the duty of fair representation ("DFR") and
against US Airways for failure to negotiate in good faith.  They
sought injunctive relief that included requiring USAPA and US
Airways to implement the Nicolau List in the CBA.

At the end of a 10-day trial, a jury concluded that USAPA
breached the DFR because its sole reason for proposing an
integrated seniority list different from the Nicolau List was to
benefit the East Pilots rather than the union of pilots as a
whole.  District Judge Wake entered a permanent injunction
against USAPA to the effect of requiring it to advocate for the
implementation of the Nicolau Award and to refrain from
advocating for separate CBAs for the East and West Pilots.  On
June 4, 2010, the Ninth Circuit vacated the District Court's
judgment because it concluded the dispute was not ripe on account
of the uncertainty as to whether a single CBA incorporating the
Nicolau Award would be ratified by USAPA's membership and
approved by the airline, and thus as to the appropriate remedy
for the West Pilots' alleged harm.

On July 27, 2010, US Airways filed the second related lawsuit in
the District, a declaratory judgment action as to whether it
would be liable under the Transition Agreement if it entered into
a CBA with USAPA that did not require use of the Nicolau Award.
On Oct. 11, 2012, in granting USAPA partial summary judgment and
dismissing the remaining claims.

Meanwhile, US Airways and American Airlines began negotiating a
potential merger in early 2012, while American was engaged in a
Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization.  At that time, US Airways
continued to operate with two pilot CBAs and two pilot seniority
lists because a single CBA still had not been successfully
negotiated between US Airways and USAPA and thus no single
integrated seniority list -- including the Nicolau List -- had
been implemented.  In mid-December 2012, representatives of and
attorneys for US Airways, American, USAPA and the Allied Pilots
Association ("APA") met to develop a Memorandum of Understanding
("MOU") with the purpose of providing a process for reaching a
Merger Transition Agreement and a Joint Collective Bargaining
Agreement ("JCBA").  The legacy US Airways pilots ratified the
MOU on Feb. 8, 2013, making it a CBA.  US Airways and American
ultimately merged on Dec. 9, 2013.

On March 6, 2013, the West Pilots filed the third related lawsuit
in the District, claiming that USAPA breached the DFR by
including Paragraph 10.h in the MOU and again seeking injunctive
relief requiring USAPA to use the Nicolau List to integrate pilot
operations. (Addington v. USAPA, Case No. CV-13-471-PHX-ROS.  In
resolving the case on Jan. 10, 2014, District Judge Silver
concluded that the West Pilots' claim was ripe but that they
failed to demonstrate that USAPA breached the DFR.

On June 26, 2015, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the District
Court that the West Pilots' claim was ripe but reversed as to the
substance of the claim, concluding that USAPA breached the DFR
because Paragraph 10.h served "no legitimate union purpose."

During 19 days of hearings between September 2015 and January
2016 before the Arbitration Board, the West Pilots, through the
West Pilot Seniority Integration Committee ("WPSIC"), advocated
for the integration of the Nicolau List with the legacy American
pilots' seniority list.  The merger committee representing the
legacy American Airlines pilots advocated for the same.  While
USAPA did not participate in the hearings, a third merger
committee, representing the East Pilots, advocated for an
integrated seniority list that disregarded the Nicolau List.  On
Sept. 6, 2016, the Arbitration Board published the integrated
seniority list.  It declined to incorporate the Nicolau List.

Here, in the fourth related lawsuit, the West Pilots are bringing
a putative class action against American Airlines -- which the
West Pilots allege also stepped into the shoes of US Airways upon
their merger -- for violating the RLA by colluding with USAPA in
breaching the DFR.  The West Pilots base their claim on the Ninth
Circuit's decision finding that USAPA breached the DFR but allege
that the claim did not accrue until Sept. 6, 2016, when the
Arbitration Board declined to use the Nicolau List in formulating
an integrated seniority list.  The West Pilots seek damages and
attorneys' fees.

American now moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
claim and because the claim is time-barred under the applicable
statute of limitations.

Judge Tuchi finds that it is impossible to now conclude that the
Nicolau List would have been approved and thus provided a basis
for the Arbitration Board's formation of the ISL but for USAPA's
breach of the DFR.  Put another way, the West Pilots' theory of
causation -- from which its alleged injuries arise -- is not
plausible.  For this reason alone, the Judge must dismiss the
West Pilots' claim against American.  Moreover, he finds that
this defect in the claim cannot be cured by amendment to the
Complaint.

The Judge also finds that the West Pilots' allegations are
insufficient to raise a plausible claim for American's collusion
in USAPA's breach of the DFR, and he dismisses the West Pilots'
claim for this independent reason.  Based on the West Pilots'
representations in their briefs and at oral argument, he does not
find they could cure this defect by amendment.

American also argues that the West Pilots' claim in the action is
barred under the applicable statute of limitations.  Because he
has concluded that the West Pilots fail to state a claim against
American, the Judge says he needs not examine whether such a
claim would be time-barred.

For these reasons, Judge Tuchi granted the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and
dismissed the action with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 20, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/QnqFhg from Leagle.com.

Bruce Beckington, John Jurik & James Van Sickle, Plaintiffs,
represented by Kelly Joyce Flood -- KELLY.FLOOD@asu.edu -- ASU
Alumni Law Group & Marty Harper, ASU Alumni Law Group.

American Airlines Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Chris
Allen Hollinger -- chollinger@omm.com -- OMelveny & Myers LLP,
Karen Gillen, US Airways Inc, Robert Alan Siegel --
rsiegel@omm.com -- OMelveny & Myers LLP & Susannah Kelly Howard -
- showard@omm.com -- OMelveny & Myers LLP.


AMG QUICKSERVE: "Mejia" Class Suit Underway in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
The case, Farrah Mejia, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMG Quickserve LLC; AMG Broadway
Quickserve LLC, Defendants, Case No. 42204/2018 (N.Y. Sup., April
19, 2018), remains pending.  A preliminary conference was set for
May 14, 2018, per Order issued by Judge Donna M. Mills.

AMG Quickserve LLC is a New York corporation engaged in the
petroleum and petroleum products wholesalers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9082

The Defendant is represented by:

          JACKSON LEWIS LLP
          Telephone: (516) 364-0404


ANTHEM INC: Class-Action Lawyers Rebuked Over Fee Request
---------------------------------------------------------
Greg Andrews, writing for Indianapolis Busines Journal, reports
that by now, the army of attorneys who helped secure the $115
million Anthem Inc. data breach settlement last summer figured
they'd be doing their victory lap. And perhaps mulling over how
to spend the $38 million in legal fees they expected to collect.

In court filings, the attorneys certainly sounded pleased with
themselves. "Plaintiffs' counsel have successfully litigated a
groundbreaking case," the legal team wrote in a filing last year.
"The proposed settlement is the largest ever achieved in a data
breach case."

Yet -- as IBJ chronicled in a January article headlined, "Was
$115M Anthem settlement deft lawyering or legal dud? " -- some
Anthem customers were unimpressed by the deal, which received
preliminary approval in August, and even less so by the fee
request.

Since then, the outrage has mounted, with California federal
Judge Lucy Koh blistering the attorneys in open court in February
and The Wall Street Journal following up with a stinging
editorial.

"Plaintiff attorneys aren't easily shamed, but they should be
after a rebuke by a federal judge in California for trying to con
class-action victims," the editorial began.

Anthem disclosed in early 2015 that 78.8 million current and
former customers' records had been stolen by hackers from
December 2014 through the following January -- a disclosure that
touched off more than 100 class action lawsuits accusing the
insurer of inadequate data security. The cases, some brought by
Indianapolis-based Cohen & Malad LLP, were consolidated into the
California suit.

While $115 million might sound like a big settlement, just $51
million is slated to go to the victims, with the largest chunk of
that, $17 million, earmarked for credit-monitoring services.
Another $15 million would go to customers who suffered out-of-
pocket costs from the data breach, and $13 million would go to
customers who demonstrate that they already have credit-
monitoring services.

The Wall Street Journal noted that the recovery -- even if it
were all cash -- works out to an average of just 65 cents per
customer.

At the same time, $23 million is earmarked to pay California-
based Kurtzman Carson Consultants, which was hired to administer
the settlement, including mailing postcards to 50 million current
or former Anthem customers for whom addresses are known. Another
$2 million is earmarked to reimburse attorneys for expenses.

The plaintiffs' attorneys contend their $38 million fee request
is reasonable given that 53 law firms put in 78,000 hours of
challenging legal work and conducted nearly 200 depositions.

But in a February court hearing, Koh scolded the four lead firms
(three based in San Francisco and one in Washington, D.C.)
representing the plaintiffs, put off a decision on whether to
give the settlement final approval, and appointed a retired
federal judge to serve as special master with responsibility for
closely scrutinizing the fee request. Special Master James
Kleinberg's report is due May 10.

"I'm deeply disappointed," she said in court. "I would never have
appointed you [co-lead counsel] if I knew you were going to pile
on 53 law firms in this case."

She said she was disappointed that 55 percent of the settlement
would go to attorney's fees and administrative costs and just 45
would go to class members. She said she would keep her
disappointment in mind if the firms ever applied to be counsel in
another of her cases.

The attorneys so far are making no apologies. They said in a
January court filing that they achieved "exceptional results" and
that the fees were justified in light of the "extremely risky
nature" of the case.

They also argue that the settlement actually is worth far more
than $115 million if you factor in that Anthem is buying credit-
monitoring at a bulk discount. Customers buying that coverage on
their own would pay at least $240 apiece, the attorneys said.

Koh's decision to hire a special master is a win for the
Competitive Enterprise Institute, a not-for-profit libertarian
think tank that had challenged the amount of attorney's fees.

In a blog post, Frank Bednarz, Esq., an attorney with the
institute's Center for Class Action Fairness, said there is a
danger in class action cases that neither the attorneys for the
defendants nor the plaintiffs are putting the interest of class
members first.

"Defendants simply want to minimize their costs and would happily
overpay attorneys if it means less liability to class members.
Courts usually understand this dynamic, so will not approve a
settlement where attorneys get more than class members," he
wrote. "But class lawyers have tricks to exaggerate the size of
the settlements."[GN]


ARKANSAS: Court Narrows Claims in Seized Children Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Leon Holmes of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, Western Division, granted in part and
denied in part the state officials' motion to dismiss the case,
KATELYN WEBB, as guardian and next friend of K.S. and D.S.; and
JERIMEY LAY and TABITHA LAY, as guardians and next friends of
R.L. and C.L. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHELSEA SMITH; STACY HOUCK; MISCHA
MARTIN; and CINDY GILLESPIE individually and in their official
capacities, Defendants, Case No. 4:17CV00660 JLH (E.D. Ark.).

The parents of children taken into temporary protective custody
by the State of Arkansas bring the class action against state
officials of the Division of Children and Family Services of the
Department of Human Services ("DHS") in their individual and
official capacities alleging violations of the First, Fourth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983.

The Plaintiffs allege three categories of federal claims: (1)
Webb and the Lays claim separately from the class that the
seizures of their children were unconstitutional; (2) Webb and
the Lays claim separately from the class that they were deprived
of an opportunity to be heard in a timely manner after the
seizures; and (3) Webb and the Lays claim on behalf of themselves
and the proposed class that the Arkansas statutes governing the
provision of post-deprivation hearings to parents of seized
children are constitutionally deficient.  The statutes at issue
are Ark. Code Ann. Section 12-18-1001, which authorizes taking
children into protective custody for up to 72 hours without a
hearing, and Ark. Code Ann. Section 9-27-314, which governs the
pertinent court procedures.

The amended class action complaint alleges the following facts.
Katelyn Webb is a mother of two.  On June 28, 2017, a juvenile
court jailed her for contempt and DHS seized her children.  Webb
was released from jail on July 3.  Chelsea Smith, a Family
Services Worker, petitioned the court on July 5 for an ex parte
order for emergency custody.  Smith alleged that Webb was
incarcerated and that no relative or friend was willing or able
to take temporary custody of the children.  The court continued
the hearing until July 26, when the court found that probable
cause existed for removal of the children from Webb's custody at
the time they were seized.  The court did not find that the
children were neglected and restored custody to Webb.

Jerimey and Tabitha Lay have three children.  On May 1, 2017, DHS
seized the children based on a suspicion of abuse or neglect.
Stacy Houck, a Family Services Worker, petitioned the court on
May 3 for an ex parte order for emergency custody.  The court
entered the order on May 5 and set a probable cause hearing for
May 8. The hearing did not conclude on May 8 and the court
ordered that the children be returned to Tabitha on May 10 unless
the attorney ad litem objected.  The attorney ad litem objected
and the court set the conclusion of the hearing for May 12.
After the hearing, the children were returned to Tabitha pursuant
to a safety plan by which the Lays were to keep DHS apprised of
the children's whereabouts.  Jerimey was not permitted to have
any contact with the children and was not allowed to stay at the
home.

Cindy Gillespie is the Director of DHS.  Mischa Martin is the
Director of the Division of Children and Family Services.  The
amended class action complaint alleges that Gillespie and Martin
approved and ratified the actions of Smith and Houck, and failed
to properly train and supervise DHS employees.  The state
officials have filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6).  They maintain that the
Plaintiffs do not have Article III standing.

Judge Holmes explains that under the Ex Parte Young doctrine, a
plaintiff may file suit against state officials acting in their
official capacities seeking prospective injunctive relief for
ongoing violations of federal law.  Webb and the Lays concede
that the Eleventh Amendment bars claims for money damages under
Section 1983 against the Defendants in their official capacities
but maintain that the Ex Parte Young exception applies in the
case.  They request injunctive relief requiring Martin and DHS to
provide a post-deprivation hearing within three days after
children are seized or within another appropriate time to be set
by the Court.  The Judge holds that there is no ongoing violation
of federal law; this is a case in which federal law is alleged to
have been violated over a period of time in the past.  Custody
was restored to the Plaintiffs after post-deprivation hearings.
Ex Parte Young, therefore, does not apply and the Defendants are
entitled to sovereign immunity in their official capacities.

The Judge further explains that a designated employee of DHS may
take a child into custody for up to 72 hours without the consent
of the parent if the child is neglected, dependent, or in
immediate danger.  If there is probable cause to believe that
immediate emergency custody is necessary to protect the health or
physical well-being of the child, the circuit court will issue an
ex parte order for emergency custody removing the child from the
custody of the parent.  The amended complaint alleges that
emergency ex parte orders were entered in Webb's case and in the
Lays' case, which gave temporary custody of the children to DHS.

In addition, the juvenile courts, based on state law and the
allegations presented to them by Smith and Houck in the emergency
petitions, issued ex parte emergency custody orders temporarily
stripping the Plaintiffs of custody.  Then, the juvenile court
entered an adjudication order in Webb's case finding that
probable cause existed at the time of removal.  In the Lays'
case, the court allowed the children to return home with the
mother under a safety plan, an element of which required Mr. Lay
to reside outside the home and have no contact with the children.
Although the complaint does not explicitly allege that the
juvenile court found probable cause for Houck's seizure of the
three Lay children, that the court required the safety plan
necessarily means that the court determined that probable cause
for the seizure existed.

The Judge finds that by suing in federal court for money damages
on grounds that the seizures of their children violated their
federal due process rights as parents, the Plaintiffs are
complaining of an injury caused by the state court judgments.
Because whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to relief hinges upon
the Court finding that the emergency ex parte orders and the
adjudication orders were wrongly decided, the claims are
inextricably intertwined with the state court decisions.  The
same is true of the Lays' claim that the final order violated
their right of association and their right to parent: those
claims are inextricably intertwined with the state court
decisions.  Only the Supreme Court may hear appeals from state-
court judgments.

Finally, the Judge holds that it is within the Defendants'
responsibility and authority, however, to initiate judicial
proceedings promptly once a child has been seized.  Webb's
Section 1983 claims against Martin and Gillespie based on their
failure to properly train, supervise, direct or control the
actions of Smith who caused injury to Webb when she allegedly
failed to initiate prompt judicial proceedings survives the
motion to dismiss.

For these reasons, Judge Holmes granted in part and denied in
part the motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  All of the
claims of Jerimey Lay and Tabitha Lay are dismissed.  All claims
against Stacy Houck, individually and in her official capacity,
are dismissed.  All of Katelyn Webb's claims against Chelsea
Smith, Mischa Martin, and Cindy Gillespie, individually and in
their official capacities, are dismissed except her claims
against them in their individual capacities for failure to
initiate prompt judicial proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 20, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/e5RrgN from Leagle.com.

Katelyn Webb, as guardian and next friend of K.S. and D.S. and on
behalf of Herself and all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Luther Oneal Sutter, Sutter & Gillham, PLLC &
Joseph E. Churchwell, Miller Churchwell Law Firm, PLLC.

Chelsea Smith, Individually and in her Official Capacity, Mischa
Martin, Individually and in her Official Capacity & Cindy
Gillespie, Individually and in her Official Capacity, Defendants,
represented by Maryna O. Jackson, Arkansas Attorney General's
Office.


ARRIS INT'L: Bid to File SACC, TACC in "Reyna" Under Seal OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARLOS REYNA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ARRIS
INTERNATIONAL PLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-01834-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted in
part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' administrative motions to
file under seal.

Before the Court are two administrative motions to file under
seal.  The Plaintiffs seek to seal portions of (1) the Second
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("SACC") and (2) the
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint ("TACC") based on the Defendant or Intel's
designation of certain material as confidential.  The Defendant
filed declarations in support of the administrative motions to
file under seal in which it seeks to seal a narrower subset of
the information that the Plaintiffs identified as sealable.

The documents that the parties seek to seal are either an amended
complaint or a motion for leave to file an amended complaint.
The Defendant and Intel seek to seal several types of
information.  First, the Defendant and Intel assert that some of
the information contains competitively and commercially sensitive
information about Intel's internal product development processes
and systems and how Intel evaluates and tests its cable modem
products such as the Puma 6 chipset, or about the Defendant's
internal processes, systems, testing, and engineering structures.
The Defendant and Intel also contend that the information
provides insights into Intel's hardware and software architecture
for the Puma 6 chipset and other cable modem products.

Intel considers that technical information to be a trade secret
and limits access to that information even within the company to
those that have a need to know.  It contends that release of such
information would cause competitive harm to Intel and could also
allow a third party to create security threats to users of the
Puma 6 chipset.  Intel argues that if its internal improvement
efforts were to become public, third-party competitors would be
able to use Intel's own internal analysis, which they ordinarily
would not be able to access, to disparage Intel's Puma 6 chipset
and spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the marketplace
relating to the Puma 6 chipset and latency issues that Intel
identified and already resolved.

To the extent that the parties' request is narrowly tailored to
protect information about product development processes or
systems or information that would create security threats, Judge
Koh that the Defendant and Intel have met the compelling reasons
standard.  Where the parties' request goes beyond such
information and simply reflects generally that the Defendant and
Intel were aware of a problem and were working to resolve it, she
finds sealing inappropriate.

The second type of information that the Defendant seeks to seal
is direct consumer communication with the Defendant.  The
Defendant contends that it has a published privacy policy and
that, pursuant to that policy, consumers have a reasonable
expectation of privacy in their communications with the
Defendant.  It argues that publishing such direct comments could
erode trust and harm it in the consumer market.  The Judge finds
that the substance of customer complaints is not sealable, but
information that includes a customer's personal information may
be sealed.

Third, the Defendant and Intel seek to seal information that they
contend could reveal information which could be used for
malicious purposes and pose a security threat.  The Judge finds
that the information about a company's internal procedures to
investigate cybersecurity threats does not pose the same risk,
and so is not sealable under the compelling reasons standard.
The Defendant and Intel do not adequately explain why the general
information contained in the SACC or TACC pose a security threat.

Finally, the Defendant seeks to seal information about its
communications with a third-party cable provider related to the
alleged defect in the modems.  It argues that the cable
operator's internal processes and systems, testing, and
engineering structures are not publicly known and could cause
competitive harm to it, including by chilling and potentially
harming Defendant's working relationship with the cable provider.
To the extent that the parties' request is narrowly tailored to
protect information about confidential business processes,
systems, testing, or engineering structures, the Judge finds that
the Defendant has met the compelling reasons standard.  Where the
parties' request goes beyond such information and simply reflects
generally that Defendant and the cable operator were aware of a
problem and were working to resolve it, she finds sealing
inappropriate.

With this standard in mind, Judge Koh granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiffs' administrative motions to file under
seal.  Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3), the Plaintiffs
will refile redacted and unredacted versions of the SACC and TACC
that comply with the rulings within 7 days of the date of the
Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 20, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/HMm6hg from Leagle.com.

Carlos Reyna, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Greg Knowles, Brian Alexander, Jon Walton, Kelly Smith,
Christopher Stevens, Matthew Penner, Timothy Oefelein, Tom Kisha,
Kaci Roar, Tony Romeo, John Matsayko, David Eisen, Wes Tilley,
Andrew Prowant, Marco Fernandez, Damien Probe, Paul Dubey, Callan
Christensen, Michael Bresline, Christopher Bullard, Giovanni
Murphy, William Haworth, Rodney Bryant, Yong Jae Lee, Larry
Bavry, William Rosenberg, Jean Pierre Crespo & Mike Alexander,
Plaintiffs, represented by Willem F. Jonckheer --
wjonckheer@sjk.law -- Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, Dustin Lamm
Schubert -- dschubert@sjk.law -- Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP &
Noah M. Schubert -- nschubert@sjk.law -- Schubert Jonckheer &
Kolbe LLP.

ARRIS International plc, Plaintiff, represented by Joe Patrick
Reynolds -- jreynolds@kilpatricktownsend.com -- Kilpatrick
Townsend and Stockton LLP, pro hac vice.

Arris International plc, Defendant, represented by Nancy L. Stagg
-- nstagg@kilpatricktownsend.com -- Kilpatrick Townsend &
Stockton LLP.


ARS NATIONAL: Intervenor Dismissed From "Koby" Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California granted without prejudice
Bernadette Helmuth's Motion for Dismissal of the case, MICHAEL
KOBY, an individual, et al., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ARS NATIONAL SERVICES,
INC., a California corporation; et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:09-cv-00780-KSC (S.D. Cal.).

On April 15, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed the case as a putative
class action alleging that ARS violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA") when it attempted to collect their
alleged debts in a manner that did not comport with the FDCPA.
The Complaint alleges that the Defendant left voice messages that
neither disclosed the purpose of the call nor stated that the
call was from a debt collector.

Following the resolution of the Defendant's Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings, the parties entered into settlement
negotiations.  On Feb. 17, 2012, the parties held a full-day
Settlement Conference with Magistrate Judge Adler.  While the
case did not settle, several months of negotiation followed,
culminating in a Jan. 30, 2013 full-day Mandatory Settlement
Conference with Magistrate Judge Crawford.  Following serious,
informed, arms-length negotiations, the parties reached a
settlement, the contents of which were placed on the record
before the Magistrate Judge that same day.

In June of 2013, intervenor Helmuth objected to the proposed
settlement.  The Court held a fairness hearing on Aug. 28, 2013,
and issued a final approval of the settlement in Oct. 2013.
Intervenor Helmuth appealed the final Order of Approval in
November 2013.  Three years later on April 20, 2017, the Ninth
Circuit vacated the settlement.  Following the Ninth Circuit's
ruling, the Plaintiffs sought leave to amend the Complaint, which
they filed on Sept. 6, 2017.

Intervenor Helmuth is a Plaintiff and potential class
representative in a separate -- and similar -- putative class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida against the Defendant (Helmuth v. ARS National
Services, 11cv81044-KAM (S.D. Fla. 2011)).  After the parties
reached a settlement agreement before the Court in 2013, the
Florida District Court stayed the case pending final
determination by this Court on the proposed settlement.  The
Florida District Court has not lifted the stay.

After plaintiffs filed the FAC in November 2017, Helmuth
requested that the Plaintiffs and the Defendant stipulate to her
dismissal from the action.  The Plaintiffs agreed, but the
Defendant refused precipitating the instant dispute.

On Dec. 4, 2017, the Intervenor filed her Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Jurisdiction.  On Dec. 26, 2017, the Defendant filed its
opposition.

Magistrate Judge Crawford explains that the Defendant's
Opposition does not explicitly oppose Intervenor Helmuth's
request for dismissal.  Rather, it contends it will be prejudiced
if the Intervenor is dismissed without prejudice.  The Court
construes the Defendant's silence as opposition to dismissal
without prejudice rather than opposing dismissal itself.
Therefore, she turns to whether dismissal should be with or
without prejudice, and what limitations, if any, should be
imposed.

The Magistrate Judge finds that regardless of whether the
Intervenor is dismissed, the named Plaintiffs and their putative
class will continue litigating the case.  While the Defendant ARS
has invested effort and expense in the litigation, those efforts
will not be negatively impacted by the dismissal of Helmuth.
Beyond her decision to oppose the settlement agreement, she has
played no role in the case other than "intervenor."  Therefore,
this factor weighs in favor of the Intervenor's dismissal without
prejudice.

The Magistrate Judge also finds that Helmuth was diligent in
pursuing her request for dismissal following the amendment of the
Complaint, which favors dismissal without prejudice.  Lastly,
legal prejudice does not result merely because the defendant will
be inconvenienced by having to defend in another forum or where a
plaintiff would gain a tactical advantage by that dismissal.
Thus, on balance, these factors weigh in favor of dismissal
without prejudice.

Finally, she considers what terms, if any, should accompany
dismissal.  Her analysis favors dismissal without awarding fees
and costs under Rule 41.  The Defendant does not propose
additional terms and conditions be imposed on Helmuth and she
finds none are appropriate.  Nothing about Helmuth's conduct
supports a finding of bad faith or intent to harass, and the
Magistrate Judge will accordingly deny the Defendant's request
for fees and costs.

Since, she is dismissing the Intervenor without prejudice, there
is neither a judgment on the merits nor a material alteration in
the legal relations between the parties.  Consequently, the
Magistrate finds that the Defendant is not a prevailing party,
and its request for costs will be denied.  Finally, she is not
persuaded that the Intervenor acted in bad faith or with an
intent to harass ARS.  Intervenor Helmuth objected to the
fairness of the settlement terms and was vindicated by the Ninth
Circuit.  Therefore, the she declines to award fees and costs to
the Defendant under 28 U.S.C. Section 1927.

For the reasons she explained, Magistrate Judge Crawford granted
Helmuth's Motion and dismissed the Intervenor without prejudice.
She denied ARS' requests for fees and costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 20, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/liLgBV from Leagle.com.

Michael P Koby, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Michael Simmons, an individual, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated & Jonathan
W Supler, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew T.
Thomasson, SternThomasson LLP, pro hac vice, Philip D. Stern,
Stern Thomasson LLP, pro hac vice & Robert E. Schroth, Jr.,
Schroth, Schroth & Madigan.

Bernadette M. Helmuth, Plaintiff, represented by Donald A.
Yarbrough -- don@donyarbrough.com -- Donald A. Yarbrough, Esq.,
pro hac vice, Scott R. Strauss -- scottstrauss@donyarbrough.com -
- Donald A. Yarbrough, Attorney at Law, pro hac vice & Steven M.
Bronson, THE BRONSON FIRM, APC.

Donald Nappi, Plaintiff, represented by Philip D. Stern, Stern
Thomasson LLP, pro hac vice.

ARS National Services, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Jeffrey Alan Topor -- jtopor@snllp.com -- Simmonds
and Narita LLP, Sean P. Flynn -- sflynn@gordonrees.com -- Gordon
& Rees, LLP, Susan L. Germaise -- sgermaise@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuire Woods, Tomio B. Narita -- tnarita@snllp -- Simmonds &
Narita LLP & Holly L.K. Heffner -- hheffner@grsm.com -- Gordon &
Rees LLP.


AT&T MOBILITY: Removes "Atkins" Suit to S.D. Western Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of Joseph Atkins; Justin Roach; and
James Hull, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC, Defendants,
filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of
the State of West Virginia, Kanawha County (Case No. 15-C-1736)
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of West
Virginia and assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-00599 (S.D.W. Va., April
23, 2018).

AT&T Mobility LLC provides wireless voice and data communications
services. The Company offers wireless solutions, on-demand video
streaming, post-paid, prepaid, enterprise voice, and data
services, as well as local, long-distance, and roaming services
for cellular and personal communications services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Blake Carter, Jr. Esq.
          BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS
          P.O. Box 3712
          Charleston, WV 25337-3712
          Telephone: (304) 345-0346
          Facsimile: (304) 345-0375
          E-mail: jrcarter@bbjlc.com

               - and -

          Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301-1386
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
          E-mail: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          L. Lee Javins, II, Esq.
          BAILEY JAVINS & CARTER
          213 Hale Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-0346
          Facsimile: (304) 345-0375
          E-mail: ljavins@bjc4u.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Barney, Esq.
          BARNEY LAW
          P. O. Box 505
          Hurricane, WV 25526
          Telephone: (304) 932-8775
          Facsimile: (304) 907-0885
          E-mail: mbarney@barneylawwv.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James F. Neale, Esq.
          MCGUIRE WOODS
          P. O. Box 1288
          Charlottesville, VA 22902
          Telephone: (434) 977-2582
          Facsimile: (434) 980-2263
          E-mail: jneale@mcguirewoods.com


ATLAS FINANCIAL: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until May 4, 2018 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against Atlas Financial
Holdings, Inc. (NasdaqGM:AFH), if they purchased the Company's
securities between March 13, 2017, and March 2, 2018, inclusive
(the "Class Period").  This action is pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities of Atlas and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your
right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis
Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email
(lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgm-afh/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by May 4, 2018.

About the Lawsuit

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

On March 1, 2018, the Company disclosed that, following "a
comprehensive review of its reserves" it was substantially
increasing its overall reserves "based on year-end actuarial work
coupled with a detailed internal file audit for claims with
reserves not established by the Company's predictive analytics
tools . . . ."

On this news, the price of Atlas' shares plummeted $7.70 per
share, over 40%, to close at $11.10 per share on March 2, 2018,
on unusually heavy trading volume.

         Contact:
         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         206 Covington St.
         Madisonville, LA 70
         Telephone: 1-877-515-1850
         E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Hymes" Suit over Interest on Advances
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saul R. Hymes and Ilana Harwayne-Gidansky, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Bank of
America, N.A., and Does 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-
cv-02352-JFB-ARL (E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2018) is an action against
the Defendants for restitution and reimbursement, injunctive
relief, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, pursuant to the
New York General Obligation Law.

The Plaintiff alleged in the complaint that the Defendants
violated the New York General Obligation Law, which requires a
mortgage lender making a loan secured by a one-to-six family
residence located in New York to pay the borrower a minimum of 2%
simple interest for money received in advance from the borrower
for tax and insurance that is held by the lender in an "escrow"
account until payment is due. During all or part of the Class
Period, the Plaintiffs have paid hundreds of dollars into an
escrow account but have received no interest on those payments.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
          Michael Jaffe, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
          E-mail: pollack@whafh.com
                  jaffe@whafh.com


BAYFRONT HMA: Court Narrows Claims in MSPA Claims Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, Plaintiff, v. BAYFRONT HMA
MEDICAL CENTER, LLC, d/b/a BAYFRONT MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv-21733-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES (S.D. Fla.), Judge Darrin
P. Gayles of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss Complaint.

The action is one of many brought by the Plaintiff against
different insurance companies and/or healthcare providers seeking
reimbursement for conditional payments made on behalf of Medicare
Part C enrollees in accordance with the Medicare Secondary Payer
Act ("MSP").  Since 2015, the Plaintiff and its related companies
have filed dozens of actions in state and federal courts in
Florida.  The legal landscape of the Medicare Act -- best
described as a statutory maze -- has evolved with each new round
of the Plaintiff's filings.  The bulk of these actions seek
recovery against a primary insurer, typically an automobile or
commercial liability insurer, for damages under the MSP and/or
state subrogation laws.

In the case, however, the Plaintiff brings claims under the MSP
against a healthcare provider, an unworn path to recovery under
the Act.  Much of the MSP litigation in the district -- including
the action -- is centered on the extent to which Medicare
Advantage Organizations ("MAOs") may utilize the private action
provisions of the MSP.

On Feb. 1, 2014, D.W., an enrollee in a Medicare Advantage Plan
Administered by Florida Healthcare Plus ("FHCP"), was involved in
an automobile accident.  Following the accident, D.W. received
medical treatment at a facility operated by Bayfront.  In
addition to his Medicare Advantage Plan, D.W. was also covered by
First Acceptance Insurance Co., which provided no-fault benefits.
On April 14, 2014, Bayfront billed First Acceptance $6,255.96 for
medical items and services provided to D.W.  First Acceptance
paid $3,753.58 of the billed charges.  On May 12, 2014, Bayfront
billed FHCP $6,255.96 for medical items and services provided to
Enrollee.  FHCP paid $691.64 of the billed charges.

On March 9, 2017, the Plaintiff, as assignee of FHCP, filed the
action in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in
and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, on behalf of itself and a
purported class of similarly situated Florida MAOs or their
assignees against Bayfront.  The Plaintiff alleges (1) an MSP
private cause of action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1395y(b)(3)(A);
(2) a Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA")
claim; and (3) an unjust enrichment claim.

On May 10, 2017, Bayfront removed the action to the Court.  On
June 5, 2017, Bayfront moved to dismiss the Complaint arguing
that the Plaintiff's MSP claim must be dismissed because it is
against a provider and because it is barred by the applicable
statute of limitations.  In addition, it argues that the
Plaintiff has no standing to bring its FDUTPA or unjust
enrichment claims, that the FDUTPA claim is preempted by the MSP,
and that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim for unjust
enrichment.

Before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint.

Deferring to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS")'
regulations, Judge Gayles finds that the Plaintiff may bring a
private cause of action against Bayfront for double damages if
Bayfront received a primary payment that should have been
reimbursed to the Plaintiff.  Bayfront's Motion to Dismiss, to
the extent it argues that there is no MSP private cause of action
against a provider, will be denied.

The Judge further finds that the Plaintiff brought this action on
March 9, 2017, less than three years from the date it was billed
by Bayfront or had any notice that a primary payment had been
made to Bayfront.  The action, therefore, is timely and the
Motion to Dismiss must be denied.

Finally, as to the Plaintiff's FDUTPA and unjust enrichment, the
Judge finds that neither FDUTPA nor unjust enrichment are federal
or state subrogation laws and therefore are not included in the
assignment.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff has no standing to bring
those claims and the Motion to Dismiss Counts II and III must be
granted.

Based on this, Judge Gayles granted in part and denied in part
the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint.  He dismissed
without prejudice Counts II and III.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 20, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/DupTds from Leagle.com.

MSPA Claims 1, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, as
assignee of Florida Healthcare Plus, on behalf of itself and all
other similarly situated Medicare Advantage Organizations in the
State of Florida, Plaintiff, represented by Frank Carlos Quesada
-- fquesada@msprecovery.com -- MSP Recovery Law Firm, Alan H.
Rolnick -- arolnick@riveromestre.com -- Rivero Mestre LLP &
Andres Rivero -- arivero@riveromestre.com -- Rivero Mestre LLP.

Bayfront HMA Medical Center, LLC, a Florida profit corporation,
Defendant, represented by Alan David Lash --
alash@lashgoldberg.com -- Lash & Goldberg, David Robert Ruffner -
- druffner@lashgoldberg.com -- Lash & Goldberg & Greg Jason
Weintraub -- weintraub@lashgoldberg.com -- Lash & Goldberg LLP.


BAYHEALTH MEDICAL: Court Narrows Claims in "Ridley" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARY BETH RIDLEY, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BAYHEALTH MEDICAL
CENTER, INC., d/b/a MILFORD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL and KENT GENERAL
HOSPITAL, Defendant, C.A. No. N17C-04-306 JRJ (Del. Super.),
Judge Jan R. Jurden of the Superior Court of Delaware granted in
part, denied in part and deferred in part Bayhealth's Motion to
Dismiss the Complaint and Strike Class Allegations.

The putative class action stems from a request for copies of
medical records.  Ridley, is suing because the Defendant
allegedly overcharged her for copies of her medical records,
falsely represented she had to pay per-page rates for paper
copies to obtain them, and concealed the material fact that
Ridley is entitled to her medical records in electronic format.

Ridley asserts multiple claims against Bayhealth.  First, she
alleges Bayhealth violated 6 Del. C. Section 2513, the Delaware
Consumer Fraud Act ("DCFA").  According to her Complaint,
Bayhealth intended Ridley and class members to rely on
misrepresentations and concealments so that they would believe
they needed to pay more money for paper copies of their medical
records, which they did.  Second, she alleges that Bayhealth's
conduct constitutes a violation of 24 Del. C. Section 1761, the
Delaware Medical Practice Act, because the fees for Ridley's
medical records exceeded the limits provided in a regulatory fee
schedule.  Third, Ridley alleges that Bayhealth's excessive
charges and wrongful refusal to produce medical records in
electronic format constitute a breach of contract.  Along with
requests for monetary damages (including punitives) and
attorneys' fees, Ridley seeks a declaratory judgment that
Bayhealth violated federal and state laws in connection with its
charges and the manner in which it provides patients with copies
of their medical records.  Ridley also seeks class certification.

The Plaintiff brings the action on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, as representative of the following
proposed classes: all persons, who at any time since Feb. 17,
2009, paid Bayhealth directly or indirectly, for access to or
copies of their medical records, and all patients in the State of
Delaware whose request for access to their records are processed,
directly or indirectly, by Bayhealth.  The Plaintiff filed her
Complaint on April 26, 2017.

Before the Court is Bayhealth's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint
and Strike Class Allegations on several grounds.  First,
Bayhealth argues that Ridley lacks standing to assert the claims
alleged in the Complaint because Bayhealth never charged Ridley
for the medical records at issue, and the Complaint fails to
state that Ridley was obligated to pay for the records.  Second,
Bayhealth contends that Ridley's DCFA claim must be dismissed
because furnishing medical records is not the type of transaction
the DCFA was intended govern.  Third, Bayhealth argues that
Ridley fails to state a claim for violation of 24 Del. C. Section
1761, the Delaware Medical Practice Act, because this statute
does not apply to hospitals, and even if it does, Ridley has
failed to sufficiently plead a violation.  Fourth, it maintains
that Ridley's breach of contract claim must be dismissed because
there is no allegation in the Complaint that a contract existed
between Bayhealth and Ridley, or that a breach of contract caused
injury to Ridley.  Fifth, Bayhealth argues that Ridley fails to
state a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing because Ridley has not alleged a specific
implied contractual obligation or how a violation of such
obligation denied Ridley the fruits of the contract.  Sixth,
Bayhealth contends that Ridley's claim for declaratory judgment
must be dismissed because there is no private right cause of
action under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act ("HIPAA"), money damages are more appropriate, and other
claims already alleged adequately address the damages Ridley
seeks.  Seventh, Bayhealth argues Ridley's claim for punitive
damages must be dismissed because Ridley fails to state a claim
for violation of the DCFA or a claim entitling her to punitive
damages.  Eighth, it maintains Ridley fails to allege any viable
claim that would entitle her to attorneys' fees.  Finally, it
asserts that the Complaint fails to satisfy the requirements for
class certification pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Civil
Rule 23(a).

Judge Jurden finds that Ridley's Complaint fails to separate the
damages incurred by any fraudulent conduct from those incurred by
any breach of contract, and the conduct giving rise to the
alleged fraud and the breach is the same.  As to Ridley's
allegation that Bayhealth violated 24 Del. C. Section 1761, the
Delaware Medical Practice Act, when it charged more than its
actual costs for copying medical records, the Judge explains that
the express language of the statute is clear, and Ridley did not
respond to Bayhealth's argument on this point in her Answering
Brief.

The Judge also finds that Ridley placed an order with Bayhealth
for her medical records, instructed it as to the format in which
her records should be produced, directed Bayhealth to send her
medical records to her attorney, and Ridley paid the bill.  In
response to Ridley's letters, Bayhealth produced the medical
records, sent them along with the invoices to Ridley's attorney,
and accepted payment for the records.  These allegations, the
Judge says, support a reasonable inference that an implied-in-
fact contract exists between Ridley and Bayhealth.

Accepting all well-alleged allegations as true, and drawing every
factual inference in favor of the Plaintiff, the Judge finds
Ridley has sufficiently pled a breach and damages caused by that
breach.  And if the jury believes the terms of the implied-in-
fact contract were not sufficient to justify finding a breach of
the contract, it could still find the alleged overcharging and
refusal to produce the copies in the requested electronic format
was a breach of the implied covenant.  At this stage, the Judge
finds it too early to rule out the possibility that the implied
covenant might apply.

Judge Jurden finds that the controversy has not matured to a
point where the Court finds judicial action is appropriate.
Therefore, Bayhealth's Motion to Dismiss Ridley's claim for
declaratory judgment will be granted.  He says the facts pled in
Ridley's Complaint do not raise an inference of "evil motive" or
"reckless indifference" to the rights of others.  Punitive
damages are not recoverable for breach of contract unless the
conduct also amounts independently to a tort.  Hence, Bayhealth's
Motion to Dismiss Ridley's punitive damages claim will be
granted.

As to Ridley's move for attorneys' fees, the Judge explains that
while the Court has recognized limited equitable exceptions to
the American Rule, on the facts as pled, no such exceptions apply
here.  Bayhealth's Motion to Dismiss Ridley's claim for
attorneys' fees will be granted.

Finally, as to Ridley's move for class certification, Bayhealth
asks the Court to strike the class allegations.  At this
juncture, the Judge holds he will deny without prejudice to
pursue the issue later Ridley's request for certification as the
litigation on the surviving breach of contract claim progresses
through discovery.  He will defer Bayhealth's Motion to Strike
Ridley's Class Allegations.

For these reasons, Judge Jurden granted in part, denied in part
and deferred in part Bayhealth's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint
and Strike Class Allegations.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 20, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/J3Ay9q from Leagle.com.

Kelley M. Huff, Esquire -- khuff@msllaw.com -- (argued), Murphy &
Landon, 1011 Centre Road, Suite 210, Wilmington, Delaware,
Attorney for Plaintiff.

John S. Spadaro, Esquire -- jspadaro@johnsheehanspadaro.com --
John Sheehan Spadaro, LLC, 54 Liborio Lane, Smyrna, Delaware,
Attorney for Plaintiff.

Colleen D. Shields, Esquire -- cshields@eckertseamans.com --
(argued) and Alexandra D. Rogin, Esquire --
arogin@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Melliott,
LLC, 222 Delaware Avenue, 7th Floor, Wilmington, Delaware,
Attorneys for Defendant.


BCFORWARD RAZOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Rodriguez" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSE RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BCFORWARD RAZOR LLC; BUCHER and
CHRISTIAN CONSULTING, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants,
Case No. 18CV327032 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., April 23,
2018) alleges that the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff
and all other similarly situated individuals with meal and rest
periods, and to pay them overtime wages at the correct rate.

The Plaintiff Rodriguez was employed by the Defendants as a non-
exempt hourly employee in California.

BCForward Razor LLC is an Indiana limited liability company in
Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Yeremian, Esq.
          Jason Rothman, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230-8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
          E-mail: David@yeremianlaw.com
                  Jason@yeremianlaw.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC
          5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (310) 652-2242
          E-mail: walterhaines@yahoo.com


BP OIL: Thousands of Cleanup Workers Haven't Had Day in Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Hammer, writing for WFMY News 2, reports that in the sea of
fines, fees and compensation BP has paid to individuals,
businesses, governments and lawyers for its 2010 oil spill, one
group of claimants stands out for missing out on the billions.

On the eighth anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion
that set off the worst oil spill in U.S. history, thousands of
workers BP hired to clean up its mess say exposure to oil and
chemicals made them sick. About 22,700 of them have been paid
under a 2012 class-action settlement, but the average claim paid
about $2,940.

And thousands of other medical claimants are still awaiting their
day in court.

That includes Tiffany Odoms, the widow of cleanup worker Alonzo
Odoms, who was exposed to oil and cleaning chemicals on a shrimp
boat near Dulac and died four years later of multiple myeloma.
Tiffany said doctors said the cancer came from an exposure to
chemicals, which she said he never was as a barber.

Alonzo Odoms filed a claim when he got sick, and Tiffany Odoms is
now pursuing it as a wrongful death claim as she raises their
daughter A'loni.

"It's not right, to hear my baby cry," she said. "Still cry,
every night and wonder why she can't go to heaven and visit her
dad."

Another claimant is shrimper George Barisich. He received
compensation for his seafood business losses under a separate
settlement, and he filed a claim for a chronic illness from
exposure to the oil and chemical dispersants used to break up oil
particles in the Gulf.

"There's no justice here for people who actually worked, went out
there to clean up their mess, and this is what we got for it: Not
too good of a thank you, I don't believe," Barisich said.

Claimants and their allies, led by Retired Lt. Gen. Russel
Honore, delivered a petition with 25,000 signatures to the
federal court in New Orleans on April 20, asking U.S. District
Judge Carl Barbier to move long-stagnant medical claims forward.

"On this 20th day of April, we reflect with sadness on those who
lost their lives and we brush shoulders with those trying to stay
alive as a result of the dispersants and the chemicals and the
unprotected workers who worked to clean up our shores," Honore
said outside the federal courthouse.

Of the 22,700 medical claimants paid under the settlement so far,
only 40 of them qualified for $60,700 payments available to those
who could prove the spill caused them to have chronic illnesses.

The medical claims settlement administrator, Matt Garretson of
Garretson Resolution Group in Cincinnati, estimated his fees from
BP at $115 million to $120 million. That's nearly twice as much
as the $67.8 million he's paid out to claimants over the last six
years.

If the medical settlement had played out the way plaintiffs
expected in 2012, it might have paid more than $1 billion to tens
of thousands of claimants.

But that was short-circuited in 2014, when U.S. District Judge
Carl Barbier made a decision -- reluctantly, according to his
comments from the bench -- that rendered the settlement
essentially moot for an estimated 20,000 claimants.

It all boiled down to the interpretation of two words:
"manifested" and "diagnosed."

The original medical claims settlement set aside a separate
litigation process for what were called "Later-Manifested
Physical Conditions." Lead class plaintiffs' attorney Steve
Herman, Esq. -- sherman@hhklawfirm.com -- said that was supposed
to refer to cancer and other conditions that don't show up for
years after the exposure.

Instead, the settlement defined "later-manifested physical
conditions" as any conditions "diagnosed" after April 16, 2012,
regardless of when the condition actually manifested, or
appeared. That meant people who got sick right away while
cleaning up the oil during 2010 and 2011, but didn't get an
official doctor's diagnosis until mid-2012 or later, were
relegated to fighting separate cases, first in mediation with BP
and then in court.

The latest report from Garretson shows BP has not agreed to pay a
single one of those claims in mediation. Herman said the first of
the court cases are now starting to be heard.

Garretson said he is simply implementing the settlement as it was
written, but Herman said that's not what the plaintiffs'
negotiating team intended. That leaves claimants angry at both of
them and pointing out that they are getting huge paydays out of
the settlement.

Herman's law firm and that of his co-lead counsel, Jim Roy, were
each awarded $87 million in fees from BP. That's on top of any
fees they collected from their individual clients, which could be
up to 25 percent of their claims payouts. In all, about two dozen
plaintiffs' law firms split $679 million in fees for negotiating
settlements with BP totaling $13 billion and with BP's drilling
contractors for another $1.25 billion.

Garretson, meanwhile, has also approved $105 million in grants to
Gulf Coast community-based health organizations, which are
expected to help some of the claimants get better medical care.
Claimants can also participate in free ongoing clinical
screenings as a part of the settlement Garretson runs.[GN]


CANADA: Proposed Settlement of LGBT Purge Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Government of Canada and certain former members of
the Canadian Armed Forces ("CAF"), RCMP and employees of the
Federal Public Service ("FPS") who were directly affected by the
LGBT Purge in the CAF, RCMP and FPS have reached a proposed
settlement of class action lawsuits. The proposed settlement must
be approved by the Federal Court before there is any money
available. Your legal rights are affected even if you do nothing.
Please read this notice carefully.

The "LGBT Purge" refers to actions taken to identify,
investigate, sanction, and in some cases, terminate the
employment of, or discharge LGBTQ2 members of the CAF, RCMP and
FPS.

The Representative Plaintiffs and Canada have agreed to a
proposed settlement. By agreeing to the proposed settlement, the
parties avoid the costs and uncertainty of a trial and delays in
obtaining judgment, and certain individuals who were directly
affected by the official policies of the CAF, RCMP and Federal
Public Service may receive the benefits described in the
settlement agreement. By settling this class action, the
Representative Plaintiffs and Canada have reached an agreement
that will provide for individual reconciliation and recognition
measures consisting of an award to be created to be called the
Canada Pride Citation and a personal letter of apology in
addition to broad based reconciliation and memorialization
measures.

The Federal Court is required to decide whether to approve the
proposed settlement. The Court will hear submissions about the
approval of the proposed settlement on June 18 and 19, 2018 at
10:00 a.m. in Ottawa, Ontario. Payments and other benefits will
only be made available if the Court approves the proposed
settlement and after any appeals are resolved. Please be patient.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS FOR THIS PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

Participate: Write a letter that includes your name, address and
telephone number and explain why you support or object to the
proposed settlement. You may also use the Objection Form which
can be found at www.lgbtpurgesettlement.com. You must mail or
email your Objection Form on or before May 31, 2018 to: LGBT
Purge Class Action, c/o Deloitte, Bay Adelaide East, 8 Adelaide
Street West, Suite 200, Toronto ON, M5H 0A9 or
lgbtpurge@deloitte.ca.

Go to a Hearing: You can attend the Approval Hearing in the
Federal Court of Canada in Ottawa, Ontario on June 18 and 19,
2018 at 10:00 a.m. to participate in the hearing, to express your
support for, or to object to, the proposed settlement.

Do Nothing: Give up your right to object to the proposed
settlement.

These rights and options and the deadlines to exercise them and
more information about the proposed settlement are explained in a
notice available at www.lgbtpurgesettlement.com.

         LGBT Purge Class Action
         c/o Deloitte
         Bay Adelaide East,
         8 Adelaide Street West, Suite 200,
         Toronto ON, M5H 0A9
         Toll free: 1-833-346-6178.
         Email: lgbtpurge@deloitte.ca [GN]


CAPITAL ACCOUNTS: Faces "Berkowitz" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Accounts,
LLC. The case is styled as Stacy Berkowitz, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capital
Accounts, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02732 (E.D. New York,
May 8, 2018).

Capital Accounts specializes in the collection of overdue
balances.[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


CARGILL INCORPORATED: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Tavares" Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maribel Tavares, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cargill Incorporated; Cargill
Meat Solutions Corp; and Does 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No.
18CECG01380 (Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., April 20, 2018) is an
action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Tavares was employed by the Defendants as an
hourly-paid, non exempt employee, from April 2013 to February
2017, in Fresno, California.

Cargill Inc is a multinational corporation. The Company provides
food, agriculture, financial and industrial products and
services.

Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation processes and distributes meat
products. The company offers fresh beef, pork, and turkey, as
well as cooked and marinated meats. The company was formerly
known as Excel Corporation and changed its name to Cargill Meat
Solutions Corporation in January, 2000. Cargill Meat Solutions
Corporation was founded in 1936 and is headquartered in Wichita,
Kansas. Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation operates as a
subsidiary of Cargill, Incorporated. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
         LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
         410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 265-1020
         Facsimile: (818) 265-1021


CC VENICE: Underpays Door Hosts & Security Guards, Perkins Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mervin Perkins, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CC Venice LLC; Sunset Restaurant
Management Group; Michael Bezzera, and Does 1-50, Defendants,
Case No. 703660 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 23, 2018)
is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours,
overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest
periods.

The Plaintiff Perkins was employed by the Defendants as a door
host/security guard from April 2017 to December 2017.

CC Venice LLC is a limited liability company existing under the
laws of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CENTRAL RADIOLOGY: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Radiology,
P.C. The case is styled as Kathleen Sypert, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Central
Radiology, P.C. doing business as: Flushing Imaging Center,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04177 (S.D. N.Y., May 9, 2018).

Central Radiology, P.C. offers affordable prices for Radiology
procedures in Flushing, NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


CHICO'S: Faces "Schroeder" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jobs and Main
Realty Co. LLC. The case is styled as Arlene Schroeder,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Jobs and Main Realty Co. LLC and John Doe d/b/a
Chico's, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02744 (E.D. N.Y., May 8,
2018).

Chico's is a retail women's clothing chain founded in 1983 by a
three-person operation on Sanibel Island, Florida. Chico's FAS,
Inc. is an American women's clothing and accessories
retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   James E. Bahamonde, Esq.
   James E. Bahamonde, P.C.
   2501 Jody Court
   North Bellmore, NY 11710
   Tel: (516) 783-9662
   Fax: (646) 435-4376
   Email: James@civilrightsNY.com


CLIF BAR: Milan et al Sue over Sale of High-Sugar Nutrition Bars
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Milan; Sarah Aquino and Elizabeth Arnold, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Clif
Bar & Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-02354-JCS (N.D. Cal.,
April 19, 2018) seeks to compel the Defendant to cease marketing
the high-sugar products using deceptive claims.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that despite the
compelling evidence that sugar acts as a chronic liver toxin,
detrimentally affecting health, and despite that as much as 37%
of the calories in the Defendant's Kid ZBars and "Classic" Clif
Bars come from added sugar, the Defendant markets these so-called
"nutrition" bars with labeling and packaging claims that convey a
health and wellness message with the goal of increasing the price
and sales of its high-sugar "nutrition" bars.

Clif Bar & Company provides nutritious and organic foods. Clif
Bar & Company was formerly known as Clif Bar, Inc. and changed
its name to Clif Bar & Company in 2005. The company was founded
in 1986 and is headquartered in Emeryville, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PAUL K. JOSEPH, PC
          4125 W. Point Loma Blvd. #206
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 767-0356
          Facsimile: (619) 331-2943
          E-mail: paul@pauljosephlaw.com

               - and -

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
          Melanie Persinger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
          Hillcrest Professional Building
          3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692-3840
          Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
          E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com


COAST EAST: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coast East River
Medical Imaging, P.C. The case is styled as Kathleen Sypert, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
East River Medical Imaging, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 31:18-cv-
04176 (S.D. N.Y., May 9, 2018).

Coast East River Medical Imaging, P.C. is a medical diagnostic
imaging center in New York City, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


COAST PROFESSIONAL: Faces "Harper" Suit in M.D. Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coast Professional
Inc. The case is styled as Tajuanna Harper, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Coast
Professional Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-
cv-00439 (M.D. Tenn., May 9, 2018).

Coast Professional Inc. is a debt collection agency in West
Monroe, Louisiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Susan S. Lafferty, Esq.
   Lafferty Law Firm, P.C.
   555 Marriott Dr., Suite 315
   Nashville, TN 37214
   Tel: (615) 492-1199
   Email: susanl@laffertylawonline.com


COLUMBIA SUSSEX: Faces "Brodie" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Columbia Sussex
Management, LLC. The case is styled as Caroline Brodie,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Columbia Sussex Management, LLC and Columbia Sussex
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01953-JHS (E.D. Penn.,
May 9, 2018).

Columbia Sussex is a private hotel company based in Crestview
Hills, Kentucky. The company, owned by the Yung family, owns and
operates hotels in various parts of the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   R. BRUCE CARLSON, Esq.
   Carlson Lynch Sweet &Kilpela, LLP
   1133 Penn Avenue
   5th Floor
   PITTSBURGH, PA 15222
   Tel: (412) 322-9243
   Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


COOK COUNTY, IL: Suit, Rally Draws Attention to Bail Reform
-----------------------------------------------------------
Savannah Eadens, writing for The Columbia Chronicle, reports that
despite attempts at criminal justice reform, Cook County Sheriff
Tom Dart is abusing his authority to become "judge and jury" for
criminally charged individuals seeking bond in Cook County Jail,
said activist Irene Romulo.

Romulo, advocacy director for Chicago Community Bond Fund,
protested with a few dozen others at the Dirksen Federal
Building, 219 S. Dearborn St., April 19 to support a class-action
lawsuit against Dart for denying release to a defendant awaiting
trial, for whom bail had already been posted.

The rally directed attention to its Facebook event page, which
accused Dart of undermining the presumption of innocence by
failing to release defendants on bail or electronic monitoring.
The protest on April 19 preceded a court hearing for the lawsuit,
filed in February on behalf of people detained under Dart's newly
announced "review" policy for defendants already cleared for
release by Cook County bond court judges, according to the suit.

"Individuals in this country facing criminal charges are presumed
innocent," Sarah Garber, Esq., the attorney who filed the
lawsuit, told the rally. "Making assumptions about someone's
level of dangerousness based on the nature of the charges they
face, the neighborhood they come from, or their history of
arrests in a city that has been plagued for decades by racist and
corrupt policing ... is a disturbing abuse of [Dart's] power as
sheriff."

Dart has built his reputation on jail reform, even writing in a
commentary for the Chicago Tribune March 16: "Our system has
always put a price on freedom. If you have enough money to pay
bail, no matter the danger, you can roam free before your trial.
If you don't have cash, no matter how harmless you are, you stay
behind bars. What that system gave us was both an overcrowded
jail and streets filled with blood and spent shell casings."

Garber filed the lawsuit after Chicago resident Taphia Williams
was detained in jail for more than 60 hours even after the
Chicago Community Bond Fund had posted her bail so she could go
free on electronic monitoring while her case was pending.

Devoureaux Wolf, an advocate with the Chicago Community Bond
Fund, also faced challenges with Dart's review process. Wolf said
he was on electronic monitoring for three months while living
with his grandmother awaiting trial. He was told he could not be
more than 100 feet from the home at risk of being sent back to
jail, he added.

"People on electronic monitoring are really not free," Wolf said.
"I was trapped in my grandmother's house and couldn't even step
on the porch. It still felt like I was in jail."

Romulo said the Chicago Community Bond Fund has obtained
information with Freedom of Information Act requests revealing at
least 55 people have been denied release by Dart based on his
review process.

In response to the rally and lawsuit, Cara Smith, chief policy
officer for the Sheriff's office, said Dart has been at the
forefront of criminal justice reform.

"Sheriff Dart was the first law enforcement official in the
nation to call for an end to cash bail," Smith said in an April
19 email statement. "His leadership on these critical issues has
included his pledge to ensure that reform does not compromise
public safety. We will continue to push reform within our
criminal justice system and will do so responsibly and consistent
with our commitment to public safety."

In addition to the unfair electronic monitoring practices, Romulo
said the cash bond system should be eliminated, citing the lack
of evidence supporting cash bonds as increasing the likelihood
that defendants will return to court.

Rather, the city should use supportive services to invest in
communities, Romulo said.[GN]


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces "Pearlstone" Suit in E.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Costco Wholesale
Corporation. The case is captioned as Scott Pearlstone,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-00630-RLW (E.D. Mo., April 19, 2018). The case is
assigned to Judge Ronnie L. White.

Costco Wholesale Corporation operates wholesale membership
warehouses in multiple countries. The Company sells all kinds of
food, automotive supplies, toys, hardware, sporting goods,
jewelry, electronics, apparel, health, and beauty aids, as well
as other goods. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lanny H. Darr, Esq.
          DARR FIRM
          307 Henry St., Suite 406
          Alton, IL 62002
          Telephone: (618) 208-6828
          Facsimile: (618) 4433-8519
          E-mail: ldarr@darrfirm.com


CP ADVANCED: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CP Advanced
Imaging, PLLC. The case is styled as Kathleen Sypert, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CP
Advanced Imaging, PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04173 (S.D.
N.Y., May 9, 2018).

CP Advanced Imaging is a multi-modality diagnostic imaging center
located in lower Manhattan, providing imaging services in the
community for over 30 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


CREDIT ONE: "Burke" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
------------------------------------------------
Roberta Burke, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Credit One Bank, NA, and First Contact, LLC, Case No.
8:18-cv-00728 (M.D. Fla., March 27, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, and citizen of the State of
Florida, residing in Winter Haven, Florida.

Credit One Bank is a corporation which was formed in Nevada with
its principal place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada, and
conducts business in the State of Florida and across the United
States.

First Contact is a Minnesota limited liability company with its
registered office address in St. Paul, Minnesota, and its
principal executive office in St. Petersburg, Florida. First
Contact regularly and systematically conducts business in Florida
and across the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Geoffrey E. Parmer, Esq.
      William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq.
      THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC
      4030 Henderson Blvd.
      Tampa, FL 33629
      Tel: (813) 500-1500, ext. 205
      Fax: (813) 435-2369
      E-mail: Geoff@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
              Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com


CYAN INC: SCOTUS Affirms Denial of Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CYAN, INC., ET AL., Petitioners, v. BEAVER COUNTY
EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND, ET AL, Case No. 15-1439 (U.S.), Judge
Elena Kagan of the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the California
Superior Court's denial of Cyan's motion to dismiss.

The petitioners in the case are Cyan, a telecommunications
company, and its officers and directors.  The respondents are
three pension funds and an individual ("Investors") who purchased
shares of Cyan stock in an initial public offering.  After the
stock declined in value, the Investors brought a damages class
action against Cyan in California Superior Court.  Their
complaint alleges that Cyan's offering documents contained
material misstatements, in violation of the Securities Act of
1933.  It does not assert any claims based on state law.

Cyan moved to dismiss the Investors' suit for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.  It argued that what the Court has termed
Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ("SLUSA")'s
"except clause" -- i.e., the amendment made to Section 77v(a)'s
concurrent-jurisdiction grant -- stripped state courts of power
to adjudicate 1933 Act claims in "covered class actions."

The Investors did not dispute that their suit qualifies as such
an action under SLUSA's definition, see Section 77p(f)(2).  But
they maintained that SLUSA left intact state courts' jurisdiction
over all suits -- including "covered class actions" -- alleging
only 1933 Act claims.  The California Superior Court agreed with
the Investors and denied Cyan's motion to dismiss.  The state
appellate courts then denied review of that ruling.

The Court granted Cyan's petition for certiorari to resolve a
split among state and federal courts about whether SLUSA deprived
state courts of jurisdiction over "covered class actions"
asserting only 1933 Act claims.

In opposing Cyan's jurisdictional position, the Federal
Government as amicus curiae raised another question: whether
SLUSA enabled the Defendants to remove 1933 Act class actions
from state to federal court for adjudication.  That question is
not directly presented because Cyan never attempted to remove the
Investors' suit.  But the removal issue is related to the
parties' jurisdictional arguments, and both Cyan and the
Investors addressed it in briefing and argument.  Accordingly,
the Court considers as well the scope of Section 77p(c)'s removal
authorization.

Judge Kagan explains that SLUSA's text, read most
straightforwardly, leaves in place state courts' jurisdiction
over 1933 Act claims, including when brought in class actions.
Recall that the background rule of Section 77v(a) -- in place
since the 1933 Act's passage -- gives state courts concurrent
jurisdiction over all suits brought to enforce any liability or
duty created by that statute.  The except clause is drafted as a
limitation on that rule: It ensures that in any case in which
Section 77v(a) and Section 77p come into conflict, Section 77p
will control.

The critical question for the case, the Judge notes, is therefore
whether Section 77p limits state-court jurisdiction over class
actions brought under the 1933 Act.  It does not.  She says
Section 77p bars certain securities class actions based on state
law.  And as a corollary of that prohibition, it authorizes
removal of those suits so that a federal court can dismiss them.
But the section says nothing, and so does nothing, to deprive
state courts of jurisdiction over class actions based on federal
law.  That means the background rule of Section 77v(a) -- under
which a state court may hear the Investors' 1933 Act suit --
continues to govern.

Still more, the Judge points out that SLUSA ensured that federal
courts would play the principal role in adjudicating securities
class actions by means of its revisions to the 1934 Act.  SLUSA
amended that statute in the same main way it did the 1933 Act --
by adding a state-law class-action bar.  But there, the change
had a double effect: Because federal courts have exclusive
jurisdiction over 1934 Act claims, forcing plaintiffs to bring
class actions under the 1934 statute instead of state law also
forced them to file in federal court.  That meant the bulk of
securities class actions would proceed in federal court --
because the 1934 Act regulates all trading of securities whereas
the 1933 Act addresses only securities offerings.  So even, the
Judge says, without Cyan's contrived reading of the except
clause, SLUSA largely accomplished the purpose articulated in its
Conference Report: moving securities class actions to federal
court.

Finally, the Judge explains that the covered class actions
described in Section 77p(b) can be removed to federal court (and,
once there, will be subject to dismissal because precluded).  The
covered class actions described in Section 77p(b) are state-law
class actions alleging securities misconduct.  So those state-law
suits are removable.  But conversely, federal-law suits like this
one -- alleging only 1933 Act claims -- are not class actions as
set forth in subsection (b). So they remain subject to the 1933
Act's removal ban.

For these reasons, Judge Kagan finds that SLUSA did nothing to
strip state courts of their longstanding jurisdiction to
adjudicate class actions alleging only 1933 Act violations.
Neither did SLUSA authorize removing such suits from state to
federal court.  She accordingly affirmed the judgment.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's March 20, 2018 Order is
available at https://is.gd/iWFYck from Leagle.com.


DE BEERS: Settles Monopoly Class-Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------
Jordan Burton, writing for Fourstates Homepage, reports that
people across the nation will be 10 dollars richer in the coming
weeks thanks to a notable jeweler.

De Beers Diamond has settled a class-action lawsuit, resulting in
customers that purchased jewelry containing diamonds between 1994
and 2006 to receive a $10 dollar check from the company. The suit
stems from accusations that the company monopolized supplies,
conspired to fix, raise and control diamond prices.

For decades, the company has denied any wrongdoing, but has
agreed to this settlement. A $10 dollar check will be mailed to
those customers and it must be cashed within 60 days.[GN]


DELAWARE COUNTY: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Delaware County
Intermediate Unit Education Foundation. The case is styled as
Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Delaware County Intermediate
Unit Education Foundation, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04108
(S.D. N.Y., May 8, 2018).

The Delaware County Intermediate Unit Education Foundation, which
also operates under the name DELAWARE COUNTY INTERMDIATE UN, is
located in Morton, Pennsylvania. This organization primarily
operates in the Public Elementary and Secondary Schools business/
industry within the Educational Services sector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
   30 East 39th Street
   2nd Floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Fax: (212) 465-1181
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


DISH NETWORK: May Owe Customers $1,200
--------------------------------------
Marie Rossiter, writing for the Pantagraph, reports that it's one
of those phone calls that sound like a scam: someone is telling
you how Dish Network may owe you $1,200. Your first instinct may
be to immediately hang up. But, hold the phone -- literally --
because fortune could actually be in your favor!

Recently, Dish Network lost a class-action lawsuit filed by more
than 18,000 people who sued the company over violations against
the National Do Not Call Registry law. According to the
complaint, representatives from Dish Network knowingly called
people on the do-not-call list between May 11, 2010 and August 1,
2011.

As a result, a court ruled against the satellite TV company and
ordered them to pay out a $61.3 million settlement.

However, according to the attorney representing consumers in the
lawsuit, nearly 70 percent of affected people have not responded
to claim their settlement. Why? It appears many people who have
received phone calls, letters or post cards informing them of the
payout believed it was a scam!

"What we are trying to do is establish the connect between
ourselves and the class members," attorney John Barrett, Esq. --
barrett@bbs-law.com -- told The Penny Hoarder. "We want to
establish that connection so that when the time comes six to 12
months from now, we can connect with them easily and get them
paid."

If you think you might be entitled to a claim, but don't have the
claim ID or PIN code sent out, then you can visit the claims
website to enter your information and see if you're eligible.
But, hurry. You need to file your claim by June 18, 2018 to
receive payment.[GN]


DMG MORI: "Bebault" Suit Alleges FCRA Violation
-----------------------------------------------
Brandon Bebault, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DMG Mori USA, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 3:18-cv-02373-JCS (N.D. Cal., April 19, 2018), alleges
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is assigned
to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero.

Mori Seiki USA Inc was founded in 1983. The Company's line of
business includes the manufacturing of machine tool accessories.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aashish Yadvendra Desai, Esq.
          Desai Law Firm, P.C.
          3200 Bristol Street, Suite 650
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 614-5830
          Facsimile: (949) 271-4190
          E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com

               - and -

          M. Adrianne De Castro, Esq.
          DESAI LAW FIRM, PC
          3200 Bristol Street, Suite 650
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 614-5830
          Facsimile: (949) 271-4190
          E-mail: adrianne@desai-law.com


DOLPHIN DINER: Faces "Valle" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dolphin Diner Corp.
The case is styled as Julio Antonio Valle and Hugo Lopez
on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Dolphin Diner Corp. doing business as: Golden
Dolphin Diner, Spiros Dimas, Baftjie Dimas and Peter Tsadilis,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02735 (E.D. N.Y., May 8, 2018).

The Defendants are engaged in the restaurant industry at
Huntington, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


DOOR PRO: Class in "Thornburn" FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHNNY THORNBURN, Plaintiff, v. DOOR PRO AMERICA,
INC., Defendant, Case No. CV 16-3839 (DRH) (AKT) (E.D. N.Y.),
Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York granted the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification as a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
collective action pursuant to Section 216(b).

The Plaintiff commenced the action on July 11, 2016, against the
Defendant asserting claims under the FLSA, the New York Labor Law
("NYLL") Section 190 et seq., 12 New York Codes, Rules and
Regulations ("NYCRR") Section 142, and the common law of New
York.  Specifically, he alleges that the Defendant, the
Plaintiff's former employer, maintained a policy through which it
failed to pay him overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per week, in violation of the FLSA, NYLL, and the
NYCRR.  The Plaintiff also brings claims for unlawful deduction
of wages, willful failure to pay wages, failure to pay spread-of-
hours pay in violation of the NYLL, and common law unjust
enrichment/quantum meruit.

The Plaintiff now moves to have the action conditionally
certified as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b).  He seeks conditional certification as to the class of
all individuals employed by the Defendant in the position of an
Installer or Technician.  This proposed collective is nationwide.
It includes employees from the Defendant's locations in the
states of New York, California, New Jersey, Washington, Oregon,
Colorado, New Jersey, Illinois, Maryland, and Virginia, because
there is evidence confirming that the Defendant systematically
denied earned overtime wages to its installers, all of whom work
on a piece-rate basis.  The Plaintiff also requests a six-year
notice period for potential opt-in Plaintiffs in accordance with
the NYLL.

The Defendant opposes the motion, asserting, among other things,
that the Plaintiff has (1) failed to demonstrate that he and the
members of the putative collective are similarly situated, and
(2) failed to identify a specific common policy or practice on
the part of Door Pro which violates the FLSA.

Judge Tomlinson finds that the Plaintiff has met his burden to
show that he and the proposed members of the collective -- all
individuals employed by the Defendant in the position of
"Installer" or "Technician" -- are "similarly situated."  She
also concludes that the remedial purposes of the FLSA are best
served in the case by applying the three-year statute of
limitations from the date of the filing of the Complaint in the
action.  Thus, the FLSA conditional certification in the action
is limited to claims arising from July 11, 2013, to the present.

Because the Plaintiff does not request a specific opt-in period,
nor has the Defendant addressed the issue, the Judge says the
Notice will therefore reflect that the opt-ins have 60 days to
return the Consent to Join form to the Clerk of the Court.

For these reasons, Judge Tomlinson granted the Plaintiff's motion
for conditional certification as an FLSA collective action
pursuant to Section 216(b), subject to the limitations she
discussed.  In sum, she certified the class of all individuals
employed by Door Pro America., as Installers or Technicians, in
Door Pro America's locations in New York, California, New Jersey,
Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, and Virginia,
since July 11, 2013.

She further ordered that within 14 days of entry of the Order,
the Defendant is to produce in a standard electronic format, a
list of the names, last known physical addresses, and last known
telephone numbers (to the extent available) for all potential
collective members employed by the Defendant during the relevant
time period.  The parties are to engage in an immediate good
faith meet-and-confer and submit an agreed upon Notice and
Consent to Join form within 21 days of the Order.  In the event
there are objections remaining after the meet-and-confer, she
directed the counsel to submit a redline version of the proposed
document forthwith for review and determination by the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 20, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/i7lCIm from Leagle.com.

Johnny Thornburn, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Keith
Collotta, Zabell & Associates, P.C., Ryan M. Eden --
reden@laborlawsny.com -- Zabell & Associates & Saul D. Zabell --
SZabell@laborlawsny.com -- Zabell & Associates, P.C.

Door Pro America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael K.
Chong, MKC Law Group LLC Law Offices of Michael K. Chong, LLC.


DOORDASH INC: Faces "Magada" Suit in California Superior Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Doordash Inc. The
case is styled as Manuel Magada, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Doordash Inc., Defendant, Case
No. CGC18566404 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 8, 2018).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
   Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.
   729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
   Boston, MA 02116
   Tel (617) 994-5800
   Fax (617) 994-5801
   Email: info@llrlaw.com


DYNAMIC MEDICAL: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Medical
Imaging P.C. The case is styled as Kathleen Sypert, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dynamic
Medical Imaging P.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04174 (S.D.
N.Y., May 9, 2018).

Dynamic Medical Imaging, LLC is a medical imaging and diagnostic
testing center based in Union, NJ.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


EMERGENCY CONSULTANTS: Removes "Keller" Suit to W.D. Michigan
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of Robert M. Keller, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Emergency Consultants, LLC; Prairie Emergency Physicians, LLP;
and Derik K. King, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the
lawsuit from the Circuit Court of the State of Michigan, County
of Grand Traverse, (Case No. 18-34343-CL) to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Michigan and assigned Case No.
118-cv-00448-RJJ-RSK (W.D. Mich., April 20, 2018). The case is
assigned to Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker and referred to
Magistrate Judge Ray Kent.

Emergency Consultants, Inc. provides physician recruiting,
staffing, and management services to hospital emergency
departments, urgent care clinics, and hospitalist services
primarily in the United States. The company was founded in 1972
and is based in Traverse City, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

              - and -

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

The Defendants are represented by:

         Allan S. Rubin, Esq.
         JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
         2000 Town Ctr., Ste. 1650
         Southfield, MI 48075
         Telephone: (248) 936-1900
         Facsimile: (248) 936-1901
         E-mail: Rubina@jacksonlewis.com

              - and -

         Daniel Curran Waslawski, Esq.
         Jackson Lewis P.C. (Southfield)
         2000 Town Ctr., Ste. 1650
         Southfield, MI 48075
         Telephone: (248) 864-4939
         E-mail: daniel.waslawski@jacksonlewis.com


ERICSSON: June 5 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
--------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors that they have until June 5, 2018 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit
against Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Nasdaq:ERIC), if they
purchased the Company's American Depositary Shares ("ADSs")
between April 8, 2013 and July 17, 2017, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  This action is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

                             Get Help

Ericsson investors should visit us at
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-telefonaktiebolaget-lm-
ericsson-american-depository-shares-securities-litigation or call
to speak to our claim center toll-free at (844) 367-9658.

                         About the Lawsuit

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

On July 18, 2017, the Company disclosed that it would be
terminating, renegotiating or revising 42 long-term service
contracts with total annual sales of nearly $1 billion.

On this news, the price of Ericsson ADSs fell $1.21 per share, or
16.62%, to close at $6.07 per share on July 18, 2017. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: CA Over Facial Recognition Could Mean More Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandeep Gopalan, writing for The Conversation, reports that
Facebook's privacy problems suffered a major setback in a US
Federal Court this week. Judge James Donato of the Northern
District federal court in San Francisco allowed a class action
brought by Facebook users in Illinois to go ahead.

The case was brought by Nimesh Patel and others representing a
class of Facebook users alleging that the "Tag Suggestions"
feature violates their privacy rights. Facebook's tagging feature
allows users to tag themselves or friends in photos, and Facebook
also uses facial recognition technology to suggest friends be
tagged. Patel alleged that the collection and storage of such
biometric data violates provisions of the Illinois Biometric
Privacy Act (BIPA).

Illinois is one of only a small number of states in the US (Texas
and Washington are the others) with legal protection for
biometric data. Industry lobbies have killed off proposed
legislation in other states including California and Facebook is
apparently lobbying to remove the Illinois law.

How does facial recognition work on Facebook?
Facebook's tag suggestions program scans photographs uploaded by
users, identifies people who appear in photographs and enables
them to be tagged.

To identify faces, the tool first separates faces from other
objects in the photograph. It then standardises faces based on
certain attributes, such as size.

Facebook gives each face a signature in the form of a string of
numbers. This signature is then matched against "face templates"
to locate matches from a database of images. A face template
distinguishes the facial signature of a particular user from
other images.

Face templates are created from photographs uploaded by users,
such as profile images. When Facebook finds a match between a
photograph and the template, it suggests tagging. Facebook only
stores templates and not facial signatures.

Facebook's technology is able to recognise individuals from the
uploaded photographs with a high degree of accuracy --
outperforming the FBI's system (97% versus 85% accuracy).

What did the court decide?
The evidence showed that not every uploaded photo results in the
collection of biometric data because Facebook's program sometime
fails to compute facial signatures from photographs. Therefore,
the court limited the class of plaintiffs to those users from
Illinois for whom Facebook had created a facial template.

In certifying the class action, the court decided that two
questions in relation to users who had their facial templates
created after June 7, 2011 would have to be answered at trial:
whether Facebook had collected and stored biometric data under
the BIPA; and whether users were notified about these practices
and had given their consent.

Facebook argued that users had to be "aggrieved" in order for
their claim to be valid. In other words, victims had to suffer a
"serious injury or harm".

Here's a hypothetical example of being aggrieved: a Facebook
friend uploaded a photo of you at a tennis match you attended
during working hours and Facebook then identified you in the
image, which was later seen by your employer. Since you had taken
sick leave that day, your employer sacked you based on the
Facebook evidence showing you lied. In this circumstance, you
would have suffered actual harm because of the tagging feature.

The judge rejected this argument, saying that the intention of
the statute was to codify "a right of privacy in personal
biometric information". Crucially, the court said that a person
is "aggrieved" when "a legal right is invaded by the act
complained of".

Here, the court is saying that even without actual harm -- that
is, even if you didn't lose your job as a result of being
identified at the tennis court -- the mere breach of the legal
right is sufficient to constitute injury.

What does it mean for Australian Facebook users?
Facebook argued that because its data servers were not located in
Illinois, the BIPA law should not apply -- but the court rejected
this too. If the argument had been successful, the plaintiffs'
case would have collapsed.

Instead, the judge ruled that the geographic location of data
servers was not a determining factor, stating:

. . . . the functionality and reach of modern online services
like Facebook's cannot be compartmentalised into neat geographic
boxes.

Facebook was also unable to show that the violations did not
occur "primarily and substantially" within Illinois.

This is significant for Australians since Facebook may not have
servers here. If Australian users try to bring a class action
here under our privacy law -- which is weaker than the Illinois
biometrics protection statute -- Facebook can be expected to
mount a similar argument claiming that Australian privacy
protections do not apply because the data is collected,
processed, and stored outside our borders.

The decision is a major blow for Facebook. The company itself
stated in the proceedings that damages could amount to billions
of dollars. If similar actions are brought in other states, and
other countries such as Australia, Facebook could face
catastrophic consequences for ignoring the privacy interests of
its users.

Already there are concerns about whether facial recognition
complies with the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
which comes into effect on May 25.

As part of changes Facebook has made to its privacy policies to
comply with GDPR, the company has started to ask EU and Canadian
users for consent to opt-in to facial recognition. The company
had turned off facial recognition for EU users due to privacy
concerns in 2012 stemming from a regulatory investigation at its
headquarters in Ireland. Canadian users did not have access to
the feature due to a backlash in 2011.

Today it was announced Facebook has amended its terms of service
so that the EU law doesn't apply to users outside the EU, US, and
Canada. This makes the success of Patel's class action even more
significant -- it could force Facebook to treat the privacy
rights of all its users with more respect.[GN]


FIRST NATIONAL: Lundquist Sues over Underpaid Insurance Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Lundquist, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. First National Insurance
Company, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-05301 (W.D. Wash., April 18,
2018) alleges that the Defendant underpaid the Plaintiff's total
insurance loss claims. The Plaintiff seeks damages, treble
damages, attorney's fees, as well as declaratory and injunctive
relief.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is the owner of a 1998
Dodge Ram 2500 Quad Cab that was totaled in an accident in 2017.
The Defendant offered to pay, and did pay, $18,406.12
attributable to the value of the vehicle, minus deductible,
citing its CCC valuation report. The valuation report listed
values of three different comparable vehicles and applied a
uniform condition adjustment of $936 to all three of them without
itemizing or explaining the basis of the adjustment as required
by Washington law. The report reduced the amount of these
comparable vehicles by exactly the same amount, regardless of any
individual differences in the condition of the vehicles. These
blanket adjustments were arbitrary and unjustified, and they
resulted in an underpayment of $936.

First National Insurance Agency, Inc. offers insurance brokerage
services. The company is based in Exeter, Nebraska. As of January
12, 2011, First National Insurance Agency, Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of EMSWATER Financial, LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Robert B. Carey, Esq.
          John M. DeStefano, Esq.
          BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85003
          Telephone: (602) 224-2628
          E-mail: johnd@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Marc A. Goldich, Esq.
          AXLER GOLDICH LLC
          1520 Locust Street, Suite 301
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 534-7400
          E-mail: mgoldich@axgolaw.com

               - and -

          David Woloshin, Esq.
          ASTOR WEISS KAPLAN & MANDEL LLP
          200 South Broad Street, Suite 600
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 790-0100
          E-mail: dwoloshin@astorweiss.com


FLAGSTAR BANK: Faces "Smith" Suit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
Lowell and Gina Smith, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, and Does
1-100, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02350-JSC (N.D. Cal., April
18, 2018) is an action against the Defendant's policy and
practice of failing to pay interest on money it routinely holds
in mortgage escrow accounts for California borrowers.

On October 27, 2004, the Plaintiffs obtained a mortgage loan
secured by their home in Concord, California. Their mortgage loan
agreement with the lender is memorialized and secured by a
promissory note and deed of trust. At some point prior to 2012
the Defendant took over the servicing of the Plaintiffs' mortgage
account, and remained the loan servicer until a subsequent
servicing transfer to an unrelated servicer on August 4, 2015.
During the period that it serviced Plaintiffs' mortgage, the
Defendant created an escrow account pursuant to the deed of
trust, and held Plaintiffs' money in that escrow account, but did
not pay Plaintiffs for interest on those funds as required by the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

Flagstar Bank, FSB is a federal savings bank doing business in
California. The Company's headquarter is in Troy, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas E. Loeser, Esq,
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: toml@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Peter Fredman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER FREDMAN PC
          125 University Ave., Suite 102
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 868-2626
          Facsimile: (510) 868-2627
          E-mail: peter@peterfredmanlaw.com


FORD MOTOR CREDIT: Denial of Arbitration Bid in "Jones" Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, LLC, Appellant, v. TONY
L. JONES, JR, Respondent, Case No. WD80809 (Mo. App.), Judge
Victor C. Howard of the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western
District, reversed the judgment of the Jackson County Circuit
Court denying the Appellant's motion to compel arbitration and
stay proceedings.

In March 2013, Jones and Rebecca Wilson jointly executed a Kansas
Vehicle Retail Installment Contract and Security Agreement with
Bob Allen Ford to document their purchase and financing of a 2013
Ford Focus.  The Retail Installment Contract is a two-page
document.

In August 2015, Ford Motor Credit filed a Petition in Cass
County, Missouri for breach of contract.  The Petition sought
recovery of a deficiency due following Jones and Wilson's failure
to make payments to Ford Motor Credit as required by the contract
and Ford Motor Credit's subsequent repossession and sale of the
vehicle.  Ford Motor Credit sought a deficiency balance of
$8,290.90, plus interest from the date of the judgment,
reasonable attorney fees, and costs as provided in the Retail
Installment Contract.

In October 2015, a default judgment was entered against both
Jones and Wilson in the Cass County case.  Pursuant to Jones'
Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment, and by an Agreed Order
entered in September 2016, the judgment was set aside as to Jones
only.  Jones then filed a Motion and Order for Change of Venue of
the Cass County case to Jackson County, Missouri.  That motion
was granted in December 2016.

On Dec. 19, 2016, Jones filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Petition,
Affirmative Defenses, and putative class action Counterclaim
against Ford Motor Credit.  His Counterclaim sought class
certification and alleged, inter alia, that Ford Motor Credit
failed to provide sufficient pre-sale and post-sale notices
required by the UCC relating to the repossession and sale of the
vehicle, entitling Jones (and putative class members) to damages.
Jones also sought punitive damages and attorney's fees.

Ford Motor Credit filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay
Proceedings on Feb. 21, 2017.  The motion came before the trial
court for a hearing on April 11, 2017.  The trial court denied
Ford Motor Credit's motion in a judgment dated May 22, 2017.
First, it concluded the arbitration agreement unconscionable and
unenforceable.  The trial court found: (i) Ford Motor Credit had
a superior bargaining position; (ii) the arbitration agreement
was difficult to understand; and (iii) the arbitration agreement
was one-sided. Second, the trial court concluded Ford Motor
Credit waived its right to arbitrate.  It found: (i) Ford Motor
Credit knew of the right to arbitrate; (ii) Ford Motor Credit
acted inconsistently with its right to arbitrate; and (iii) Jones
was prejudiced by Ford Motor Credit's actions.

Ford Motor Credit appeals the judgment of the Jackson County
Circuit Court denying its motion to compel arbitration and stay
proceedings.  It presents six points on appeal.  In the first
three points, Ford Motor Credit claims the trial court erred in
finding the parties' arbitration agreement unconscionable and
unenforceable.  In its last three points, Ford Motor Credit
claims the trial court erred in waiving its right to seek
arbitration.

Judge Howard finds that Jones' argument that the arbitration
agreement was not properly before the trial court is without
merit.  The contract states that it is assigned to Ford Motor
Credit.  The contract bears the signature of Tony Jones.  The
affidavit states that the attached contract is maintained by Ford
Motor Credit and is associated with Tony Jones's account number.
Jones states in his counterclaim that he signed a consumer credit
contract for the purchase of a motor vehicle.  Moreover, the
trial court held a hearing and then made a factual finding that
the attached contract was the contract at issue.  The Judge
defers to those factual findings.

The Judge next finds that Wilson is unable to have her default
judgment set aside regardless of the disposition of the claims
against Jones.  This could potentially result in different
judgments against Wilson and Jones, but Jones does not cite and
the Judge does not find any authority for the proposition that
different results would be error.  This is true beyond the
context of arbitration.

He also finds that the arbitration in Jones contract provides the
arbitrator has the power to decide claims regarding the
interpretation, scope, or validity of this provision, or
arbitrability of any issue.  This is much broader than
"applicability" or "enforceability."  In addition, Jones'
complaints about the delegation provision itself fall into the
category of complaints about the arbitration agreement as a
whole.

Finally, the Judge finds that more than application of a
presumption, the delegation provision in the contract in the case
explicitly provides that the arbitrator determines issues of
arbitrability.  The presence of this delegation provision
distinguishes the cases Jones cites in his brief.  And as he's
discussed, the contract delegates this issue to the arbitrator.

Given the disposition of Points I and IV, Judge Howard needs not
address Points II, III, V, or VI.  Accordingly, he reversed the
judgment, and remanded the case with instructions to stay the
proceedings and grant the motion to compel arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 20, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/9RJ4iT from Leagle.com.

Tom Burn -- tmbesq@hotmail.com -- for Appellant.

Jesse Barrett Rochman -- rochman@onderlaw.com -- for Respondent.


FOUR SEASONS: Faces "Feinstein" Suit over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
Edward Feinstein, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Four Seasons Hotels Limited, and
Does 1 to 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03351-JFW-FFM (C.D.
Cal., April 20, 2018) alleges that the Defendants violated the
Plaintiff's privacy rights.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members are
customers who booked hotel reservations with the Defendant,
during the period of August 10, 2016 to March 9, 2017. The data
of customers, including the Plaintiff that stayed at Defendant's
hotels was accessed due to a data breach. The security breach
compromised hotel customers' full name, credit and debit card
account numbers, card expiration dates, card verification codes,
emails, phone numbers, addresses, and other private identifiable
information.

Four Seasons Hotels Limited owns and operates hotels and resorts.
The company is based in Toronto, Canada. Four Seasons Hotels
Limited operates as a subsidiary of Four Seasons Hotels Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12 th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989

               - and -

          J. Paul Gignac, Esq.
          J. PAUL GIGNAC, ESQ., APC
          15 W. Carrillo Street, Suite 246
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 683-7400
          Facsimile: (805) 962-0722
          E-mail: jpg@foleybezek.com


FOUR SEASONS: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in "Zyda" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Four Seasons Hotels and Resort, et al., filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Christopher Zyda
v. Four Seasons Hotels and Resort, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-
00591-LEK-KSC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Hawaii, Honolulu.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court denied the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of order
denying motion to remand the case.  The Plaintiff argued in the
Motion that the Defendants did not timely file the Notice of
Removal.

The appellate case is captioned as Christopher Zyda v. Four
Seasons Hotels and Resort, et al., Case No. 18-80045, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent CHRISTOPHER ZYDA, On Behalf of Himself and
All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Terry Revere, Esq.
          REVERE AND ASSOCIATES, LLLC
          970 N. Kalaheo Avenue, Suite A301
          Kailua, HI 96734
          Telephone: (808) 791-9550
          Facsimile: (808) 791-9551
          E-mail: terry@revereandassociates.com

               - and -

          Patrick Kyle Smith, Esq.
          SMITH LAW
          970 N. Kalaheo, Suite A301
          Kailua, HI 96734
          Telephone: (808) 791-9555
          E-mail: kyle@lhsshawaii.com

Defendants-Petitioners FOUR SEASONS HOTELS AND RESORTS; FOUR
SEASONS HOLDINGS, INC.; FOUR SEASONS HUALALAI RESORT; HUALALAI
RESIDENTIAL, LLC, DBA Hualalai Realty; HUALALAI INVESTORS, LLC;
KAUPULEHU MAKAI VENTURE; HUALALAI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY; HUALALAI
VILLAS & HOMES; HUALALAI RENTAL MANAGEMENT, LLC; and DOES 1-100
are represented by:

          Donald Manwell Falk, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          3000 El Camino Real
          Two Palo Alto Square
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
          Telephone: (650) 331-2000
          Facsimile: (650) 331-2060
          E-mail: dfalk@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          William Meheula, Esq.
          SULLIVAN MEHEULA LEE, LLLP
          745 Fort Street, Suite 800
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 599-9555
          E-mail: meheula@smlhawaii.com


GEORGE CHIALA: Fails to Pay for Overtime, "Jacobo" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Jacobo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. George Chiala Farms, Inc. and Does 1
through 20, Defendants, Case No. 18CV327151 (Cal. Super., Santa
Clara Cty., April 23, 2018) is an action against the Defendants
for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages
for missed meal and rest periods.

Mr. Jacobo was employed by the Defendants as a fork lift driver.

George Chiala Farms, Inc. was founded in 1972. The company's line
of business includes operating farms that produce vegetables and
melons. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Joseph D. Sutton, Esq.
         Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
         Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
         Marco A. Palau, Esq.
         Eric S. Trabucco, Esq.
         MALLISON & MARTINEZ
         1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
         Oakland, CA 94612-3547
         Telephone: (510) 832-9999
         Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
         E-mail: JSutton@TheMMLawFirm.com
                 StanM@TheMMLaawFirm.com
                 HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
                 MPalau@TheMMLawFirm.com
                 ETrabucco@TheMMLawFirm.com


GOBUYSIDE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Stevens" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Stevens; Gustavo Fernandez; Christian Long; Samuel Markle;
Gunn Woo Park; and Jose Padilla, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gobuyside Inc., and
Arjun Kapur, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03481-GBD (S.D.N.Y.,
April 20, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid bonuses and compensation
under the New York Labor Law; for breach of contract or
promissory estoppels; claims for benefits under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974; and for breach of
contract or promissory estoppel, for the Defendants' failure to
contribute 3% of their respective base salary to a 401(k)
account.

The Plaintiff Stevens was employed by the Defendants as an
associate from June 1, 2016 to November 1, 2017.

The Plaintiff Fernandez was employed by the Defendants as an
associate from April 4, 2016 to November 17, 2017.

The Plaintiff Long was employed by the Defendants as an
associated and analyst from February 27, 2017 to September 17,
2017.

The Plaintiff Markle was employed by the Defendants as an analyst
from September 16, 2016 to July 2017.

The Plaintiff Park was employed by the Defendants as an analyst
from June 26, 2017 to January 2, 2018.

The Plaintiff Padilla was employed by the Defendants as an
analyst from June 5, 2017 to January 2, 2018.

GoBuyside is a 21st century recruitment platform that specializes
in working with private equity firms, hedge funds, other
investment managers, advisory platforms and Fortune 500 companies
across a broad spectrum of geographies and mandates. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Cerasia II, Esq.
          Christie Del Rey-Cone, Esq.
          Alison L. Tomasco, Esq.
          CERASIA & DEL REY-CONE LLP
          150 Broadway, Suite 1517
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (646) 525-4231
          E-mail: ed@cdemploymentlaw.com
                  christie@cdemploymentlaw.com
                  alison@cdemploymentlaw.com


GRUPO TELEVISA: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of Grupo Televisa, S.A.B. ("Televisa" or the
"Company") (NYSE: TV) between April 11, 2013 and January 25,
2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Televisa investors have
until May 4, 2018 to file a lead plaintiff motion. To obtain
information and actively participate in the class action, please
visit: www.glancylaw.com/case/grupo-televisa-sab.

Investors that suffered losses on their Televisa investments are
encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy of GPM to discuss their
legal rights in this class action at 310-201-9150 or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com.

On November 14, 2017, Reuters reported that a prosecution witness
in the trial of three former soccer officials testified that
Televisa paid bribes to secure television rights for soccer
matches. On this news, Televisa's ADR price fell $0.48, or 2.4%,
to close at $19.50 on November 14, 2017, thereby injuring
investors.

The Complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose
that: (i) Televisa executives engaged in an unlawful bribery
scheme involving Federation Internationale de Football
Association ("FIFA") executives; (ii) discovery of the foregoing
conduct would likely subject the Company to heightened regulatory
scrutiny; (iii) the Company lacked effective internal controls
over financial reporting; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing,
Televisa's ADRs traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period, and class members suffered significant losses and
damages.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/GPM_LLP.

If you purchased shares of Televisa during the Class Period you
may move the Court no later than May 4, 2018 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you
have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley
Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-
9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

         Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
         Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP
         Los Angeles, CA
         Tel: 310-201-9150
              888-773-9224
         E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com
                 shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]


HARVARD COLLECTION: Faces "Gardner" Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harvard Collection
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Necole Gardner, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Harvard Collection Services, Inc., Pendrick Capital Partners II,
LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03286 (N.D.
Ill., May 8, 2018).

Harvard Collection Services, Inc. is a Debt collection agency in
Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Class Action Judge Leans Towards Plaintiffs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Caitlyn Becker, writing for the Blast, reports that the judge in
the class action lawsuit against The Weinstein Company, Miramax,
and Harvey Weinstein met with attorneys for both sides in New
York City to discuss if there was evidence of illegal procurement
of silence. . . and the judge seemed like he was leaning towards
siding with the plaintiffs.

According to court transcripts, while the defendants are trying
to dismiss the case by claiming the statute of limitations has
expired, the plaintiffs are claiming Weinstein kept the alleged
victims silenced for years through illegal means.

Over a dozen lawyers from the Weinstein camp attended a run-of-
the-mill status conference and the judge in the case appeared
annoyed at both the number of defense attorneys present and the
overlapping motions filed by each.

"This is very important, folks: one brief, one issue," Judge
Hellerstein said, according to the court transcript.

Later, he cut off a defense attorney twice in midsentence,
saying, "I have too many briefs on the issue. I can't deal with
that. I don't have time for that."

The suit was filed by famed attorney Cris Armenta, Esq. but only
one single attorney, Elizabeth Fegan, Esq. -- beth@hbsslaw.com --
was there on behalf of the plaintiffs to go up against the
defense team.

During a terse exchange, the judge asked the gaggle of defense
attorneys who their lead was, and when they revealed they had
none, he shortly replied, "Have one now."

After going full-on middle school teacher and advising the
defense lawyers to "talk amongst yourselves" so they could
streamline their arguments, the judge admonished one attorney for
Harvey Weinstein who asked for an extension on page limits for
briefs.

"The only page limits I have are boredom," the judge answered.

As the judge discussed the motion with further with both sides,
he said at to one of the defense attorneys, "I think you can't
succeed on this motion, but I'll look at it."

No decisions were made and the case remains ongoing.[GN]


HENRY COUNTY, IN: Objection to "Baker" Class Notice Sustained
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER BAKER, individually and on behalf of the
present and future inmates of Henry County Jail, Plaintiff, v.
RICHARD McCORKLE, individually and in his official capacity as
Sheriff of Henry County, BRUCE BAKER, KIM CRONK, ED YANOS,
RICHARD BOUSLOG, ROBIN RENO-FLEMING, STEVEN DUGGER, NATHAN LAMAR,
CLAY MORGAN, MICHAEL THALLS, HAROLD GRIFFIN, HENRY COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, and HENRY COUNTY COUNCIL, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-03026-JMS-MPB (S.D. Ind.), Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
Indianapolis Division, sustained the Defendants' Objection to
Proposed Class Notice.

On July 28, 2017, the Court granted Mr. Baker's Motion for Class
Certification in the matter, and certified the class of any and
all persons currently confined, or who will in the future be
confined in the Henry County Jail, as of the date the Complaint
was filed, Nov. 4, 2016.  The Court had clarified in an earlier
order that it would certify a class only for the purpose of
claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, and not with
respect to any personal injury claims.

The Court then ordered the parties to file a Report which either
attached an agreed proposed notice for the Court's consideration,
or advised the Court regarding the status of preparing such a
notice.  Mr. Baker filed a Report on Sept. 15, 2017, stating that
the parties could not agree on a form of notice, and attaching a
Proposed Notice.  The Defendants filed an Objection to Proposed
Notice to Class on Sept. 22, 2017, setting forth various
objections to Mr. Baker's Proposed Notice including that the
description of the class in Mr. Baker's Proposed Notice was not
the same as the class definition approved by the Court.  The
Defendants filed their own Proposed Notice.

Mr. Baker filed a Motion to Approve Notice to Henry County Jail
Class Members on Oct. 17, 2017, requesting approval of its
Proposed Notice.  The Defendants responded to Mr. Baker's motion,
again arguing that Mr. Baker's Proposed Notice changes the
definition of the class from that which the Court approved.

On Jan. 19, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Mr. Baker's Motion to Approve Notice, approving a Notice it
attached to the Order which defined the class it certified in the
July 28, 2017 Order as any and all persons currently confined, or
who will in the future be confined, in the Henry County Jail as
of the date the Complaint was filed, Nov. 4, 2016.  The Court
gave the parties until Feb. 2, 2018 to file any objections to the
Notice. The Defendants then filed an Objection to Proposed Class
Notice.

The Defendants object to the Court's Notice because it includes
former inmates who are not eligible for relief; and it imposes an
unnecessary, time consuming, and costly burden on the parties to
locate and notify former inmates not eligible for relief.  They
contend that the current class definition would include
individuals who were inmates at the Jail on or after Nov. 4,
2016, but have since been released, and that this is
inappropriate because the class seeks only injunctive relief and
those released individuals do not have standing because they
would not benefit from such relief.

They also assert that the Court's Notice would require them to
issue written notice to individuals who have been inmates since
November 2016 but have since been released, and that limiting the
class to current and future inmates would allow notice to be
provided by simply posting the Court's order in the jail's cell
blocks.

In response, Mr. Baker argues that the Defendants have not
previously objected to the definition of the class certified by
the Court, and that the proposed notice is intended to inform
everyone in the class of the status of the litigation and to
inform them as well that they are not entitled to damages per se
by being a class member, but rather may have a claim if they can
demonstrate damages suffered independent of being in an
overcrowded and unconstitutional jail.

Judge Magnus-Stinson holds that because former inmates of the
Jail would not benefit from injunctive relief related to
overcrowding and do not have standing to seek such relief, she
finds that it must modify the class definition to include only
current and future Jail inmates.

Accordingly, she sustained the Defendants' Objection to Proposed
Class Notice to the extent that it approves the Class Notice
attached to the Order.  She directed that the Notice will be
provided in a manner agreed upon by the parties, and the parties
will file a report reflecting their agreement on or before April
13, 2018.

Additionally, the Judge modified its July 28, 2017 Order to
reflect that it certified the class of any and all persons
currently confined or who will in the future be confined in the
Henry County Jail.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 20, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/1PqGGX from Leagle.com.

CHRISTOPHER BAKER, Individually and on Behalf of the Present and
Future Inmates of Henry County Jail, Plaintiff, represented by
Julie A. Newhouse, NEWHOUSE AND NEWHOUSE, Michael K. Sutherlin --
msutherlin@gmail.com -- MICHAEL K. SUTHERLIN & ASSOCIATES, PC &
Tracy J. Newhouse, NEWHOUSE & NEWHOUSE.

RICHARD MCCORKLE, Individually And In His Official Capacity As
Sheriff of Henry County, BRUCE BAKER, Henry County Commissioner,
KIM CRONK, Henry County Commissioner, ED YANOS, Henry County
Commissioner, RICHARD BOUSLOG, Henry County Council, ROBIN RENO-
FLEMING, Henry County Council, STEVEN DUGGER, Henry County
Council, NATHAN LAMAR, Henry County Council, CLAY MORGAN, Henry
County Council, MICHAEL THALLS, Henry County Council, HAROLD
GRIFFIN, Henry County Council, HENRY COUNTY, INDIANA
COMMISSIONERS & HENRY COUNTY COUNCIL, Defendants, represented by
represented by James S. Stephenson, STEPHENSON MOROW & SEMLER &
Pamela G. Schneeman, STEPHENSON MOROW & SEMLER.


HOME DEPOT: Abramov Appeals N.D. Ill. Ct. Ruling to 7th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Mikhail Abramov filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Mikhail Abramov v. The Home Depot, Inc.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-01860, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 10, 2018, the
District Court shot down a proposed class action against hardware
chain Home Depot over claims it shorted customers, who bought
lumber, finding that the use of "4x4" on labels was literally
true because it didn't include inch-mark symbols after each
number.

Brought by shopper Mikhail Abramov, the suit said The Home Depot
Inc. violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act by selling a 6-foot long 4x4 piece of wood that was
actually only 3 1/2 inches square.

The appellate case is captioned as Mikhail Abramov v. The Home
Depot, Inc., Case No. 18-1779, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript information sheet was due by April 26, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before May 22, 2018, for
      Mikhail Abramov.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant MIKHAIL ABRAMOV, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated individuals, is represented by:

          Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275-7895
          E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com

Defendant-Appellee HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., is represented by:

          Rodney L. Lewis, Esq.
          POLSINELLI PC
          150 N. Riverside Plaza
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 819-1900
          E-mail: rodneylewis@polsinelli.com


HYUNDAI MOTORS: Disparate State Laws Prevent Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Alt, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that the United States District Court for the Central District of
California dismissed the majority of claims brought by Oregon
residents who alleged that Hyundai Motor Co. knowingly put
defective power steering in its vehicles.

The reasoning behind the dismissal, however, has nothing to do
with Hyundai. The case was rejected due to the plaintiffs' desire
to certify their lawsuit as a nationwide class-action. Noting the
precedent set by the California courts, Justice David O. Carter
dismissed the lawsuit due to the material differences in
California and Oregon laws.

On April 10, the court dismissed the claims brought under
California's Unfair Competition Law, False Claims Act, and
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, but denied dismissing the
plaintiffs' claims under Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act
(UTPA), which allege Hyundai fraudulently concealed the
malfunction in its power steering.

Two Oregon residents sued Hyundai in June in the California
courts on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of
individuals for an alleged defect that caused the power steering
in Hyundai vehicles to stop working, making the steering wheel
lock or become difficult to turn.

The plaintiffs' claimed that Hyundai knew of the defect as the
company recalled certain year models of the Hyundai Sonata and
Elantra. Houston Vinci and Jaehan Ku both claimed they
experienced driving problems because of the steering defect and
said they wouldn't have purchased the vehicles had they known of
the defect.

Hyundai filed a motion to dismiss the claims in October. Pointing
to decisions in lawsuits against Honda and Mazda, Hyundai argued
that the plaintiffs are governed by "choice of law" since they
purchased their vehicles in Oregon and are governed by the laws
of that state. Hyundai stated that the plaintiffs cannot "pursue
a nationwide class" and motioned for the plaintiffs' claims to be
dismissed, along with claims of implied warranty and a breach of
express warranty.

Hyundai's motion to dismiss stated the plaintiffs failed to
allege either a particular purpose or that the vehicles were
unfit to sell, and stated the plaintiffs did not allege a breach
of express warranty.

Carter noted that California's warranty, consumer protection and
other laws are different than other states, as Hyundai referred
to in its motion, quoting a U.S. District Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit ruling that "decertified a nationwide class due
to variances between California consumer protection laws and
those of other states."

Carter said that "each of the other 49 states has an interest in
applying its own laws to the vehicle purchases within their
borders," and refers to the Ninth Circuit ruling that said "each
foreign state has an interest in applying its law to transactions
within its border and . . .  if California law were applied. . .
foreign states would be impaired in their ability to calibrate
liability to foster commerce."

Dismissing the claims brought as a nationwide class, Carter said,
"Plaintiffs' nationwide claims are not warranted, and each
plaintiff's individual claims must be governed by the laws of
their home state."

"Until plaintiffs indicate which states' laws support their
claim, the court cannot assess whether the claim has been
adequately pleaded... . If plaintiffs re-plead these claims, they
must identify which state or states' laws they rely upon," Carter
noted.

The court dismissed without prejudice the claims for breach of
warranty, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty,
fraudulent concealment and unjust enrichment; and notified the
plaintiffs they have until April 30 to amend their complaint.[GN]


INSTITUTE OF CULINARY: Faces "Conner" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Institute of
Culinary Education, Inc. The case is styled as Mary Conner,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. The Institute of Culinary
Education, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04151 (S.D. N.Y.,
May 9, 2018).

The Institute of Culinary Education (ICE) is an American culinary
school located in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


INTEL CORP: "Fooshee" Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------
The Plaintiff's counsel, Gary S. Graifman, at the law firm of
KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C., filed a Notice of
Appearance in the case captioned as Don Fooshee, Staci Black,
Cassandra Payne, Bruce Bodofsky, Courtney Hill, Sabrina Basham,
Emilio Rodriguez, Gary Misbach, George Lett, Glenda Dillon and
Erica Mccleary, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Intel Corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00685 (D. Or., May 3, 2018).

Intel Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells computer,
networking, data storage, and communication platforms worldwide.
The company was founded in 1968 and is based in Santa Clara,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER
          & GRAIFMAN P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Telephone: (845) 356-2570
          Facsimile: (845) 356-4335


INTERNATIONAL PASTRY: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against International
Pastry Concepts, LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. International Pastry Concepts, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04184 (S.D. N.Y., May 9, 2018).

International Pastry Concepts, LLC operates in the retail
bakeries industry in New York, NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue
   New York, NY 10017-6705
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


JETS STADIUM: Removes "Gengo" Suit to District of New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of James T Gengo, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jets
Stadium Development, LLC, and New York Jets, LLC, Defendants,
filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of
the State of New Jersey, Bergen County (Case No. BER-L-1955-18)
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and
assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-08012-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., April 18, 2018).
The case is assigned to Judge Stanley R. Chesler and referred to
Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor.

Jets Stadium Development LLC operates the development, financing,
and marketing of professional football team New York Jets.

New York Jets, LLC owns a professional football team that
participates in the National Football League. The company offers
team management and training services, as well as operates a
training center. It also markets match tickets and sports
merchandise. In addition, the company sells publications, as well
as jerseys, men and women wear, outer wear, home and office
products, head wear, gifts and novelties, and travel and luggage
products online. New York Jets was formerly known as New York
Titans. The company was founded in 1959 and is based in New York,
New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey W. Herrmann, Esq.
          COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN
          HERRMANN & KNOPF, LLC
          250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
          Saddlebrook, NJ 07663
          Telephone: (201) 845-9600
          Facsimile: (201) 845-9423
          E-mail: jwh@njlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David R. King, Esq.
          HERRICK, FEINSTEIN LLP
          One Gateway Center
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 274-2000
          E-mail: dking@herrick.com

               - and -

          Leah Kelman, Esq.
          HERRICK FEINSTEIN LLP
          One Gateway Center
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 274-2000
          E-mail: lkelman@herrick.com

               - and -

          Ronald J. Levine, Esq.
          HERRICK, FEINSTEIN LLP
          One Gateway Center
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 274-2000
          E-mail: rlevine@herrick.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Llordi et al Sue over Non-Judicial Foreclosures
---------------------------------------------------------------
DHIMITER S. LLORDI AND NATALIA HOSHOVSKY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JPMORGAN
CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 180531
(Mass. Super., Norfolk Cty., April 23, 2018) seeks damages from
the wrongful actions of the Defendants by conducting non-judicial
foreclosures, Mortgagee's Foreclosure Sales, and conveying real
property.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant
foreclosed mortgages, sold mortgaged properties at Mortgagee's
Foreclosure Sales, and conveyed those properties without
authorization to accelerate or foreclose the Plaintiffs'
mortgages.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association provides various
banking and other financial services to corporate, institutional,
and governmental clients in the United States and
internationally. The company is based in Columbus, Ohio. JPMorgan
Chase Bank, National Association is a subsidiary of JPMorgan
Chase & Co. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd S. Dion, Esq.
          15 Cottage Avenue Ste 202
          Quincy, MA 02169
          Telephone: (401) 965 4131
          Facsimile: (401) 270 2202
          E-mail: toddsdion@msn.com


KIMPTON HOTEL: Faces "Balsamo" Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kimpton Hotel and
Restaurant Group, LLC. The case is captioned as Nicholas Balsamo,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Kimpton Hotel and Restaurant Group, LLC, and Does 1
to 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03356-R-GJS (C.D. Cal., April
20, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Manuel L. Real and
referred to Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com

               - and -

          J Paul Gignac, Esq.
          J PAUL GIGNAC, ESQ., APC
          15 W Carrillo Street, Suite 246
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 683-7400
          Facsimile: (805) 962-0722
          E-mail: jpg@foleybezek.com


KITOV PHARMA: Claims in "Cohen" Securities Suit Narrowed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ROTEM COHEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KITOV
PHARMACEUTICALS HOLDINGS, LTD., et al., Defendants, No. 17 Civ.
0917 (LGS) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S.
granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the First Amended Complaint.

Lead Plaintiffs Cohen and Jason Breuning, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, bring the
putative class action against Kitov, Isaac Israel and Simcha
Rock, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Kitov is an Israeli clinical stage biopharmaceutical company that
develops combination drugs for the simultaneous treatment of pain
caused by osteoarthritis and hypertension.  The Plaintiffs
purchased Kitov American Depository Shares ("ADS") during the
relevant period, which is from Nov. 20, 2015 to Feb. 6, 2017.

Kitov's lead drug candidate is KIT-302, a fixed dosage
combination product based on two generic drugs designed
respectively to treat pain and hypertension.  Kitov must obtain
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approval of KIT-302's New
Drug Application ("NDA") to commercialize the drug successfully.
Under the shareholder rights agreement, Kitov shareholders were
to receive additional Kitov shares if a "Milestone" was achieved
by Nov. 11, 2015.  The Milestone is reached when the pivotal
clinical trial has been completed, the data have been analyzed,
and the data analyses have demonstrated that the reduction in
blood pressure in the group treated with the Kitov drug KIT-302
was at least half of that achieved with amlodipine monotherapy.
This Milestone is the same as the KIT-302 trial's primary
endpoint.

On Nov. 17, 2015, the Defendants provided the Study results to
the Data Monitoring Committee ("DMC"), which determined, on Dec.
15, 2015, that the Study had met its primary endpoint for
efficacy and did not require additional patients to be studied.
Upon the DMC's finding, Defendant Rock obtained warrants to
purchase additional Kitov shares.

In reality (according to the Complaint), as corroborated by
several former employees of Kitov, the actual Study results were
falsified prior to submission to the DMC to improve the blood
pressure data of patients who had received treatment.  The
actual, undisclosed results failed to provide statistically
significant evidence of efficacy and did not show that the Study
had met its primary endpoint.

On Feb. 6, 2017, the Israeli publication Calcalist reported that
Defendant Israel had been arrested and questioned by the Israel
Securities Authority ("ISA") on suspicion of publishing
misleading information in Kitov's July 2016 Prospectus filed with
the SEC, among other filings, regarding the conclusions reached
by the DMC.  The same article stated that, according to the ISA,
the misleading statements were made with the knowledge of
Defendant Israel.  On Feb. 7, 2017, Kitov issued a press release
that announced that the ISA had launched a formal investigation
into the company's public disclosures concerning KIT-302, but
maintained that it stands fully behind the validity of all of its
clinical trial results and that it continues to move forward
toward the filing of its New Drug Application for KIT-302 with
the FDA.

On Feb. 6, 2017, when the Calcalist article was published, the
price of Kitov's ADS fell $0.33 per share, or 11.46%, to close at
$2.55 per share.  On Feb. 7, 2017, NASDAQ halted trading in
Kitov's ADSs and warrants.  When trading resumed on Feb. 9, 2017,
the ADS price fell $0.36 per share, or 14%, to close at $2.19,
and the warrant price fell $0.27 per warrant, or 30%, to close at
$0.62 per warrant.

The Complaint's allegations of material omissions and
misstatements fall into two categories.  The first category --
which accounts for almost all of the alleged misleading
statements -- comprises instances when the Defendants failed to
disclose that the Study results had been falsified.  The
Complaint alleges that as a result of this omission, public
disclosures discussing the Study, the prospect of FDA approval
and projected future costs and cash needs were misleading.  The
second category consists of two instances when the Defendants
allegedly implied that the Study results had not yet been
delivered to the DMC, when in fact they had.

The Defendants now move to dismiss the First Amended Complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Judge Schofield finds that the Complaint adequately pleads that
the Defendants made material omissions when they made statements
about the results of the Study but failed to disclose that the
results had been falsified.  This omission is material because it
creates an impression that KIT-302 Phase 3 study results actually
showed statistically significant efficacy, that the NDA for KIT-
302 would likely be approved, and that Kitov, which relied on the
success of KIT-302, would likely remain a successful company.

The Judge next finds that the Complaint alleges that Kitov
falsely represented or implied in its Initial Registration
Statement that the Study results had not yet been submitted to
the DMC, when in fact they had.  She says this assertion
mischaracterizes the disclosures at issue.  The first merely
states that Kitov is unable to predict if and when the additional
shares will be distributed, as the distribution depends on the
DMC's assessment of the Study results.  The second disclosure
describes the SPA procedures and the DMC's role. Neither
disclosure states whether the Study results have been provided to
the DMC or when.

The Judge then finds that the Complaint sufficiently pleads
scienter as to Defendant Israel but not Defendant Rock.
Consequently, the Section 10(b) claim against Defendant Rock will
be dismissed.  She says the allegations against Rock taken as a
whole do not imply that he knew about the fraud, had access to
information about it, or failed to check information he had a
duty to monitor.  Also, evidence from multiple former
consultants, combined with Israel's position as CEO in a small
organization and news of the Israeli regulatory investigation,
give rise to a plausible inference, at least as compelling as any
other, that Israel was responsible for the falsification of data
and therefore had actual knowledge that his statements about the
successful completion of the Study were false.

Because the Complaint adequately alleges scienter as to Defendant
Israel, Kitov's CEO, Kitov's scienter is inferred from Defendant
Israel's scienter.  And as she has denied Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Section 10(b) claim, and the Plaintiffs have
otherwise adequately alleged control person liability, she will
deny the motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Section 20(a) claim.

Lastly, the Judge finds that on Sept. 20, 2017, the Defendants
filed a letter stating that the Complaint should be entirely
dismissed based on statements made on a public message board,
where Ameya Pilgaonkar stated that he did not consent to being a
named plaintiff in the action.  This application she says will be
denied for two reasons.  First, on Feb. 7, 2017, Mr. Pilgaonkar
filed a certification, which states that he has reviewed the
complaint and authorized its filing and which bears his
signature.  This document outweighs the unverified online
postings on which the Defendants rely.  Second, on June 15, 2017,
the Court appointed Rotem Cohen and Jason Breuning as the Lead
Plaintiffs, and the caption of the First Amended Complaint, filed
on June 19, 2017, no longer names Mr. Pilgaonkar as the
Plaintiff.  Consequently, his prior consent is no longer
pertinent to the Complaint.

For these reasons, Judge Schofield granted in full the
Defendants' motion to dismiss as to Defendant Rock and as to
statements that do not pertain to the Study's actual historical
findings, but otherwise denied as to Defendants Israel and Kitov.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion
at Docket Numbers 33 and 46, and remove from the docket Simcha
Rock as a Defendant and Ameya Pilgaonkar as a Plaintiff.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 20, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/gmmBQ5 from Leagle.com.

Rotem Cohen & Jason Breunig, Lead Plaintiffs, represented by
Joseph Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP,
Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A.,
Tamar Aliza Weinrib -- taweinrib@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP &
Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Kitov Pharmaceuticals Holdings Ltd & Isaac Israel, Defendants,
represented by Aurora Cassirer -- aurora.cassirer@troutman.com --
Troutman Sanders LLP, Bennet Jerome Moskowitz --
bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP, Mary M.
Weeks -- mary.weeks@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders, LLP &
Patrick Morgan Ryan -- patrick.ryan@troutman.com -- Troutman
Sanders LLP.


KRATON CORP: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased
Kraton Corporation securities between October 25, 2017 and
February 21, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Kraton
investors have until April 27, 2018 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.

Investors that suffered losses on their Kraton investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to
discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847
or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

On February 20, 2018, Kraton announced its 2017 results, and
disclosed that during the fourth quarter certain customers
notified the Company that they were experiencing issues
processing the Company's Cariflex material. On this news,
Kraton's share price fell more than 15% to close at $43.10 per
share on February 21, 2018, thereby injuring investors.

According to the Complaint, the Company issued false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Kraton
was transitioning customers to Brazilian-produced Cariflex even
though certain customers had already rejected that product; (2)
Kraton's Brazilian-produced Cariflex was available to customers
when in fact certain customers had already rejected that product;
(3) Kraton lacked effective internal controls over financial
reporting; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about
Kraton's business, operations and prospects were materially false
and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant
times.

If you purchased shares of Kraton during the Class Period, have
information or would like to learn more about these claims, or
have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G.
Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol
Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at
(215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

         Howard G. Smith, Esq.
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         Tel: 215-638-4847
                    888-638-4847
         E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN]


LAURA GELLER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Rowe" Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
VICTORIA ROWE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LAURA GELLER BEAUTY, LLC; and DOES 1 to
100, Defendants, Case No. BC702685 (Cal. Super., April 18, 2018)
alleges that the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff and
all other similarly situated individuals with meal and rest
periods, and to pay them overtime wages at the correct rate,
among other failures.

Mr. Rowe worked for the Defendants as rotators, which means he
travels to retail stores to sell the Defendants' products.

Laura Geller Beauty, LLC, is a New York limited liability company
doing business in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Rose, Esq.
          FRONTIER LAW CENTER
          23901 Calabasas Road,
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 914-3433
          Facsimile: (818) 914-3433
          E-mail: adam@frontierlawcenter.com


LIVE NATION: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.
(NYSE: LYV) securities between February 23, 2017 and March 30,
2018 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until June 18, 2018 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose: (1)
that the Company failed to abide by the terms of a Department of
Justice Consent Decree; (2) that the Company lacked adequate
internal controls to prevent a violation of the consent decree;
and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
financial statements and Defendants' statements about Live
Nation's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

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

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
         Tel: 212-355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         E-mail: walker@bespc.com
                 fortunato@bespc.com
                 investigations@bespc.com [GN]


LIVE NATION: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on April 18, 2018, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California against Live Nation
Entertainment, Inc. (NYSE:LYV).  The complaint alleges violations
of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including
allegations of issuing a series of material or false
misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is February 23, 2017 through March 30, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Live Nation
Entertainment, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock
during the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class
as described above.  You may move the Court no later than Monday,
June 18, 2018 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class.
However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal
requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information
and participate in this or any other securities litigation, or
should you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice
or preservation of your rights, please contact:

         Robin Hester, Esq.
         FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         E-mail: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN]


LIVE NATION: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, disclosed
that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. (NYSE: LYV) ("Live Nation") on
behalf of purchasers of Live Nation common stock between February
23, 2017 and March 30, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investors who purchased Live Nation securities during the Class
Period may, no later than June 18, 2018, seek to be appointed as
a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional
information or to learn how to participate in this action please
visit https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/live-nation-entertainment-
inc#join

According to the complaint, Live Nation produces live concerts
and sells tickets to those events over the internet. The company
owns and operates over 195 venues throughout the world. The
company significantly expanded its ticketing services with the
purchase of Ticketmaster Entertainment ("Ticketmaster") in 2010.
During the course of acquiring Ticketmaster, Live Nation agreed
to the terms of an antitrust consent decree (the "Consent
Decree") with the Department of Justice. The Consent Decree
contained specific rules to prevent the company from monopolizing
live music promotion and ticketing.

The Class Period commences on February 23, 2017, when Live Nation
filed its annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2016. The company stated that "we believe that we
are materially in compliance with [federal, state and local
laws]...governing primary ticketing and ticket resale services."

According to the complaint, on April 1, 2018, The New York Times
published a story entitled "Roster of Stars Lets Live Nation Flex
Ticket Muscles, Rivals Say." The article alleged that Live Nation
failed to abide by the terms of the Consent Decree aimed to
prevent it and Ticketmaster from monopolizing the market for live
musical performances.

Following this news, Live Nation's stock price fell $3.97 per
share, or almost 10%, to close at $38.17 per share on April 2,
2018. The following trading session, Live Nation stock continued
its decline, dropping $1.56 per share, or over 4%, to close on
April 3, 2018 at $36.61 per share.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) that the company failed to abide by the
terms of the Consent Decree; (2) that the company lacked adequate
internal controls to prevent a violation of the Consent Decree;
and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the company's
financial statements and the defendants' statements about Live
Nation's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

Live Nation shareholders who wish to discuss this action and
their legal options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell,
Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com.

Live Nation shareholders may, no later than June 18, 2018, seek
to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class
through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all
class members in directing the litigation. In order to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class in the action. Your ability to share in any recovery is not
affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead
plaintiff.

         James Maro, Jr., Esq.
         Adrienne Bell, Esq.
         KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Tel:(888) 299-7706
         Tel: (610) 667-7706
         E-mail: jmaro@ktmc.com
                 abell@ktmc.com [GN]


LIVE NATION: Bernstein Liebhard LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Live
Nation Entertainment, Inc. ("Live Nation" or the "Company")
(NYSE: LYV) between February 23, 2017 and March 30, 2018, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Live Nation investors under the federal
securities laws.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Live Nation failed to abide by the terms of a U.S.
Department of Justice consent decree; (2) Live Nation lacked
adequate internal controls to prevent a violation of the consent
decree; and (3) as a result, Live Nation's financial statements
and Defendants' statements about Live Nation's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

On April 2, 2018, The New York Times reported that U.S.
Department of Justice officials were looking into "serious
accusations" against Live Nation's behavior in the marketplace
and possible violations of antitrust law. On this news, shares of
Live Nation fell $3.97 per share, or 9.4%, from its previous
closing price to close at $38.17 on April 2, damaging investors.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
June 18, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may
remain an absent class member.

         Daniel Sadeh, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Telephone: (877) 779-1414
         E-mail: dsadeh@bernlieb.com [GN]


LOEWS HOTELS: Faces "Jackson" Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
Mignon Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Loews Hotels, Inc., and Does 1
to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-00827-DMG-JC (C.D.
Cal., April 20, 2018), alleges violation of Breach of Contract.
The case was assigned to Judge Dolly M. Gee and referred to Judge
Jacqueline Chooljian.

Loews Hotels, Inc. owns and operates a chain of hotels and
resorts for business, leisure, and family travelers in the United
States and Canada. Loews Hotels, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
Loews Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com

               - and -

          J Paul Gignac, Esq.
          J PAUL GIGNAC, ESQ., APC
          15 W Carrillo Street, Suite 246
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 683-7400
          Facsimile: (805) 962-0722
          E-mail: jpg@foleybezek.com


LONGFIN CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed Longfin Corp. ("Longfin" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: LFIN) and certain of its officers, on
behalf of shareholders who purchased Longfin securities between
December 15, 2017 and April 2, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by
visiting the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/lfin.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws.

Shortly after going public, Longfin announced that it was buying
Ziddu.com ("Ziddu") to enable global trade through the use of
blockchain technology.  Longfin purchased Ziddu from an affiliate
of its Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, Venkata S.
Meenavalli, in exchange for 2.5 million Longfin Class A common
shares.  Following this news, the price of Longfin stock
increased from $5.39 per share on December 14, 2017, to close at
$72.38 per share on December 18, 2017, an increase of more than
1,200% in just two trading days.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Longfin had misrepresented material
facts about its business and operations, including the extent of
its capabilities at its New York offices and the identity and
qualifications of key employees; (2) Longfin had material
weaknesses in its operations and internal controls over financial
reporting; (3) Longfin was ineligible for inclusion in the
Russell Indices; (4) Longfin's lack of profitability had
imperiled its ability to continue as a going concern; and (5) as
a result of the foregoing, Longfin's financial statements and
Defendants' statements about Longfin's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On March 26, 2018, Citron Research posted a tweet on Twitter.com
accusing the Company of inaccuracies in its financial reporting
and fraud. The same day, FTSE Russell issued a statement
announcing that Longfin would be removed from its global indices
after market close on March 28, 2018, approximately 12 days after
being added. Following this news, Longfin's share price fell
$11.82, or 16.62%, to close at $59.28 on March 26, 2018.  The
stock continued to decline over the next trading sessions,
closing on April 2, 2018, at $14.31 per share, for a total
decline of $61.21 per share since the stock's close on March 23,
2018.

On March 27, 2018, CNBC published an article entitled "Longfin
loses more than a third of its value after the controversial
cryptocurrency stock is booted from the Russell 2000 index." In
the article, Meenavalli stated that Longfin would be taking
"'legal action'" against Citron for its negative comments.
Following this news, Longfin's share price fell $17.42, or
50.23%, over two trading days, to close at $17.26 on March 29,
2018.

On April 2, 2018, after the market closed, Longfin filed its
annual report on Form 10-K with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for its 2017 fiscal year. The filing revealed that the
Company was subject to an SEC investigation (which later led to a
Court-imposed freeze on $27 million in illicit trading proceeds),
suffered from a multitude of material weaknesses in its internal
controls over financial reporting, and may not be able to
continue as a going concern. Following this news, Longfin's share
price fell $4.42, or 30.88%, to close at $9.89 on April 3, 2018.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/lfinor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you
suffered a loss in 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.

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


LONGFIN CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against LongFin Corp. and certain of its officers.  The
class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, and docketed under 18-cv-03462, is on
behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Longfin securities between December 15, 2017
through April 2, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of
the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against
the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Longfin securities between
December 15, 2017, and April 2, 2018, both dates inclusive, you
have until June 4, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact Robert
S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone
number, and the number of shares purchased.

Longfin purports to be an independent finance and technology
company that offers commodity trading, alternative risk transfer,
and carry trade financing services. It also provides hedging and
risk management solutions to importers, exporters, and small
medium business enterprises.

Shortly after going public, Longfin announced that it was buying
Ziddu.com ("Ziddu") to enable global trade through the use of
blockchain technology.  Longfin purchased Ziddu from an affiliate
of its Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, Venkata S.
Meenavalli, in exchange for 2.5 million Longfin Class A common
shares.

On this news, the price of Longfin stock increased from $5.39 per
share on December 14, 2017, to close at $72.38 per share on
December 18, 2017, an increase of more than 1,200% in just two
trading days.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Longfin had
misrepresented material facts about its business and operations,
including the extent of its capabilities at its New York offices
and the identity and qualifications of key employees; (ii)
Longfin had material weaknesses in its operations and internal
controls over financial reporting; (iii) Longfin was ineligible
for inclusion in the Russell Indices; (iv) Longfin's lack of
profitability had imperiled its ability to continue as a going
concern; and (v) as a result of the foregoing, Longfin's
financial statements and Defendants' statements about Longfin's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On March 26, 2018, Citron Research posted a tweet on Twitter.com
accusing the Company of inaccuracies in its financial reporting
and fraud. The same day, FTSE Russell issued a statement
announcing that Longfin would be removed from its global indices
after market close on March 28, 2018, approximately 12 days after
being added.

On this news, Longfin's share price fell $11.82, or 16.62%, to
close at $59.28 on March 26, 2018.  The stock continued to
decline over the next trading sessions, closing on April 2, 2018,
at $14.31 per share, for a total decline of $61.21 per share
since the stock's close on March 23, 2018.

On March 27, 2018, CNBC published an article entitled "Longfin
loses more than a third of its value after the controversial
cryptocurrency stock is booted from the Russell 2000 index." In
the article, Meenavalli stated that Longfin would be taking
"'legal action'" against Citron for its negative comments.

On this news, Longfin's share price fell $17.42, or 50.23%, over
two trading days, to close at $17.26 on March 29, 2018.

On April 2, 2018, after the market closed, Longfin filed its
annual report on Form 10-K with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for its 2017 fiscal year. The filing revealed that the
Company was subject to an SEC investigation (which later led to a
Court-imposed freeze on $27 million in illicit trading proceeds),
suffered from a multitude of material weaknesses in its internal
controls over financial reporting, and may not be able to
continue as a going concern.

On this news, Longfin's share price fell $4.42, or 30.88%, to
close at $9.89 on April 3, 2018.

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Telephone: 888-476-6529 Ext. 9980
         E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


LOS ANGELES TIMES: Union Preparing Suit Over Pay Disparities
------------------------------------------------------------
Maxwell Strachan, writing for Huffpost, reports that
representatives for the Los Angeles Times' recently unionized
newsroom are readying a class-action lawsuit as a backup plan to
address "illegal pay disparities" at the newspaper, the union
announced on April 20.

In an email sent to newsroom staffers, the Los Angeles Times
Guild officers and bargaining committee said they had formally
requested that the newspaper's leadership meet with them to
grapple with recently discovered pay gaps.

"Our immediate concern is fully addressing illegal pay
disparities on an individual basis," they wrote.

In case the newspaper's owners decide not to engage, the
committee added that it is in the process of "preparing a class
action lawsuit, as a second option, with assistance from the law
firm that also represents the Guild."

The union released a comprehensive analysis of the newsroom's pay
structure, based upon data provided by the paper's parent
company, Tronc, as a part of the collective bargaining process.
The union determined that "Tronc has underpaid women and
journalists of color by thousands of dollars a year at the Los
Angeles Times, suggesting systemic salary gaps by race and
gender."

The release of the report led to widespread frustration within
the newsroom.

"People are angry, rightfully so," said one newsroom source, who
added that many employees felt "abused and taken advantage of."

Just who will end up fixing the newsroom's pay structure -- if
anyone -- remains unclear. In February, less than a month after
the newsroom voted to form a union, Tronc agreed to sell the
Times to health care mogul and billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong
for $500 million. The sale has yet to be finalized.

In a separate email sent on April 20 to Times Deputy Managing
Editor Colin Crawford and cc'ed to Soon-Shiong, a union
representative said that any ambiguity related to ownership was
no excuse not to start discussions over the pay gaps. "If the
Employer believes its authority to negotiate over this issue may
be limited because of the impending sale, we stand ready to
discuss such limitations when we meet," the email read in part.

A Tronc spokesperson said, "We at the Los Angeles Times strive to
pay our employees fairly and competitively in the context of our
dynamic media business. Many legitimate factors weigh into the
salaries for our professional journalists, who each bring
individualized talents, experiences and contributions to our news
operations. We plan to evaluate the Guild's assessment of
generalized pay differences in light of the realities of our news
operation."

Times Editor-in-Chief Jim Kirk did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.

"The leadership of the LA Times, be it current owners or future,
need to fix this as soon as possible," said the newsroom source,
adding, "This newsroom is yet again in revolt."

Here is the full email sent out to newsroom staffers on April 20:

Colleagues,

In the wake of our pay equity study, many of you have expressed
concerns that you are a victim of pay discrimination under the
California Fair Pay Act. Many of you have asked for both
individual guidance on how to proceed as well as a plan of action
from the Los Angeles Times Guild to rapidly address these illegal
pay disparities.

We held an open meeting with our attorney and our Guild
representative on April 18, and settled on the following plan of
action:

1. Bargaining

The L.A. Times Guild has asked the company to bargain over the
issue. Our goal is to quickly achieve raises and seek back pay
for affected employees. We sent that request to bargain, which
you can find attached to this email.

To be clear: this will be a separate track from our negotiations
over our main collective bargaining agreement, which we have not
yet begun because of the pending sale of the paper.

Our immediate concern is fully addressing illegal pay disparities
on an individual basis. Contract proposals to help prevent this
problem from recurring (such as pay minimums or step increases)
will come later. The Diversity & Equity committee ... will be in
touch about those proposals.

2. Legal action

We are preparing a class action lawsuit, as a second option, with
assistance from the law firm that also represents the Guild. The
potential class action would be filed by a named plaintiff or
plaintiffs in coordination with the Guild's efforts to get the
company to negotiate a timely and satisfactory agreement to
address pay disparities. We will provide more information as this
process develops.

If you would like to determine whether you would be covered by a
class action under the California Fair Pay Act (should it be
filed), or have other questions about the potential lawsuit,
reach out to [union officers]. ...

Please be aware that this is an intensive process and that we are
juggling dozens of requests, so we will do our best to get back
to you in a timely manner.

Questions & Answers

Q: Should I retain my own attorney or file an individual lawsuit
or wage claim?

A: That is your right. However, we feel strongly the best way to
address this issue is for the affected employees to stick
together and pursue our plan as a unified group. The only way to
ensure we fully correct the problem is to work as a group, not
reach a series of individual agreements.

Q: My manager has asked me to write a memo describing my
accomplishments and asking for a raise. How should I proceed?

A: We strongly advise you to avoid writing a memo or asking for a
raise individually if you are a victim of pay discrimination. The
best way to address this issue is as a group. But beyond that, we
think it's highly problematic for managers to frame illegal pay
discrimination  --  a systemic problem in our newsroom and in
society  --  in terms of merit. You should never have to describe
your achievements and qualifications in order to make the same as
men or white people who do similar work as you. The exercise is
offensive on its face and we should not participate.

Q: What if I already submitted a memo?

A: Here's some language we recommend sending to your manager:
"The wage inequities identified by the Guild pay study show
issues based on a systemic problem, not due to merit. Any merit
increase would be on top of addressing such inequity. We ask that
the Employer respond to the union's request to negotiate so these
issues can be addressed for everyone."

Q: Does the union think we should wipe out merit-based pay?

A: Not at all. Pay equity and merit-based compensation are two
separate issues. To be clear, the union is never opposed to
management giving employees better compensation on the basis of
merit.

Q: Are there any records I should retain?

A: Yes, if you have time you should download all of your
information from Workday before the sale of the paper closes.
Critical records include past performance reviews and salary
history. You should also save copies of any communication with
management or human resources about your salary or performance.

Q: What if I am a victim of another form of pay discrimination,
such as age?

A: We're not leaving you behind, and we intend to investigate and
address any claims of discrimination. Age discrimination is
covered by a different law with a different standard of proof, so
this will have to be considered separately. If you have concerns,
please get in touch with us. ...

Thank you all for your strength and your resilience. Together, we
will work to resolve this issue as quickly as possible.

--  The Los Angeles Times Guild Officers & Bargaining Committee
[GN]


MARKET STRATEGIES: "Deluca" Suit Seeks Damages Under TCPA
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosa Deluca, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Market Strategies, Inc., Case 1:18-cv-04386 (D. N.J.,
March 27, 2018), seeks damages, injunctive relief and other
available legal or equitable remedies under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the County of Atlantic, in the
State of New Jersey, who received the telephone calls which are
the subject of this Complaint.

The Defendant is a foreign corporation duly organized and and
headquartered in the State of Michigan, with branches and offices
located worldwide. The Defendant is a full-service public
relations and marketing firm. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
      Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
      DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
      525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
      Marlton, NJ 08053
      Tel: (856) 797-9951
      E-mail: rschmierer@denittislaw.com


MICHIGAN, USA: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Dunbar" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Joseph Gregory Dunbar filed an appeal from a court
ruling in his lawsuit titled Joseph Dunbar v. John Prelesnik, et
al., Case No. 1:13-cv-01100, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the civil
rights action is brought by 33 state prisoners pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Section 1983.  The Plaintiffs assert violations of their
First Amendment right of access to the courts.  The Plaintiffs
allege that the legal books in the Richard A. Handlon
Correctional Facility have been replaced by an electronic law
library with four work stations.  The Plaintiffs also claim that
they have not been trained in how to use the computer system for
legal research.  The Plaintiffs further allege that due to
limited capacity, a prisoner may wait up to three days after
making a request to be called out to the law library.

The appellate case is captioned as Joseph Dunbar v. John
Prelesnik, et al., Case No. 18-1417, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant JOSEPH GREGORY DUNBAR, and all those
similarly situated, at Ionia Correctional Facility, in Ionia,
Michigan, appear pro se.[BN]

Defendants-Appellees JOHN PRELESNIK, Warden; CATHLEEN STODDARD,
and/or acting warden; and DANIEL H. HEYNS are represented by:

          Joseph Yung-Kuang Ho, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          P.O. Box 30736
          Lansing, MI 48909
          Telephone: (517) 373-6434


MIZUHO BANK: "Carmel" Suit Alleges Negligence and Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Carmel, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Mizuho Bank, Ltd., and Mark Karpeles, Case
No. 2:18-cv-02483 (C.D. Calif., March 27, 2018), seeks damages
for Defendants' negligence, fraud and tortious interference with
contract.

This case involves the demise of the Mt. Gox Bitcoin Exchange and
the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of its
users' bitcoins and cash Currency. Defendant Mark Karpeles, who
owned and ran Mt. Gox, was responsible for the loss of more than
$400 million from users on the Exchange through either gross
negligence or outright theft. Plaintiff brings suit on behalf of
a class of similarly situated individuals to recover their
resulting losses from Karpeles.

Jonathan Carmel is a natural person and citizen of the State of
California.

Mark Karpeles is a natural person and citizen of the country of
France. During the events alleged in this Complaint, Karpeles
served as the Chief Executive Officer of both Mt. Gox KK and its
parent company, Tibanne KK.

Mizuho Bank is a Japanese financial institution with its
principal headquarters located at 1-3-3, Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku,
Tokyo, Japan 100- 8210. Mizuho Bank conducts business worldwide.
Mizuho Bank has received and processed wire money deposits and
withdrawals for Mt. Gox customers residing in this District, the
State of California, and the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      Aaron Lawson, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      123 Townsend Street
      San Francisco, CA 94107
      Tel: (415) 212-9300
      Fax: (415) 373-9435
      E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
              alawson@edelson.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Litter Sues over Sale of Roundup Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK LITTER, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 3:18-cv-02418-VC (E.D. Mo., March 29, 2018) seeks
compensatory damages as a result of Plaintiff's use of, and
exposure to, Roundup products which caused or was a substantial
contributing factor in causing Plaintiffs to suffer from Non-
Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company markets
its products through distributors, independent retailers and
dealers, agricultural cooperatives, plant raisers, and agents, as
well as directly to farmers. The company was formerly known as
Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to Monsanto Company in
March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in 2000 and is based in
St. Louis, Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Schreibeis Sues over Sale of Roundup Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEBRA SCHREIBEIS and NEAL SCHREIBEIS, Plaintiffs v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-02419-VC (E.D. Mo., March
29, 2018) seeks compensatory damages as a result of Plaintiffs'
use of, and exposure to, Roundup products which caused or was a
substantial contributing factor in causing Plaintiffs to suffer
from Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company markets
its products through distributors, independent retailers and
dealers, agricultural cooperatives, plant raisers, and agents, as
well as directly to farmers. The company was formerly known as
Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to Monsanto Company in
March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in 2000 and is based in
St. Louis, Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MOVE INC: Faces "Herkenrath" Suit over Lead Generation
------------------------------------------------------
John Herkenrath and Tina Wilson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Move, Inc.; Move
Sales, Inc.; and Does 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. BC703233
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 20, 2018) is an action
against the Defendants for restitution and monetary damages, and
other relief available at law or in equity.

According to the complaint, the Defendants assure their customers
they have "tested each market area to know in advance that there
will be a regular supply of leads." At the time that they make
these assurances, the Defendants either lacks the information
that it claims to possess regarding the number of leads that it
is able to generate or affirmatively knows that they cannot
supply the number of leads that they promises. These promises
provide the Defendant with a strong financial motivation to avoid
doing anything, including employing basic safeguards and review
of leads, that would reduce the number of putative leads that
they sends to their customers. Despite this, the Defendants are
frequently unable to provide their customers with the number of
monthly leads that they promise.

For example, on September 12, 2017 at approximately 7:36 p.m.,
the Plaintiffs received an email confirming their purchase of
leads from the Defendants. That email, which was sent by the
Defendants "marketing consultant" with whom the Plaintiffs spoke
on the phone, had the subject line: "Confirmation of your recent
'Fast Follow-up' purchase." The body of the email states: "As we
discussed, this email is being sent to you to complete your
request for, or agreement to receive, advertising, promotional or
other information. That information is provided below." In
reality, however, the rest of the email contains nothing other
than a "congratulations," some basic information about the Fast
Follow-up option selected by the Plaintiffs, and a repetition of
the same marketing information found on the Defendants' marketing
website for Connections for Buyers.

Move, Inc. operates an online network of Websites for real estate
search in North America. The company operates realtor.com, a
Website that offers property listings and other real estate-
related information services for real estate brokers,
franchisors, advertisers, and agents. Move, Inc. was formerly
known as Homestore, Inc. and changed its name to Move, Inc. in
June 2006. Move, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in
San Jose, California. As of November 13, 2014, Move, Inc.
operates as a subsidiary of News Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mike Arias, Esq.
          Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
          ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS, LLP
          6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (310) 844-9696
          Facsimile: (310) 861-0168
          E-mail: mike@aswtlawyers.com
                  alfredo@aswtlawyers.com

               - and -

          Jasmine Duel, Esq.
          Kousha Berokim, Esq.
          BEROKIM & DUEL, P.C.
          270 North Canon Drive, Third Floor
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (818) 703-8985
          Facsimile: (818)703-8984
          E-mail: jasmine@berokhimduel.com
                  berokim@berokimduel.com


MYRIAD GENETICS: Pomerantz Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Myriad Genetics, Inc. ("Myriad" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:MYGN) and certain of its officers.   The class action,
filed in United States District Court, District of Utah, and
docketed under 18-cv-00336, is on behalf of a class consisting of
investors who purchased or otherwise, acquired common shares of
Myriad between August 13, 2014, and March 12, 2018, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Myriad securities between
August 13, 2014, and March 12, 2018, both dates inclusive, you
have until June 19, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact Robert
S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone
number, and the number of shares purchased.

Myriad develops and markets molecular diagnostic products to
provide physicians with information to help guide the care of
their patients, to prevent disease, delay the onset of disease,
and catch disease at an early stage.  Myriad purports to employ a
variety of proprietary techniques designed to provide an
understanding of the genetic basis of disease and the role of
genes in the onset, progression, and treatment of disease.

Established in 1978, the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding
System ("HCPCS") provides a standardized coding system for
describing the specific items and services provided in
healthcare.  HCPCS dictates the billing codes in the claims that
physicians, healthcare providers and suppliers, such as Myriad,
submit to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS").
The National Correct Coding Initiative ("NCCI"), a CMS program
designed to prevent improper payment of procedures that should
not be submitted together, provides further instruction with
respect to correct billing practices.  Among other things, the
NCCI provides that billing documents must contain numerical code
pairs, reflected in adjacent columns, identifying the services
provided.  As CMS has stated in its billing guidance documents,
"[t]he underlying principle is that the second code defines a
subset of the work of the first code.  Reporting the codes
separately is inappropriate.  Separate reporting would trigger a
separate payment and would constitute double billing."

In September 2013, Myriad launched its proprietary 25-gene myRisk
Hereditary Cancer test ("myRisk"), which includes testing for
multiple genes associated with cancer, including BRCA1 and BRCA2,
both of which are associated with breast and ovarian cancer.
BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing -- specifically, BRCA sequencing
and BRCA duplication-deletion -- are represented in HCPCS by
codes 81211 and 81213.  CMS has clearly stated that codes 81211
and 81213 are not correctly used together in claim submissions.

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

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

On this news, Myriad's share price fell $4.01, or 12.14%, to
close at $29.01 on March 13, 2018.

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Telephone: 888-476-6529 Ext. 9980
         E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


NISSAN OF SOUTH BAY: Forged Credit Application, Broman Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aileen Broman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Nissan of South Bay; Nissan Motor
Acceptance Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, Defendants, Case
No. BC703382 (Cal. Super., April 23, 2018) alleges that the
Defendants forged the Plaintiff's credit application. The forged
credit application misstates her income at $5,600 per month,
wherein her true monthly income is $3,886; it misstates her
monthly rental amount as $350 wherein her true cost of housing at
the time of signing was $1,610.

Instead of having the same or similar monthly payment on her new
2016 Nissan Rogue as she previously had on her 2014 Rogue, her
monthly payment is $633.22, which is significantly more than her
2014 Rogue that she traded in back on December 1, 2016.

Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation, together with its
subsidiaries, purchases retail installment obligations and leases
contracts from dealers in connection with new and used vehicle
financing arrangements to consumers in the United States and
Mexico. The company was founded in 1981 and is headquartered in
Franklin, Tennessee. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation is a
subsidiary of Nissan North America, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles Ferrari, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES FERRARI
          17602 17th Street, Suite 201-210
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone: (714) 636-0999
          Facsimile: (714) 617-5532
          Email: CharlesFerrari@live.com


NIU OF FLORIDA: Faces "Wuest" Suit in California
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NIU of Florida,
Inc. The case is captioned as Richard Wuest, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NIU of
Florida, Inc., and Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-
00231671-CU-BT-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., April 23,
2018).

National Insurance Underwriters is an affiliate of Nation Safe
Drivers, one of the largest suppliers of auto-related
supplemental products for insurance agencies, companies and
dealerships in the United States. Nation Safe Drivers was founded
in 1962. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Eric A. Grover, Esq.


NORTH CAROLINA: Judge Considering Whether to Dismiss Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Boughton, writing for NC Policy Watch, reports that North
Carolina voters were duped into defaming other voters by lawyers
working with former Gov. Pat McCrory to undermine the
gubernatorial election he lost, according to a class-action
lawsuit.

"The plaintiffs are really the collateral damage of an ill-
conceived and reckless enterprise in which these new defendants
in particular, I would say, took a very cynical approach to how
we're dealing with the reputations of individual people," said
Pressly Millen, Esq. -- press.millen@wbd-us.com -- an attorney
for the plaintiffs  --  four retiree voters, three from Guilford
County and one from Brunswick, who were falsely accused of voting
in two different states.

He and attorneys for the defendants, the Pat McCrory Legal
Defense Fund and Virginia-based law firm Holtzman Vogel Josefiak
Torchinsky argued April 18 about whether the lawsuit should be
dismissed.

Fifty-three election protests claiming voter fraud were filed
across the state in the wake of the 2016 gubernatorial election
--  most, if not all, by Republicans defending McCrory after he
refused to concede the race to current Gov. Roy Cooper. The
Republican-controlled State Board of Elections ultimately
dismissed all the protests.

It was revealed after some of the protests were challenged that
those Republicans were supplied information to file the protests
by attorneys with the McCrory Legal Defense Fund, which had hired
the Holtzman Vogel law firm.

The plaintiffs, in an amended lawsuit, also claim civil
conspiracy. Information obtained during discovery led the
plaintiffs to believe that the defendants were part of a scheme
that resulted in the defamation of multiple voters, according to
the suit.

Attorneys from the Southern Coalition for Social Justice also
represent plaintiffs in the case.

Charles Marshall, Esq. attorney for the Holtzman Vogel law firm
(and four of its named attorneys), and Philip Isley, Esq.,
attorney for the McCrory Legal Defense Fund, argued before Judge
Allen Baddour that the plaintiffs failed to show defamation and
the defendants were immune from suit because the protests were
part of a quasi-judicial proceeding.

"You can't actually challenge the outcome or results of an
election unless you can challenge the ballots and whether they
were cast lawfully," Marshall said.

Isley said there is nothing in the complaint that alleges his
client or two of the attorney defendants named from the Holtzman
Vogel law firm defamed voters.

"There is not a single allegation of who was allegedly defamed,
when they were defamed, where they were defamed, the contents of
any alleged defamation," he said. "Nothing."

He also pointed out, and Millen conceded, that the defamation
case could be the first of its kind in terms of it being a class
action. Isley argued that "the class action vehicle" is not used
for defamation, which has such personalized damages.

"This would be a disaster, from my standpoint, of how a court
could actually manage this," he said.

He asked if all the punitive class members would be giving the
court their medical records from the last 10-15 years to evaluate
claims of emotional stress and other harms, and said class action
lawsuits should be formulaic and easy to figure out.

Millen said nothing about the plaintiff's case was normal. He
said there was class-wide intent and class-wide injury, and there
can be class-wide relief.

"As we get into this case, I'm going to be very surprised if any
of the defendants personally knew of, or even knew of the
existence of any of these particular plaintiffs," he said. "A
typical libel case would mean he's got it in for me and he's been
saying these things about me. That's not this case. The object
here was not to libel [the plaintiffs] in particular; the object
was to make them part of a statewide class of scapegoats, felony
voter fraudsters, in order to taint the election results."

Baddour said he would make a ruling in the case at a later time.
[GN]


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Overstock.com, Inc. ("Overstock") (NASDAQ:OSTK)
between August 3, 2017 and March 26, 2018. You are hereby
notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the District of
Utah. To get more information go to http://www.zlk.com/pslra-
d/overstock-com-inc?wire=2

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Overstock's coin offering was
problematic and potentially illegal; and (2) the company's Medici
business was hemorrhaging money. When the true details entered
the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
On March 1, 2018, Overstock revealed that the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") had requested information about its
initial coin offering. Then, on March 15, 2018, Overstock
announced that "the investigation could result in a delay of the
tZero security token offering, negative publicity for tZero or
us, and may have a material adverse effect on us or on the
current and future business ventures of tZero." Overstock also
said that the SEC was examining the advisers at tZero.

If you suffered a loss in Overstock you have until May 29, 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.

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.,
         LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
         Telephone: 212-363-7500
         Toll Free: 877-363-5972
         Fax: 212-363-7171
         E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]


PACIFIC MARITIME: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Galardo" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Javier Gallardo, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pacific Maritime
Association, and Does 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. BC703581
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 23, 2018) is an action
against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours,
minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff is a resident of California and a current employee
of the Defendants.

Pacific Maritime Association operates as a non-profit
organization. The Organization provides negotiating services
between marine terminal operators and labor unions. Pacific
Maritime serves members in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          MATTHEW J. MATERN, Esq.
          Dalia R. Khalili, Esq.
          Irina Kirnosova, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: mmatern@matemlawgroup.com
                  dkhalili@matemlawgroup.com
                  ikirnosova@matemlawgroup.com


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Amended PSLRA Notice in "Sgarlata" Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 has entered an Order on the Parties' Amended PSLRA
Notice.

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 Dec. 6, 2017, pursuant to the PSLRA, the counsel for the
Plaintiff published a notice over Globe Newswire, advising PayPal
investors of the pendency of the action and of their right to
seek appointment as the Lead Plaintiff in the action by filing a
motion with the Court by Feb. 5, 2018.

On Feb. 5, 2018, two putative class members moved the Court for
appointment as the Lead Plaintiff and approval of their
respective selections of counsel: (i) Edwin Bell, proposing
Pomerantz LLP as the Lead Counsel; and (ii) Michael Eckert,
proposing The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as the Lead Counsel.

On March 15, 2018, the Court held a hearing with respect to the
appointment of the Lead Plaintiff and the Lead Counsel.  On March
16, 2018, the Court entered an order appointing movants Eckert
and Bell as the Interim Co-Lead Plaintiffs and approving their
choices of Pomerantz and Rosen as the Interim Co-lead Counsel.

Having found the initial PSLRA Notice did not mention a broader
class definition, the Court ordered that notice be republished,
and that the parties to stipulate to a schedule for publishing an
amended notice, a consolidated amended complaint, and a briefing
schedule for the Defendants' response to the consolidate amended
complaint.  The Interim Co-lead Counsel and the counsel for the
Defendants PayPal, Schulman and Rainey have met and conferred
with respect to the content and publication schedule of an
amended PSLRA notice.

Since the filing of the Complaint on Dec. 6, 2017, numerous law
firms have issued press released advising PayPal investors that
purchased securities during the Class Period of their right to
seek appointment as the lead plaintiff, but no putative class
members other than Bell and Eckert have sought appointment.  With
respect to the Amended PSLRA Notice, the Court has authority to
order a shorter period within which to move the Court for
appointment as lead plaintiff than the 60 days provided in the
PSLRA.

The Interim Co-lead Counsel have communicated with counsel for
Defendant Shahbazi, a resident of Canada, with respect to service
of summons and the complaint in the Action, are advised that
Shahbazi's counsel is not currently authorized to accept service,
and are working to negotiate an arrangement by which Shahbazi
will agree to accept service or effect service under the Hague
Convention.

Accordingly, the counsel for the parties stipulated and Judge
Chen granted that:

     1. Defendants PayPal, Schulman and Rainey accept service of
the summons and initial complaint in the action;

     2. A copy of the proposed Amended PSLRA Notice is submitted
with Stipulated Order for the Court's review and approval;

     3. Within three days after entry of an order approving the
Amended PSLRA Notice, the Interim Co-Lead Counsel will publish
the Amended PSLRA Notice over a national wire service;

     4. Per the Amended PSLRA Notice, any additional motions for
appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel will
be due within 60 days, or such other period that the Court deems
appropriate, after publication of the Amended PSLRA Notice, and
the parties do not object to an order providing for a shorter
period of notice;

     5. The Interim Co-Lead Plaintiffs will file an amended
complaint within 45 days to 75 days after the entry of an order
by the Court approving the stipulation;

     6. Defendants PayPal, Schulman and Rainey will file their
response(s) to the amended complaint within 30 days after the
filing of the amended complaint;

     7. If Defendants PayPal, Schulman or Rainey move 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 March 20, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/kxGxVA 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.

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.


PHD FITNESS: Claims in Amended "Sandviks" Class Suit Narrowed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, John Sandviks, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PhD Fitness, LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Civil Action No.
1:17-cv-00744-JMC (D. S.C.), Judge J. Michelle Childs of the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina, Aiken
Division, granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff John Sandviks' Amended Class Action
Complaint.

The Defendant is a sport supplement company that formulates,
manufactures, advertises and sells workout supplement.  The
Plaintiff brought his claims individually and on behalf of
unnamed class members in the State of South Carolina pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. During the relevant period,
members of the Class purchased the Products in South Carolina
through numerous brick and mortar retail locations and online
websites.  The Plaintiff purchased several of the Defendant's
Products, including Pre-JYM and Post-JYM.  He purchased the
Defendant's Pre-JYM and Post-JYM Products at Bodybuilding.com
numerous times over the past two years.

On March 17, 2017, the Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint and
on July 14, 2017, filed his Amended Complaint for Breach of
Express Warranties (Count I), Breach of Implied Warranties (Count
II), Negligent Misrepresentation (Count III), Intentional
Misrepresentation (Count IV), Fraudulent Inducement (Count V),
and Unjust Enrichment (in the Alternative to Counts I and II)
(ECF No. 17).  He espouses that he read and relied on the
Products' labels before he bought the Products and believed on
the basis of the labels' representations that the Products
contained the proper doses of the ingredients listed on the
labels.  Specifically, he read and relied on the Pre-JYM label,
which states, "Every ingredient in this formula is in a dose
use[d] in clinical studies and my own gym to produce significant
gains in size, strength and endurance."

However, as demonstrated by the studies the Plaintiff cites in
the Amended Complaint, he posits that the majority of these
ingredients are not properly dosed, have no scientific backing
and/or have simply been found to be completely ineffective,
making Defendant's claims on the Pre-JYM label "demonstrably
false."  In addition, the Plaintiff claims he read and relied on
the Post-JYM product, which states, "Those ingredients, in full
research backed doses, are in this bottle."  However, as
demonstrated by the studies the Plaintiff cites in the Amended
Complaint, he asserts that the majority of these ingredients are
not properly dosed, have no scientific backing and/or have simply
been found to be completely ineffective, making the Defendant's
claims on the Post-JYM label "demonstrably false."  The Plaintiff
and the Class assert that they would not have purchased the
Products had they known that the Products did not contain proper
doses of the ingredients listed on the Products' labels and in
the Defendant's advertisements.

On Aug. 11, 2017, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss stating
that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief.  On Sept.
15, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a response in opposition, and the
Defendant filed a reply.  Subsequently, the Plaintiff filed a
Supplemental Response, and the Defendant filed a Supplemental Sur
Reply.

Judge Childs finds that the Plaintiff alleges express and implied
warranty claims on behalf of a statewide class, but does not
allege that he provided notice of such claims to the Defendant
prior to the filing of his claim.  The Plaintiff's only
allegations of notice are in regard to a complaint filed in
another district (the Eastern District of Michigan), a "pre-suit
demand letter," and the filing of the original Complaint.  The
complaint is devoid of any allegations that the Plaintiff
provided the Defendant with reasonable notice of their alleged
warranty breaches.

In the alternative, the Plaintiff argues that notice is not
required because the Defendant is a manufacturer rather than the
direct seller of the Products that he purchased.  The Plaintiff
fails to cite to any South Carolina authority to support this
position.  However, the non-controlling cases the Plaintiff cites
are distinguishable from the present case.  Accordingly, the
Judge will dismiss the Plaintiff's causes of action for breach of
express and implied warranties.

Because the Plaintiff has alleged only economic damages, i.e.,
the price he paid for the Products plus applicable sales taxes,
and has alleged no special relationship between himself and the
Defendant, or any independent duty that the Defendant owed to the
Plaintiff outside of the alleged contractual relationship, the
Judge will dismiss the Plaintiff's claims for negligent
misrepresentation and intentional misrepresentation pursuant to
the economic loss doctrine.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiff does not allege reliance
on the JYMs being FDA approved, or curing disease, or treating
"muscle fatigue," or "endurance" or "other physiological
ailments" (as disclaimed by the Defendant).  According to the
Plaintiff, he relied on the claims that the JYMS contained
ingredients in effective doses backed by clinical studies.  The
disclaimer is silent about research-backed dosing.  Based on the
analysis, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has properly plead
the elements necessary for a fraudulent inducement claim and
therefore his claim will not be dismissed.

Finally, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff and other class
members paid money to acquire ownership of their Products.  They
conferred an economic benefit upon the Defendant, which profited
from their purchase of the Products.  Because its Products were
allegedly defective, the Defendant unjustly retained a benefit.
These allegations suffice to state a claim for unjust enrichment.
Therefore, Plaintiff has adequately pleaded an unjust enrichment
claim against the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss this claim will be denied.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Childs granted in part and
denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.  She granted
the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as to the Plaintiff's claims
for breach of express and implied warranties, and negligent and
intentional misrepresentation.  She denied the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss as to the Plaintiff's claims for fraudulent inducement
and unjust enrichment.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 20, 2018 Order and Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/UYKu4c from Leagle.com.

John Sandviks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Harper Todd Segui --
hsegui@seguilaw.com -- Harper Todd Segui Law Office.

PhD Fitness LLC, a California Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, represented by Catherine Farrell Wrenn --
catherine.wrenn@wbd-us.com -- Womble Bond Dickinson US LLP, Keith
D. Munson -- keith.munson@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge
and Rice, Ashley Lauren Vulin -- ashleyvulin@dwt.com -- Davis
Wright Tremaine LLP, pro hac vice, Charles Morton English, Jr. --
chipenglish@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, pro hac vice,
John Francis McGrory, Jr. -- johnmcgrory@dwt.com -- Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP, pro hac vice & Kaley Louise Fendall --
kaleyfendall@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, pro hac vice.


PHILLIPS 66: Claims in Suit Over Contaminated Avgas Trimmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER REEDY and T.C. HOLDINGS DELAWARE, INC.,
Individually and On Behalf of THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs, v. PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No.
H-17-2914 (S.D. Tex.), Judge Sim Lake of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, granted in
part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or
Strike Plaintiffs' Class Allegations.

Reedy and T.C. Holdings bring the action against Phillips for
strict products liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty
of merchantability, breach of express warranty, and violation of
the Kansas Consumer Protection Act ("KCPA"), individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated.

Phillips produces, refines, markets, and distributes jet fuel and
aviation gas.  It distributes avgas to fixed-based operators
("FBOs") and the FBOs then sell the avgas to aircraft owners and
pilots.  Reedy is a trained pilot and a shareholder of Plaintiff
T.C. Holdings.  T.C. Holdings owns a Beechcraft Baron aircraft
and a Decathlon aircraft.

Around Aug. 23, 2017, Reedy spent $91.04 to purchase 23.95
gallons of Phillips avgas for the Decathlon aircraft at the Miami
County airport in Paola, Kansas.  Around Aug. 30, 2017, Reedy
spend $390.37 to purchase 98.19 gallons of Phillips avgas for the
Baron aircraft at the same airport.  On Sept. 12, 2017, Reedy and
Dave Cochran, an FAA-certified mechanic, took samples of the
Phillips avgas from the Baron and Decathlon aircrafts and
observed contamination in the form of solid particles.  The
Plaintiffs allege that because of the serious and life-
threatening risk posed by contaminated avgas, along with the
serious risk of property damage, Reedy and Cochran grounded the
Baron and Decathlon aircrafts until the contaminated avgas could
be flushed from the tanks and the planes could undergo thorough
inspections and maintenance.

In September of 2017, an FBO, Signature Flight Support
("Signature"), discovered contaminated Phillips avgas at its
Wichita and Olathe, Kansas, locations and it halted the sale of
Phillips' avgas there.  By mid-September of 2017 Signature
stopped selling Phillips avgas at approximately 20 locations due
to contamination.  The Plaintiffs allege that Reedy had no
knowledge that the avgas he purchased in August was defective or
contaminated.

The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on Sept. 28, 2017, bringing
class action allegations pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3).  They allege that Phillips'
distribution of contaminated fuel caused damages including the
amount spent on the contaminated avgas and the maintenance and
repair costs.

The Plaintiffs bring causes of action for strict products
liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty, and breach of
express warranty on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated in a Nationwide Class.  They bring a cause of action for
violations of the KCPA on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated members of a Kansas subclass.  The seek
compensation for (1) amounts spent on contaminated avgas that had
to be flushed from their aircrafts and (2) costs of maintenance
and repair that were necessary to account for the presence of
contaminated avgas in the aircrafts, and to ensure the planets
remained safe for further use.

The Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike on
Nov. 7, 2017.  It moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Complaint
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) arguing that they
lack standing to assert any of their claims.  It also moves to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing that even if the Plaintiffs
have standing to pursue their claims, they've failed to state a
claim for products liability and breach of express warranty, T.C.
Holdings has failed to state a claim under the KCPA and for
breach of implied warranty, and that the Plaintiffs otherwise
fail to properly state a claim under the KCPA.

Judge Lake finds that because the Plaintiffs seek contractual
damages, they have not alleged an injury in fact that would
provide standing for a products liability claim.  The Judge also
finds that although engine failure may be a consequence of
operating aircrafts with contaminated avgas, the Plaintiffs fail
to present facts that establish that Phillips' avgas would have
caused that extreme consequence.  Because their allegations only
support a possible future injury instead of a certainly impending
injury, they cannot confer standing.

After carefully considering the parties' arguments, Judge Lake
concludes that the Plaintiffs cannot establish Article III
standing for their products liability claims -- which include
their claims for strict products liability, negligence, and
breach of express and implied warranty -- because they have not
demonstrated injury in fact or a certainly impending injury.
However, he concludes that Plaintiff Reedy has standing to bring
claims under the KCPA.

As to their strict products liability and negligence claims, the
Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' argument that "repair" costs are
recoverable and that use of the word "repair" indicates an
allegation of damage fails because costs of repair are included
in economic loss.  Therefore, they've failed to state a claim for
products liability and negligence.

Because the Plaintiffs have alleged no facts demonstrating
privity between T.C. Holdings and Phillips, T.C. Holding's
implied warranty claim will be dismissed.  Moreover, even if the
Judge were to follow the Meyers' holding that an agency
relationship can establish privity, he concludes that the
Plaintiffs have not pled facts demonstrating any privity between
T.C. Holdings and Phillips' agent, Signature, because they do not
allege that T.C. Holdings purchased any avgas.  Therefore this
claim will be dismissed.

Because the Plaintiffs fail to allege unequal bargaining power
and deceptive bargaining conduct, and the requisite causal
connection, they have failed to state a claim under Section 50-
627 of the KCPA.  The Judge will allow the Plaintiffs to amend
their Complaint to properly allege a violation of this section of
the KCPA.

As to the Defendant's Motion to Strike, Judge Lake concludes that
the burden of applying the products liability and warranty laws
of each class member's state defeats predominance and, thus,
nationwide class certification.  Because the Plaintiffs have
failed to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement, he
will grant the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as to all claims
asserted by the Plaintiffs on behalf of a putative Nationwide
Class for strict products liability, negligence, and express and
implied warranties.

Finally, because the Judge will allow the Plaintiffs to amend
their Complaint for the KCPA claims, he will allow the Plaintiffs
to reallege the Kansas class claims for this section of the KCPA
as well.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Lake granted in part and denied
in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims.  He
dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims for strict products liability
and negligence or lack of standing pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under
Rule 12(b)(6).  He dismissed the Plaintiffs' claim for breach of
express warranty for lack of standing pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)
and because the Plaintiffs do not oppose the Defendant's motion
to dismiss that claim.

The Judge also dismissed the Plaintiffs' claim for breach of
implied warranty as to Reedy for lack of standing pursuant to
Rule 12(b) (1) and as to T.C. Holdings for lack of standing
pursuant to Rule 12(b) (1) and for failure to state a claim under
Rule 12(b)(6).  He dismissed T.C. Holding's claim under the KCPA
for lack of standing pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and because the
Plaintiffs do not oppose the Defendant's motion to dismiss that
claim.  He denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss Reedy's KCPA,
and granted the Plaintiffs' request to amend as to that claim.

The Judge granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Class Allegations.  He dismissed the
Plaintiffs' strict products liability, negligence, and warranty
claims on behalf of a Nationwide Class because the Plaintiffs
cannot establish predominance, a necessary prerequisite for class
certification.

Although he is skeptical that Plaintiff Reedy can maintain a KCPA
claim on behalf of himself and putative Kansas subclass members,
he allowed Reedy 20 days from the entry of the Memorandum Opinion
and Order in which to amend his Complaint to properly allege a
claim under Sections 50-626 and 50-627 of the KCPA and to
properly define a Kansas subclass and move for certification
demonstrating that he can meet the requirements of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b).

A full-text copy of the Court's March 20, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/w2Ezmp from Leagle.com.

Christopher Reedy & T.C. Holdings Delaware, Inc., Plaintiffs,
represented by Douglas Robert Salisbury -- dsalisbury@potts-
law.com -- Potts Law Firm.

Phillips 66 Company, Defendant, represented by Winstol D. Carter,
Jr. -- winn.carter@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Albino" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Ryan Albino, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-
02728 (E.D. New York, May 8, 2018).

Portfolio Recovery Associates is a large debt collection company
that specializes in buying delinquent credit accounts, including
credit cards, from financial institutions and government clients,
and debt from bankruptcies.  The company has its headquarters in
Norfolk, Virginia, and says it also operates in Alabama,
California, Illinois, Kansas, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee and Texas.[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


PROCARE CRS: Faces "Lawson" Suit in N.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Procare CRS, Inc.
The case is styled as Deborah L Lawson, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Procare CRS,
Inc. dba Pro-Care Community Residential Services, Inc., a
Domestic For Profit Business Corp. Pro-Care Community Residential
Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00248-TCK-JFJ (N.D.
Okla., May 8, 2018).

Procare CRS, Inc. is a disability services & support organization
in Tulsa, Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Terry Arthur Hall, Esq.
   Law Office of Terry A Hall
   PO BOX 616
   CHOCTAW, OK 73020
   Tel: (405) 708-7525
   Fax: (405) 415-9095
   Email: thall@okhnhlaw.com


PROPARK AMERICA: "Sadino" ADR Cert. Filing Extension Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the case, AARON SADINO, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PROPARK
AMERICA WEST, LLC; JOHN STEELE; MICHAEL HEWITT; RYAN DREISBACH;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-
06018-JST (N.D. Cal.), submit with Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, their Joint Request to Extend the Deadline to
Submit an ADR Certificate and Stipulation to ADR Process until
after the Court rules on the Motion to Remand.

The parties are amenable to mediating the matter.  Further,
they're in the process of determining what discovery is necessary
before mediation can take place, and whether an informal exchange
to facilitate an early resolution is possible.  Accordingly, the
parties jointly request that the Court extend the deadline to
Submit an ADR Certificate and Stipulation to ADR Process until 30
days after the Court rules on the Motion to Remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 20, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/D7XRag from Leagle.com.

Aaron Sadino, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Righetti --
matt@righettilaw.com -- Righetti Glugoski, P.C. & Michael C.
Righetti, Righetti Glugoski, P.C.

Propark America West, LLC, John Steele, Michael Hewitt & Ryan
Dreisbach, Defendants, represented by Joanne Madden --
joanne.madden@leclairryan.com -- LeClairRyan, LLP & Charles H.
Horn -- charles.horn@leclairryan.com -- LeClairRyan, LLP.


PURACY LLC: Faces "Martinez" Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Puracy LLC. The
case is captioned as Monica Martinez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Puracy LLC, and
Does 1 through 25, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03369-AB-RAO
(C.D. Cal., April 23, 2018. The case was assigned to Judge Andre
Birotte Jr. and referred to Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver.

Puracy is a trusted source for natural and organic, non-toxic,
plant-based, hypoallergenic and effective home essentials that
are safe for the entire family. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Reuben D Nathan, Esq.
         NATHAN AND ASSOCIATES APC
         600 West Broadway Suite 700
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 272-7014
         Facsimile: (619) 330-1819
         E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Canadian Academics Join Call for Criminal Probe
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Woo, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that a group
of academics is joining the chorus of those calling for a
criminal investigation into the marketing practices of Canadian
opioid manufacturers.

In an open letter sent on April 20 to Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau, Justice Minister and Attorney-General Jody Wilson-
Raybould, Esq. -- Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca -- and Health
Minister Ginette Petitpas Taylor, the academics urge the Canadian
government to launch a criminal probe and directly compensate
victims of the opioid crisis with funds recovered from opioid
manufacturers with new legislation.

The seven academics in medicine, law and political science from
the University of Toronto, Dalhousie University, York University
and the University of British Columbia note that Purdue Pharma
L.P., the maker of OxyContin, has already pleaded guilty to
illegally marketing opioids in the United States.

The same long-acting opioids that fuelled the opioid crisis in
the U.S. are marketed in Canada, and Canadian prescribing rates
for these medications accelerated with the Canadian opioid-
related death rate," the letter states.

"It would be very surprising if Canada was spared the
inappropriate marketing practices that admittedly took place in
the United States."

Others who have called for such an investigation include NDP MP
Don Davies and former Ontario Health Minister Eric Hoskins.

In the United States, Purdue and three of its executives paid
US$634.5-million in 2007 to settle criminal and civil charges
against them for misleading the public about the drug's risk of
addiction.

From 1996 to 2001, the number of deaths related to oxycodone, the
generic version of OxyContin, increased five-fold nationwide
while the annual number of OxyContin prescriptions increased
nearly 20-fold, according to a report by the U.S. Drug
Enforcement Administration.

In Canada, which is the world's second-highest per capita
consumer of opioids after the U.S., OxyContin was the top-selling
long-acting opioid for more than a decade.

Purdue's Canadian operation has made no similar admission of
wrongdoing and continues to emphasize that it promotes and
markets its products in line with the Health Canada-approved
product monograph and the Pharmaceutical Advertising Advisory
Board code.

Canadian victims have attempted to seek justice on their own,
filing a class-action lawsuit against the company that led to a
proposed $20-million settlement, with $2-million going to the
provinces and territories and no admission of guilt.

Courts in Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia approved the
settlement, but the Saskatchewan court did not, with Justice
Brian Barrington-Foote of Queen's Bench saying in March that he
was not satisfied the settlement was "fair, reasonable and in the
best interests of the class as a whole." Purdue Pharma is
appealing the Saskatchewan court ruling.

Health Canada has repeatedly declined to make someone available
for an interview on the matter but said in a statement it is
"committed to ensuring that information in a health-product
advertisement is not false, misleading or deceptive."

Signatory Nav Persaud, a family physician and researcher at St.
Michael's Hospital in Toronto and an assistant professor at the
University of Toronto, said a criminal investigation would show
that the Canadian government takes the issue seriously.

Even an unsuccessful prosecution would send the message that the
Canadian criminal justice system takes note of these things," he
said. "The alternative is to say to every pharmaceutical company:
No matter what you do, no matter if you're convicted in another
country, no matter if 10,000 Canadians die, you will not be
investigated in this country."[GN]


QUICKEN LOANS: Faces "Mahoney" Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quicken Loans, Inc.
The case is styled as Tom Mahoney, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Quicken Loans,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00324-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., May 9,
2018).

Quicken Loans Inc., is a mortgage lending company headquartered
in the One Campus Martius building in the heart of the financial
district of downtown Detroit, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
   Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, PA
   1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300
   Tampa, FL 33602-3343
   Tel: (813) 224-0431
   Fax: (813) 229-8712
   Email: bhill@wfclaw.com

      - and -

   Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
   Law Office of Chris R. Miltenberger, PLLC
   1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100
   Southlake, TX 76092-4322
   Tel: (817) 416-5060
   Fax: (817) 416-5062
   Email: chris@crmlawpractice.com


RADNET INC: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radnet, Inc. The
case is styled as Kathleen Sypert, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Radnet, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-04172 (S.D. N.Y., May 9, 2018).

RadNet, Inc., incorporated on June 19, 2008, is a provider of
freestanding, fixed-site outpatient diagnostic imaging services
in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


REFUGIO OIL: Thousands of Plaintiffs Added to Oil Spill Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Jean Yamamura, writing for Santa Barbara's Independent, reports
that the consequences of the Great 1969 Oil Spill in Santa
Barbara go beyond the giant nudge it delivered to assert a need
for tighter regulation of the oil industry. It also laid out the
game plan for lawsuits. Today's legal heavy hitters include Santa
Barbara's Barry Cappello, Esq., who cut his teeth as city
attorney recovering from Union Oil for the coating of the
beaches, the harbor, and facilities with thick, heavy crude. The
most recent development in suits stemming from the 2015 Refugio
Oil Spill -- the certification of private property owners as a
class that may sue Plains All American Pipeline -- was a strategy
first pursued in part by Stan Schwartz, one of the big backers of
the fledgling Legal Aid in Santa Barbara at the time. Schwartz,
who died in 2015, represented renters harmed by the 1969 oil
spill, who were ultimately included in the class action brought
by property owners in Santa Barbara and Ventura counties. But
determining how to assess damages was quite a struggle, recalled
John Warnock, a partner with Schramm & Raddue, which represented
the property owners.

The 1969 cases were soon moved to federal court in Los Angeles,
where the Refugio cases are also being heard. So far, Judge
Philip S. Gutierrez has affirmed that fishermen and fishing
enterprises are a class injured by the Refugio spill, as well as
oil industry and platform workers thrown out of work by the spill
and subsequent closure of the broken pipeline, which has yet to
reopen. Cappello pointed out that even in 2010's Deepwater
Horizon oil spill in 2010 -- which was settled by the U.S.
government for $5.5 billion -- oil workers were not allowed to be
a damaged class of plaintiffs. Cappello's law firm, Cappello &
Noâl, is pursuing the litigation with three others: Audet &
Partners; Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein; and Keller
Rohrback. The latter two sued Exxon in the 1989 Valdez case.

Another precedent set by the 1969 spill was the ability of
governments to recover revenue losses, said Cappello. He said
he'd fought Union Oil to a settlement for $4.5 million for the
damage to the city's shore and facilities; it was only later that
the California Legislature passed laws codifying such recoveries.
This time around, the City of Santa Barbara settled with Plains a
year or two after the spill for $2.5 million. City Attorney Ariel
Calonne, Esq. -- acalonne@santabarbaraca.gov -- explained that
the city hadn't suffered much property damage but considerable
reputational harm that reflected in a drop in tourism.

Plains, which will soon be on trial in Santa Barbara Superior
Court on 15 criminal counts of knowing discharge of pollutants,
may face as many as 5,000 class-action litigants in federal court
for spoilage to land. Two experts who analyzed where the spill
likely went -- from Hollister Ranch to Manhattan Beach -- and the
economic damage to real estate convinced Judge Gutierrez that
private landowners had been damaged as a class. Cappello said
even tenants and easement owners, as at Bonnymede and Santa
Barbara Shores, are included. A couple of his clients are Miramar
Beach residents who pay a higher rent to live at the beach, he
asserted, and suffered a loss.

"Plains had argued that the class definition was too vague,"
Cappello said, of the addition of private property owners,
renters, and easement owners as a class. "But with the last set
of briefings, the judge said, 'I don't need another hearing. I've
heard this so many times,'" when he certified the class. "And,"
Cappello went on, "the amount of oil that spilled? It's being
determined by the experts, but it may be as high as five to eight
times the Plains estimate." There is so far no timeline on when
the class action suits might have their day in court.[GN]


RELIANT CAPITAL: Faces "Avila" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reliant Capital
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Annmarie Avila,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Reliant Capital Solutions, LLC, an Ohio Limited
Liability Company, John and Jane Does numbers 1 through 10,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02718-ADS-ARL (E.D. N.Y., May 8,
2018).

Reliant Capital Solutions, LLC operates as a full service account
receivable management company. The Company provides its customers
various services including payment monitoring control, asset
searches, custom phone campaigns, and traditional third party
collections. Reliant Capital Solutions serves among others the
health care, automotive, retail, and commercial industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
   Kleinman, LLC
   626 RXR Plaza
   Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
   Tel: (516) 522-2621
   Fax: (888) 522-1692
   Emaill: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com


SAINT ANTHONY HOSPITAL: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Melendez Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Melendez and Mayra Hernandez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Saint Anthony
Hospital, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02838 (N.D. Ill., April 20,
2018) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Plaintiff Melendez worked for the Defendant between November 11,
1991 and December 10, 1998. She was rehired on April 16, 2001,
and constructively dismissed on October 27, 2017.

Saint Anthony Hospital operates as a community hospital focusing
on family health. Saint Anthony Hospital was founded in 1897 and
is based in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marty Denis, Esq.
          BARLOW, KOBATA & DENIS LLP
          525 West Monroe, Suite 2360
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Telephone: (312) 648-5570


SBE ENT HOLDINGS: "Hsiao" Privacy Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff has filed a Notice of Errata and Correction to
Plaintiff's Complaint in the case captioned as Tiffany Hsiao,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SBE ENT Holdings, LLC, and Does 1 to 10, Defendants,
Case No. 218-cv-03358 (C.D. Cal., April 24, 2018).

The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendant from engaging in the
wrongful conduct pertaining to the misuse and/or disclosure of
the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Identifiable
Information, and from refusing to issue prompt, complete, and
accurate disclosures to the Plaintiff and Class Members.

SBE ENT Holdings, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability
corporation doing business in Los Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com

               - and -

          J Paul Gignac, Esq.
          J PAUL GIGNAC, ESQ., APC
          15 W Carrillo Street, Suite 246
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 683-7400
          Facsimile: (805) 962-0722
          E-mail: jpg@foleybezek.com


SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE: Removes MSPA Claims' Suit to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, Plaintiff v.
SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, filed a notice to remove
the lawsuit from the Judicial Circuit Court of the State of
Florida, Miami-Dade County (Case No. 2016-012135-CA-01) to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and
assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-2125-KMM (S.D. Fla., April 18, 2018).

On July 8, 2016, the Defendant removed the State Court Action to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida with
assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-22965-FAM. On August 1, 2016, the
Plaintiff moved to remand the case. On August 29, 2017, an Order
Adopting Magistrate's Judge's Report and Recommendation and
Granting Motion to Remand was issued. Upon remand, the Defendant
moved to transfer the action to the state court Complex
Litigation Division on September 19, 2017, and that motion was
granted on February 2, 2018. On March 21, 2018, the Plaintiff
filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. The Amended
Complaint sought to add a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section
1395y(b)(3)(A). The State Court granted the Plaintiff's leave to
amend, deeming the proposed amended complaint filed on April 4,
2018.

Scottsdale Insurance Company provides insurance products and
financial services to customers in the United States. The company
offers commercial transportation, commercial property, excess and
umbrella, general liability, personal and professional line,
public entity, and veterinary pet insurance products. It serves
customers through a network of general agents, brokers, and
program managers. The company was founded in 1982 and is based in
Scottsdale, Arizona. Scottsdale Insurance Company operates as a
subsidiary of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E.K. Cottrell, Esq.
          John P. Marino, Esq.
          Kristen W. Bracken, Esq.
          SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
          50 North Laura Street, Suite 2600
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone No: (904) 598-6104
          Facsimile No: (904) 598-6204
          E-mail: ecottrell@sgrlaw.com
                  jmarino@sgrlaw.com
                  kbracken@sgrlaw.com

               - and -

          Nelson Bellido, Esq.
          ROIG, TUTAN, ROSENBERG, MARTIN,
          STOLLER & BELLIDO
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2100
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone No: (786) 476-1661
          Facsimile No: (305) 405-1022
          E-mail: nbellido@roiglawyers.com


SHASTA COUNTY, CA: Settlement in "Jewett" Has Prelim Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EVERETT JEWETT, LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH
CHILDREN, GLEN HAROLD EVERETT, MICHAEL DONALD ACKLEY, HAROLD
ROBERT MARQUETTE, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT, a public entity; TOM BOSENKO, as Sheriff of the
Shasta County; SHASTA COUNTY, a public entity; and CALIFORNIA
FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, INC. a private entity and DOES 1 through
25, in their individual capacities, Defendants, Case No. 2:13-cv-
0882 MCE AC (PC) (E.D. Cal.), Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
granted the Parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement.

On April 4, 2017, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification, certifying a class for declaratory and
injunctive relief.  Judge England finds, for purposes of
settlement only, and conditioned upon the entry of the Order and
the Final Judgment and Order Approving Settlement, that the
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
are met by the Settlement Class.  Accordingly, he certified the
proposed settlement class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(2), and appointed as the Class Representatives
Everett Jewett, Glen Harold Everett, Michael Donald Ackley; and
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and their counsel as
the Class Counsel.

The Judge hereby preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement
and the proposed Notice to the Agreement.  The Parties will
submit declarations to the Court as part of their Motion for
Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement confirming
compliance with the notice provisions of the Agreement.  A
hearing on final approval of the Agreement will be held before
the Court on a date to be set by the Court.

Objections by the Class Members may be submitted to the Class
Counsel no later than 30 calendar days after notice has begun.
Any Settlement Class Member who wishes to object to the proposed
Settlement Agreement may serve no later than 30 calendar days
after notice has begun.  Any Class Member who wishes to object to
the proposed Settlement Agreement may also present objections at
the Fairness Hearing.  The Class Counsel will provide copies of
any objections to the Defendants' counsel within 14 court days of
receipt.  The Class Counsel will also file any objections with
the Court at such time as they file their Summary of Objections.

Pending the Fairness Hearing, all class proceedings in the
Action, other than proceedings necessary to carry out and enforce
the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement and the
Order, are stayed.

In accordance with the above, Judge England adopted the following
schedule:

     a. Within three business days after entry of the Order
Granting Preliminary Approval, the Notice will be posted on the
Class Counsels' websites, and the Shasta County's official
website; and prominently posted in all Jail facilities operated
by the Defendants, including, but not limited to, all day rooms,
the out-patient medical pod, all visitation rooms, and the
visitor waiting room.  The Notice will remain posted for 30 days.

     b. Each Class Member will be given a full opportunity to
object to the proposed Settlement and the Class Counsel's request
for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.
Any Class Member seeking to object to the proposed Settlement may
submit an objection to the Class Counsel.

     c. Fourteen days prior to the objection deadline, the
Plaintiffs will file a Motion for an Award of Reasonable
Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses.  The hearing on that Motion
will be concurrent with the Fairness Hearing.

     d. Twenty days after the Plaintiffs file a Motion for an
Award of Reasonable Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses, the
Defendants will file an opposition to the aforementioned motion.

     e. Ten days after the Defendants file an opposition to the
Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of Reasonable Attorneys' Fees,
Costs, and Expenses, the Plaintiffs will file a reply to the
aforementioned opposition.

     f. The Parties will file a Summary of Objections and
Responses with the Court, if any, no later than 50 days after the
date of the posting of the Class Notice.

     g. The Parties will file a Joint Motion for Final Approval
and respond to objections, if any, no later than two days prior
to the Fairness Hearing.  All parties will file statements of
compliance with notice requirements.

     h. The Fairness Hearing will be held on June 28, 2018 at 2
p.m. in Courtroom 7, Robert T. Matsui United States Courthouse,
501 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 20, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/iOjHTr from Leagle.com.

Everett Jewett, Plaintiff, represented by Jon Ali Atabek, Atabek
& Associates, Maronel Barajas -- mbarajas_law@yahoo.com --
Disability Rights Legal Center, Steven P. Ragland --
sragland@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Ajay Sundar
Krishnan -- akrishnan@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP,
Anna Mercedes Rivera -- anna.rivera@drlcenter.org -- Disability
Rights Legal Center, Franco E. Muzzio -- fmuzzio@keker.com --
Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Joseph Taylor Gooch --
tgooch@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP & Mallory L.
Sepler-King -- mallory.sepler-king@drlcenter.org -- Disability
Rights Legal Center.

Glen Harold Everett, Michael Donald Ackley, Harold Robert
Marquette & Legal Services for Prisoners with Children,
Plaintiffs, represented by Maronel Barajas, Disability Rights
Legal Center, Steven P. Ragland, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP,
Franco E. Muzzio, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Joseph Taylor
Gooch, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP & Mallory L. Sepler-King,
Disability Rights Legal Center.

California Forensic Medical Group, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Jerome Martin Varanini, Law Offices of Jerome M. Varanini.

Shasta County Sheriff's Department, Sheriff Tom Bosenko & Shasta
County, Defendants, represented by Gary Charles Brickwood --
gb@brickwoodlaw.com -- Brickwood Law Office.


SHOE BOX: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Shoe Box, Inc.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Shoe
Box, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04136 (S.D. N.Y., May 8,
2018).

Family owned and operated since 1954, The Shoe Box stores enjoy
more than 50 years of experience in footwear and retail.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


STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS: Ludlow Appeals "Hedlund" Ruling to 2nd Cir
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Adam Ludlow, Daljit Singh, Kenneth Walsh and Marion
Beeler filed an appeal from the District Court's opinion & order
dated March 15, 2018, entered in their lawsuit titled KENNETH
HEDLUND, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS, INC., IVAN BERGSTEIN, and
DAVID GIONCO, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00832, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs accuse the Defendants of making false and/or
misleading statements and/or failing to disclose in relation to
the Company's secondary public offering on January 20, 2017, that
a cancer patient in a Stemline clinical trial tied to SL-401 died
from a severe side effect on January 18, 2017.

Stemline Therapeutics is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical
company that focuses on the discovery, acquisition, development,
and commercialization of proprietary oncology therapeutics in the
United States.

The appellate case is captioned as In re Stemline Therapeutics,
Case No. 18-1044, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Adam Ludlow, Daljit Singh and Kenneth
Walsh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          101 Greenwood Avenue
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 600-2817
          E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com

Plaintiff-Appellant Marion Beeler is represented by:

          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees Stemline Therapeutics, Inc., Ivan Bergstein,
David Gionco, Kenneth Hoberman, Ron Bentsur, Eric L. Dobmeier,
Kenneth Zuerblis, Jefferies LLC and Alan Forman are represented
by:

          Adam Michael Harris, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY LLP
          1211 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 596-9000
          Facsimile: (212) 596-9090
          E-mail: Adam.Harris@ropesgray.com


SWATCH GROUP: "Bishop" Suit Alleges ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. The Swatch Group (U.S.) Inc., dba Blancpain S.A.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-02728 (S.D. N.Y., March 27, 2018), is brought
against the Defendant for violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Blancpain
for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

Cedric Bishop is a resident of New York, New York. The Plaintiff
is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and a member of
a protected class of individuals under the ADA.

The Defendant operates Blancpain Timepiece stores as well as the
Blancpain website and advertises, markets, distributes, and/or
sells high-end Swiss Watches in the State of New York and
throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
      COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
      300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Tel: (929) 575-4175
      Fax: (929) 575-4195
      E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

          - and -

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


SYNACOR INC: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong 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 Synacor, Inc. ("Synacor") (NASDAQ:SYNC) securities
between May 4, 2016 and March 15, 2018.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
Company issued materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) Synacor was unlikely to receive
significant revenues from its contract with AT&T until 2018; (ii)
as such, the Company's revenue forecasts issued during the Class
Period were materially false and misleading; and (iii) as a
result of the foregoing, Synacor shares traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period, and class members
suffered significant losses and damages.

If you suffered a loss in Synacor 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/synacor-
inc?wire=3.

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Telephone: 212.425.1140
         Fax: 866.699.3880
         E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


TAG TOWING: 2 Class Lawsuits Filed Against Pittsburgh Companies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wpxi News reports that two Pittsburgh towing companies are facing
legal action.

Two class-action lawsuits were just filed against the companies,
accusing them of predatory and unjust practices.

Morgan Herzing said she didn't exceed the one-hour time limit
when she was towed from a lot on South Highland Avenue in
Shadyside.

"I was only there for about 20 minutes and I came back out and my
car was already gone," Herzing said.

She said it was late and the businesses the lot serves were
closed.

I talked to the tow truck driver and he said if I wanted to get
my car back it was $200 in cash," Herzing said.

She gave Howard's Towing $200.  She's now part of a class-action
lawsuit against them filed by attorney Joshua Ward, Esq.

"You're not to charge a tow fee for a nonconsensual tow for
excess of $135 dollars," said Ward,

Ward also filed a lawsuit against Tag Towing.  He said he
witnessed a woman being accosted by a Tag tow truck driver.

"There was Tag Towing. There a representative demanding $200
cash. I listened for about a minute while she was calling family
members. Nobody was able to help. She was very respectful, and it
moved me, in a way," Ward said.

Ward gave that woman $200 and then went home and saw our
extensive reporting on Tag Towing.

11 Investigates told you last spring customers accused the
company of gouging them for thousands of dollars.

Pittsburgh police even filed charges against the company's owner.

Ward said these practices are unfair and unjust.

"They're preying on the people of Pittsburgh, essentially,
holding their vehicles hostage and taking advantage of their
ignorance in the law," Ward said.

The next step is for a judge to decide if the issue is
appropriate for a class action.[GN]


TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Fernandez" Suit in E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Takeda
Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. The case is styled as Frank
Fernandez, a California consumer, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Takeda
Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., an Illinois corporation and Eli
Lilly & Company, an Indiana corporation, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-01142-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal., May 8, 2018).

Takeda Pharmaceuticals America Inc manufactures pharmaceutical
products. The Company offers products focused on treating serious
diseases and disorders, including bone and joint disorders,
cardiovascular disease, gastroenterology, gynecological disorders
and infectious disease.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Robert Brent Wisner, Esq.
   Baum HedlundAristie & Goldman, P.C.
   12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
   Los Angeles, CA 90025
   Tel: (310) 207-3233
   Fax: (310) 820-7444
   Email: rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com


TEMPOE LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Wagner" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
BRONSON WAGNER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, PLAINTIFF V. TEMPOE, LLC d/b/a WHY NOT LEASE
IT; and CALL CENTER SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 1-18-cv-01118-ELH (D. Md., April 19, 2018) seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited text messages and
prerecorded messages to cellular telephones without the
recipient's prior express written consent.

Tempoe LLC provides no credit required shopping solutions. The
Company offers types of payment options. TEMPOE serves furniture,
appliances, electronics, jewelry, mobile phones, and automotive
industries in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aimee Bader, Esq.
          ADVOCATE REAL ESTATE, LLC
          2029 Fleet Street
          Baltimore, MD 21231
          Telephone: (410) 499-6793

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28 th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: Law@StefanColeman.com

               - and -

          Ross Schmierer, Esq.
          DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
          Five Greentree Centre
          525 Route 73 N.
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 797-9951
          Facsimile: (856) 797-9958


TENET HEALTHCARE: Beats Kickback Class-Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Ayla Ellison, writing for Becker's Hospital Review Logo, reports
that the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on April 18 upheld
the dismissal of a lawsuit seeking to force Dallas-based Tenet
Healthcare to reimburse Hispanic women for travel and medical
expenses allegedly incurred as a result of a kickback scheme.

Here are six things to know about the lawsuit.

   1. In June 2015, Tenet disclosed it was the subject of a
criminal investigation by the Department of Justice. The
investigation, which dated back to 2012, arose out of a civil
lawsuit filed under the qui tam, or whistle-blower, provisions of
the False Claims Act. The suit alleged four Tenet hospitals paid
illegal kickbacks to Clinica de la Mama in Norcross, Ga., for
referring undocumented pregnant women, who were eligible for
emergency Medicaid coverage, to the hospitals to deliver their
babies. Clinica offered prenatal care and ancillary services to
predominantly uninsured and indigent Hispanic women.

   2. Tenet reached an agreement with the federal government to
resolve the criminal investigation and civil litigation in
October 2016. Tenet agreed to pay approximately $514 million,
plus related fees and expenses, to resolve the allegations.

   3. In December 2016, a patient who was referred by Clinica to
a Tenet hospital to deliver her babies sued Tenet. The patient,
who is referred to in legal documents as "S.B.," claims Clinica
advised her to enroll in an emergency Medicaid program in 2006,
and then assigned her to an obstetrician. Clinica allegedly told
S.B. she had to deliver her baby at Atlanta Medical Center, which
Tenet owned at the time, to ensure Medicaid covered her prenatal
and delivery costs. She delivered her baby at Atlanta Medical
Center and incurred expenses that exceeded her Medicaid coverage.

   4. In 2009, S.B. returned to Clinica after she conceived
twins. She was insured, but Clinica allegedly advised her to
enroll in the emergency Medicaid program because her insurance
would not cover the cost of her high-risk pregnancy. According to
the lawsuit, Clinica referred S.B. to a physician who told her
she was required to deliver her twins at Atlanta Medical Center.
S.B. once again incurred expenses that exceeded her Medicaid
coverage. In 2010, she learned her private insurance would have
covered her prenatal care and the delivery of her twins.

   5. Tenet asked the district court to dismiss S.B.'s original
lawsuit, and she then filed an amended complaint that included
several claims against Tenet, including fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. She
filed the lawsuit on behalf of herself and other Hispanic women
who incurred expenses as a result of the kickback arrangement.

   6. Tenet filed a motion to dismiss S.B.'s amended complaint,
which the district court granted. On April 18, the appellate
court upheld the dismissal, holding that the lawsuit failed to
state a claim for negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract
and fraud, and that the unjust enrichment claims were
untimely.[GN]


TEXAS FARM: Class in "Ferguson" FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER FERGUSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TEXAS FARM BUREAU
BUSINESS CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 6:17-CV-111-RP (E.D.
Tex.), Judge Robert Pitman of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division,
adopted Magistrate Judge Manske's report and recommendation
granting Ferguson's Motion for Conditional Certification and for
Notice.

The case concerns alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), by a handful of insurance companies.
Ferguson is an insurance agent who has been working for the TFB
Defendants since 2004.  According to him, he was misclassified as
an independent contractor from 2009 to 2013 and denied overtime
premiums required by the FLSA.   Accordingly, Ferguson asserts a
cause of action under the FLSA against each defendant for
willfully failing to pay overtime premiums.

Ferguson seeks certification of a collective action on behalf of
all current and former misclassified Agency Managers of the
Defendants who he says have been subject to a uniform
misclassification policy.

Before the Court is the report and recommendation of Magistrate
Manske concerning Ferguson's Motion for Conditional Certification
and Notice filed on May 8, 2017.  Also before the Court are the
timely objections filed by the Defendants.  The case was referred
to the Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation on the
merits pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b), Rule 72 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 1(d) of Appendix C of
the Local Rules of the Court.

In his report and recommendation, Magistrate Judge Manske
recommends that the Court grants Ferguson's motion and
conditionally certify the proposed class.  Having considered the
parties' submissions, the record, and the applicable law, Judge
Pitman adopted the report and recommendation.

Accordingly, the Judge conditionally certified the Class, for
purposes of providing notice to potential class members and
allowing potential class members to opt in, of all former and
current independent contractors of the Defendants, who within the
past three years have worked in the position of agency manager in
the State of Texas.

The Judge approved Ferguson's proposed Notice and Reminder
Notice.  Within 14 days of the date of the order, the Defendants
must provide the Plaintiff's counsel with the full name, last
known address, and email address of each Class member.  If they
cannot provide a Class member's current email address, they must
provide a current telephone number.

After Defendants have complied with their obligation to provide
the Plaintiffs' counsel with contact information, the Plaintiff's
counsel must send the approved Notice form to all identified
Class members (where available) within 10 days.  The Plaintiff's
counsel will notify the Court once delivery of the Notice is
complete.  The Class members may opt in to the collective action
only if: (1) they have mailed, faxed or e-mailed their Consent
Form to the Plaintiff's counsel within 45 days after the Notice
and Consent Forms are transmitted by the Plaintiff's counsel; or
(2) they show good cause for delay.

The parties will confer within 14 days after the entry of the
order and file an agreed proposed script for the telephone calls
authorized by the Order.  The Plaintiff's counsel may send the
approved Reminder Notice to any Class member who has not already
returned his or her consent form by the 15th day before the close
of the 45-day opt-in window.

Within seven days of the date of the Order, the parties will
submit to the Court a joint proposed scheduling order for the
completion of discovery limited to the final certification or
decertification of the conditionally certified class.  The joint
proposed order will include any discovery deadlines, a briefing
schedule for the Defendants' motion(s) to decertify the class,
and, if necessary, a hearing on the decertification motion(s).

A full-text copy of the Court's March 20, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/sgMuka from Leagle.com.

Christopher Ferguson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by April L. Walter,
Starzyk & Associates PC, Jeremi K. Young, The Young Law Firm,
Megan McGregor Mitchell, Starzyk & Associates P.C. & Michael
Starzyk, Starzyk & Associates PC.

Texas Farm Bureau, Texas Farm Bureau Business Corporation, Texas
Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, Texas Farm Bureau Mutual
Insurance Company, Texas Farm Bureau Underwriters & Farm Bureau
County Mutual Insurance Company of Texas, Defendants, represented
by Barry A. Moscowitz -- bmoscowitz@thompsoncoe.com -- Thompson,
Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP, Chantel Loren Lee --
clee@thompsoncoe.com -- Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP &
Laura Alaniz -- LAlanizElston@thompsoncoe.com -- Thompson Coe
Cousins & Irons, L.L.P.

Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by Aaron Stenzler Weiss -- aweiss@carltonfields.com -
- Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA, Cathleen Bell Bremmer --
cbell@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., pro
hac vice, Stephanie A. Fichera -- sfichera@carltonfields.com --
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., pro hac vice & Markham R.
Leventhal -- mleventhal@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields
Jorden Burt, P.A.


TOMMY HILFIGER: Faces "Olmedo" Suit over Phony Discounts
--------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Olmedo and Siobhan Morrow, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Tommy Hilfiger
Wholesale, Inc. Defendant, Case No. 37-2018-00019565-CU-MC-CTL
(Cal. Super., April 18, 2018) is an action regarding the
Defendant's misleading advertisement of false price discounts
from its regularly priced merchandise and corresponding phantom
savings on clothing, accessories, and other fashion apparel sold
in their "outlet", "factory", or "company" stores.

Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc was founded in 1994. The company's
line of business includes the retail sale of men's and boys'
ready-to-wear clothing and accessories. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Davis Alleges Wrongful Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Transworld Systems, Inc. and John Does
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01722-LMM-JFK (N.D. Ga., April
23, 2018), alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. The
case was assigned to Judge Leigh Martin May and referred to
Magistrate Judge Janet F. King.

Transworld Systems Inc. provides receivables collection and
management services. The Company offers profit recovery, and
medical, dental, and education collections, and outsourcing
services. Transworld Systems serves in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Braxton Mason, Esq.
          MASON LAW GROUP, LLC - GA
          Suite 200
          1100 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 920-8040
          Facsimile: (404) 920-8039
          E-mail: jmason@atlshowbizlaw.com


TRUECAR INC: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on behalf of investors who
purchased TrueCar, Inc. ("TrueCar") (NASDAQ:TRUE) securities
between February 16, 2017 and November 6, 2017.

Click here to learn about the case: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-
c/truecar-inc?wire=3. There is no cost or obligation to you.

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

If you suffered a loss in TrueCar you have until June 1, 2018 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve
as a lead plaintiff. 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/truecar-
inc?wire=3.

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Telephone: 212.425.1140
         Fax: 866.699.3880
         E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


TWO ROADS HOSPITALITY: Faces "Cruz" Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Two Roads
Hospitality LLC. The case is captioned as Pamela Cruz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Two Roads Hospitality LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-03357-MWF-MRW (C.D. Cal., April 20, 2018). The case is
assigned to Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald and referred to Judge
Michael R. Wilner.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J Paul Gignac, Esq.
          J PAUL GIGNAC, ESQ., APC
          15 W Carrillo Street, Suite 246
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 683-7400
          Facsimile: (805) 962-0722
          E-mail: jpg@foleybezek.com

               - and -

          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com


UBS: Employee Looks to Mount Age Discrimination Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Financial Advisor IQ, reports that in a
pending federal proposed class action age-discrimination lawsuit,
Alexander Beigelman, a former UBS managing director, alleges he
and other terminated UBS employees faced an unfair take it or
leave it choice unreasonably foisted on them by the wirehouse
when it laid them off.

Beigelman had to relinquish his rights to sue the wirehouse or
forfeit $500,000 in deferred compensation, he alleges. That was
on top of having already unfairly been forced to forfeit an
additional $468,000 for his prior year's bonus, since he was laid
off only days before UBS was scheduled to distribute that money,
according to his lawsuit.

As it happened, Beigelman refused to give up his rights and
instead opted to fight UBS to get the bonus, deferred
compensation, and, at the same time, preserve his right to sue
the wirehouse for age discrimination, according his lawyer, Linda
Friedman, Esq. -- lfriedman@bradley.com -- of Stowell & Friedman.
Friedman is no newcomer when it comes to suing wirehouses and has
won more than $300 million in class action settlements from them
for former employees.

"He just thought this was wrong," Friedman says about Beigelman.

For its part, UBS filed an appeal of a federal judge's ruling
that lets Beigelman pursue his claims. In its motions to dismiss
Beigelman's lawsuit, UBS has labeled it "meritless." A UBS
spokesman declines to comment on the pending litigation. Eugene
Scalia, Esq. -- escalia@gibsondunn.com -- a law partner in the
Washington, D.C. office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, and the son
of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who is
defending UBS against Beigelman's claims, did not return a call
for this story.

In its motions, however, UBS stresses Beigelman and other
terminated employees agreed to waive class action claims with a
mandatory arbitration agreement that they signed as part of their
initial job offer letters or terms of employment. UBS also argues
those arbitration agreements contractually bind Beigelman and
other former employees to arbitrate disputes before a panel
governed by Finra. As with most broker-dealer employers, UBS's
mandatory arbitration agreements with employees require any
disputes that arise go before a Finra-supervised arbitration
panel. Notably, Finra rules explicitly carve out an exception for
class-action claims and do not permit those to be arbitrated at a
Finra hearing.

When he began in 2007 at UBS Wealth Management in the firm's New
York and New Jersey offices, Beigelman was head of technical
architecture. By the time the wirehouse terminated him in January
2015, UBS had promoted Beigelman to managing director level. He
was responsible for implementing a $30 million-budgeted stability
program for software and IT that, he alleges, helped reverse
trends that had threatened to trigger a mass exodus of financial
advisors from UBS. Beigelman expected to receive $468,000 for his
2014-earned bonus alone.

But Beigelman didn't get his bonus, nor did he get three years'
worth of vested, deferred compensation -- an additional $500,000-
plus -- he alleges in his lawsuit, filed on behalf of himself and
a proposed class of former UBS employees. UBS also denied
terminated employees their deferred compensation if they, as
Beigelman had done, refused to sign an agreement releasing the
company of all liabilities, according to his lawsuit.

UBS gave Beigelman and others it was terminating "a Hobson's
choice" --  a take it or leave it offer, the lawsuit states. UBS
terminated Beigelman and others days before the wirehouse had
been scheduled to issue bonuses for their previous year's work,
he alleges. UBS also told Beigelman and others they had to sign a
release for all discrimination claims against UBS, or to prepare
to forfeit all earned incentive compensation, deferred
compensation, and severance pay, he alleges.

In its motions, UBS argues that because Beigelman has also made
all his claims against UBS -- with the exception of his proposed
class age discrimination claim -- before a Finra panel, he has
lost any rights to also pursue them in a federal court.

On March 7, a Finra panel agreed to UBS's request to dismiss
Beigelman's claim for his bonus. But the Finra panel would not
let UBS dismiss Beigelman's claim for his deferred compensation
and severance, and it would not let UBS claw back, as the
wirehouse has attempted, $10,000 it had previously distributed to
Beigelman.

According to UBS's motions to dismiss Beigelman's federal court
case, he has not made an argument worthy of overriding the
congressional policy under the Federal Arbitration Act that
favors arbitration prevailing when it's agreed upon.

In contrast, Beigelman argues he should be allowed to go forward
with a class action complaint because Finra rules specifically
carve out an exception for class actions and its panels will not
hear such complaints. He also argues that in other cases courts
determined that a provision of the National Labor Relations Act,
which allows workers the right to engage in collective actions
for "mutual aid or protection," bars employers from interfering
with employees exercising this right. Therefore, he argues the
class action waiver that UBS had added to its mandatory
arbitration agreements with its employees, including Beigelman,
is not enforceable.

In its motions, UBS has countered -- so far, unsuccessfully --
that the judge should wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a
ruling in a case pending before it. In that case, the court is
considering if the NLRA trumps the FAA. If the high court
determines NLRA doesn't trump FAA, UBS and other employers
nationwide who negotiate individual arbitration agreements with
NLRA-covered, or nonsupervisory employees, could eliminate the
risk of class actions by that category of workers with class-
action waivers in mandatory arbitration agreements. If the high
court determines the NLRA does trump the FAA, Beigelman will
still have to override UBS's contention that he was a supervisory
employee and therefore not covered by the NLRA.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly of the Northern District of
Illinois, who is presiding in the UBS litigation, sided largely
with Beigelman when he issued on March 19 a memorandum and order
denying the wirehouse's request to dismiss its former managing
director's complaint. In his order, Kennelly concludes that UBS's
class action waivers in its arbitration agreements are not valid
at this stage.

"The threshold problem with UBS's argument, however, is that the
parties' agreement incorporates Finra's rules, which include the
prohibition on arbitration of class and collective actions,"
Kennelly writes. In the same order, though, Kennelly noted that
Beigelman had not shown that his arbitration agreement was
unenforceable based on UBS fraudulently inducing him to sign it.

For his part, Beigelman has filed a post-hearing brief with the
Finra panel seeking to recoup his bonus.

Friedman, Beigelman's lawyer, expresses confidence that her
client should prevail. She has represented hundreds of wirehouse
employees who have filed class actions against their employers
and alleged discrimination. In the 1990s, she was one of the
lawyers representing women plaintiffs who filed sexual harassment
claims against then-Smith Barney, since acquired by Merrill
Lynch, and won $150 million in arbitrations and settlements. The
lawsuit was infamously named the "boom-boom room lawsuit" taking
its moniker from a basement party room at Smith Barney's branch
office in Garden City, N.Y. In 2013, Friedman represented a class
of African-American employees who filed race discrimination
claims against their employer Merrill Lynch and secured an $160
million settlement.

Her experience litigating against other wirehouses convinces
Friedman that UBS has unfavorably distinguished itself among its
industry peers with its layoff practices. "What they did is not
the industry practice and custom," Friedman says. "I'm not aware
of any other firm that routinely lays people off at the
completion of the year before they get their bonuses," she says.

UBS also separates itself from its wirehouse peers -- in a bad
way -- by linking terminated employees' deferred compensation to
its own get-out-of-jail card, so to speak, she says.

"I'm not aware of any other firm that requires to sign a release
of liabilities to get that deferred compensation," Friedman says.
The class action waivers that are in UBS's mandatory arbitration
agreements attempt to establish Teflon-like protection allowing
the wirehouse's managers to discriminate without consequence, she
says. If those class-action waivers are deemed enforceable, a UBS
manager arguably could bluntly tell employees they were being
terminated because they were black, and the employees would have
no legal recourse unless they were ready to forsake their earned
deferred compensation.

"If a company's manager walks around insulated from any
litigation because it bars employees from filing claims and bars
class actions, it changes behavior," Friedman says -- and she
doesn't mean for the better. "We thought it was a heavy-handed
policy that had a negative impact on people in protected classes
--  women, African-Americans and more senior workers," Friedman
says about the UBS approach.

Friedman expresses no faith in getting a Finra panel to resolve
these issues fairly. Outcomes from Finra panels rarely rank as
fair to employees or former employees challenging wirehouses, she
argues.

"It's a game that they control," she says about the wirehouses
and Finra panels. "They control the rules -- it's not a place for
creating a civil rights record," she says.

In Beigelman's lawsuit, Friedman refers to UBS's policies as "a
bait-and-switch scheme to deprive its employees of their earned
compensation and avoid liability for discrimination."

To portray UBS as scheming, Friedman describes in Beigelman's
complaint changes UBS made to its compensation agreements on
February 28, 2013. Specifically, UBS altered its definition of
"redundant" employees who merited their deferred compensation to
include only those who lost their jobs during a RIF and also
signed a release of all claims. UBS made this change, which set
up the "Hobson's choice" Beigelman confronted, without telling
employees, simply by inserting it into the appendix of a document
separated from compensation agreements entitled "Common Terms,"
according to Beigelman's lawsuit.

Merrill Lynch and Wells Fargo do not have such language in their
compensation agreements, nor do they include class action waivers
in their employees' mandatory arbitration agreements, according
to Friedman.

"UBS lags behind the country in terms of its hiring and
employment of diverse employees. Rather than comply with the
civil rights laws and integrate its workforce, UBS blocks
discrimination lawsuits by imposing mandatory arbitration
agreements and class action waivers on its employees,"
Beigelman's complaint states.

An outside observer, Sandra Sucher minces few words about UBS's
alleged approach for terminating employees. "It's a pretty
unethical practice," says Sucher, who is a professor at Harvard
Business School, who frequently writes about corporate layoff
policies and has an upcoming article on the topic in the May/June
issue of the Harvard Business Review. "They really do have these
employees over a barrel financially. It is fundamentally unfair
to not allow people to be compensated for their prior work. It
sort of says, 'Just kidding' about paying people fairly," Sucher
says.  [GN]


UNITED STATES: Federal Court Grants Insurers Class Action Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Morse, writing for Healthcare Finance, reports that a
federal court has granted class action status to insurers that
sold plans through the Affordable Care Act and have not gotten
cost-sharing reduction payments.

Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative brought the lawsuit against
the United States over CSRs and the government program risk
corridors in December 2017.

On April 17, U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Margaret Sweeney
granted class action status to all persons and entities offering
qualified health plans under the ACA for the 2017 or 2018 benefit
year that made CSR payments to eligible beneficiaries, but which
did not receive payment from the federal government.

The government has until May 18 to provide a list of plaintiffs
of potential class action members, the court said.

The ACA's cost-sharing reduction payments gave insurers federal
dollars to help them subsidize the deductibles and other out-of-
pockets costs for qualifying consumers in the market.

Republican leaders under President Barack Obama sued over the
CSRs, saying Congress never appropriated the funds. They won
their case.

When Donald Trump became president, he was free to end the CSRs
at will, and did so in October 2017. But insurers were still
required under ACA law to help pay the out-of-pocket costs for
lower income beneficiaries. Many increased premiums on exchange
plans to help cover the cost.

Maine Community Health Options, an insurance co-op, Sanford
Health Plan in South Dakota and the Montana Health co-op all
filed lawsuits over the end of the CSRs.[GN]


UNITED STATES: Security-Widefield Contamination Suit Lingers
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Sierra, writing for ABC's News Channel 13, reports that
it's been close to a year since Peterson Air Force Base admitted
their fire fighting foam contaminated water and soil in Fountain
and Security-Widefield. Now, time is running out for those
affected to join a class-action lawsuit against several
manufacturers of the foam.[GN]


UNITED STATES: Christy Inc. Files Suit in Court of Federal Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the USA. The case
is styled as CHRISTY, INC., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. USA, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-
cv-00657-MMS (COFC, May 9, 2018).

The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean. Major Atlantic Coast
cities are New York, a global finance and culture center, and
capital Washington, DC. Midwestern metropolis Chicago is known
for influential architecture and on the west coast, Los Angeles'
Hollywood is famed for filmmaking.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Timothy Carl Davis, Esq.
   Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC
   2224 1st Avenue North
   Birmingham, AL 35203
   Tel: (205) 326-3336
   Email: tim@hgdlawfirm.com


VALEANT PHARMA: Quebec Court OKs Bringing of Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF AUTHORIZATION (CERTIFICATION) AND THE GRANTING OF LEAVE
TO PROCEED WITH STATUTORY SECONDARY MARKET MISREPRESENTATION
CLAIMS

THIS NOTICE IS TO certain investors in the common share and note
securities of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.
("Valeant") during the period from and including February 28,
2013 to and including October 26, 2015 ("Class Period") other
than certain persons and entities associated with the defendants,
further described below ("Class" and "Class Members").

THE AUTHORIZATION ORDER

On August 29, 2017, the Honourable Justice Chantal Chatelain of
the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec authorized the
bringing of the securities class action in:

Catucci et al
v
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc et al

Court File No. 500-06-000783-163 ("Valeant Canadian Class
Action"). By virtue of this Order, the Court authorized
(certified) the Valeant Canadian Class Action, and appointed the
class action plaintiffs, Mr. Celso Catucci and Ms. Nicole Aubin,
as representative plaintiffs for the Class, defined as follows:

Primary Market Sub-Class: All persons and entities, wherever they
may reside or may be domiciled, who, during the Class Period,
acquired Valeant's Securities in an Offering, and held some or
all of such Securities at any point in time between October 19,
2015 and October 26, 2015, excluding any claims in respect of
Valeant's Securities acquired in the United States (but not
excluding any claims in respect of Valeant's 4.50% Senior Notes
due 2023 offered in March 2015); and

Secondary Market Sub-Class: All persons and entities, wherever
they may reside or may be domiciled who, during the Class Period,
acquired Valeant's Securities in the secondary market and held
some or all of such Securities at any point in time between
October 19, 2015 and October 26, 2015, excluding any claims in
respect of Valeant's Securities acquired in the United States.

Excluded from the Class are the defendants,1 members of the
immediate families of the individual defendants, and the
directors, officers, subsidiaries, and affiliates of Valeant and
its subsidiaries.

Pursuant to the Court's Order, you are a Class Member if you meet
the description provided in Appendix "A."

The Valeant Canadian Class Action will now proceed to trial as a
securities class action involving claims for damages for
misrepresentation in Valeant's disclosure documents. The Court
has identified the issues that will be dealt with collectively
and the conclusions sought, which are set out in Appendix "B."
The Valeant Canadian Class Action will proceed in the judicial
district of Montreal, Province of Quebec.

Authorization is a procedural matter that defines the form of the
class action litigation. The merits of the claims in the action,
or the allegations of fact on which the claims are based, have
not been finally determined by the Court. The defendants dispute
the claims asserted against them.

THE NATURE OF THE CLAIMS ASSERTED

The Valeant Canadian Class Action asserts that the defendants
made materially false or misleading statements, or omitted to
disclose information required to make other statements not
misleading, in certain of Valeant's disclosure documents released
during the Class Period (the "Impugned Documents"). The Impugned
Documents include annual reports, interim unaudited and annual
audited financial statements, management's discussion and
analyses, and primary market offering documents of Valeant issued
during the Class Period.

The defendants in the Valeant Canadian Class Action are: Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International Inc.; J. Michael Pearson; Howard B.
Schiller; Robert L. Rosiello; Robert A. Ingram; Ronald H. Farmer;
Theo Melas-Kyriazi; G. Mason Morfit; Dr. Laurence Paul; Robert N.
Power; Norma A. Provencio; Lloyd M. Segal; Katharine B.
Stevenson; Fred Hassan; Colleen Goggins; Anders O. Lonner;
Jeffrey W. Ubben; PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP; Goldman, Sachs &
Co.; Goldman Sachs Canada Inc.; Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.;
Barclays Capital Inc.; HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.; Mitsubishi UFJ
Securities (USA) Inc.; DNB Markets Inc.; RBC Capital Markets LLC;
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC; SunTrust Robinson Humphrey Inc.;
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; CIBC World Markets Corp.; SMBC
Nikko Securities America Inc.; TD Securities (USA) LLC; J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated; and BMO Capital Markets Corp.

The alleged misrepresentations relate to two matters:

Valeant's relationship with certain specialty pharmacies,
including but not limited to Philidor RX Services LLC, and the
disclosure of that relationship and the related risks with
respect to Valeant; and

Valeant's business practices and its compliance with financial
reporting obligations under the applicable standards.

As a result of the alleged misrepresentations, it is alleged that
Class Members paid too much when they acquired Valeant securities
during the Class Period, and suffered damages when the alleged
misrepresentations were publicly corrected in October of 2015 and
thereafter.

Primary Market Claims

On behalf of the Primary Market Sub-Class, the Valeant Canadian
Class Action asserts claims under Title VIII, Chapter II,
Division I of the Quebec Securities Act ("QSA") and, if
necessary, the concordant provisions of the securities
legislation of the other Canadian Provinces and Territories, as
well as Art. 1457 of the Civil Code of Quebec ("CCQ").

The claims of the Primary Market Sub-Class are asserted against:
Valeant; J. Michael Pearson; Howard B. Schiller; Robert A.
Ingram; Ronald H. Farmer; Theo Melas-Kyriazi; G. Mason Morfit;
Dr. Laurence Paul; Robert N. Power; Norma A. Provencio; Lloyd M.
Segal; Katharine B. Stevenson; Fred Hassan; Colleen Goggins;
Anders O. Lonner; Jeffrey W. Ubben; PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP;
Goldman, Sachs & Co.; Goldman Sachs Canada Inc.; Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc.; Barclays Capital Inc.; HSBC Securities (USA)
Inc.; Mitsubishi UFJ Securities (USA) Inc.; DNB Markets Inc.; RBC
Capital Markets LLC; Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC; SunTrust Robinson
Humphrey Inc.; Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; CIBC World Markets
Corp.; SMBC Nikko Securities America Inc.; Td Securities (USA)
LLC; J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith Incorporated; and BMO Capital Markets Corp.

Secondary Market Claims

On behalf of the Secondary Market Sub-Class, the Valeant Canadian
Class Action asserts claims under Title VIII, Chapter II,
Division II of the QSA and, if necessary, the comparable
provisions of the securities legislation of the other Canadian
Provinces and Territories, as well as Art. 1457 of the CCQ.

On August 29, 2017, the Honourable Justice Chantal Chatelain of
the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec also granted leave
to the plaintiffs to proceed with the statutory secondary market
misrepresentation claims under Title VIII, Chapter II, Division
II QSA. Leave of the Court was a necessary precondition to the
assertion of these claims.

Leave under the QSA has been granted against: Valeant J. Michael
Pearson; Howard B. Schiller; Robert L. Rosiello; Robert A.
Ingram; Ronald H. Farmer; Theo Melas-Kyriazi; G. Mason Morfit;
Dr. Laurence Paul; Robert N. Power; Norma A. Provencio; Lloyd M.
Segal; Katharine B. Stevenson; Fred Hassan; Colleen Goggins;
Anders O. Lonner; Jeffrey W. Ubben; and PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP.

The claims asserted for the Secondary Market Sub-Class under the
QSA and the securities legislation of the other Canadian
Provinces and Territories are subject to liability limits, which
may cap the amount of damages that can be recovered from each
defendant by way of the Valeant Canadian Class Action or any
other class or individual proceeding asserting claims under the
QSA or comparable provisions of the securities legislation in any
other province or territory. If the Secondary Market Sub-Class is
successful at trial, it is possible that the damages may exceed
the damages caps, if applicable. The claims under Art. 1457 CCQ
are not subject to liability limits.

If you wish to pursue other claims against the defendants
relating to the matters at issue in the Valeant Canadian Class
Action, you should immediately seek independent legal advice.

DO NOTHING IF YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CLASS ACTION

Class Members who want to participate in the Valeant Canadian
Class Action are automatically included and need not do anything
at this time.

YOU MUST OPT OUT IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE BOUND BY THE CLASS
ACTION

Each Class Member who does not opt out of the Valeant Canadian
Class Action will be bound by the terms of any judgment or
settlement, whether favourable or not, and will not be allowed to
prosecute an independent action.

Class Members who do not want to be bound by the outcome of the
Valeant Canadian Class Action must "opt out," meaning that they
must exclude themselves from the Valeant Canadian Class Action.

If you wish to opt out of the Valeant Canadian Class Action, you
must complete, sign and return the Opt-Out Form provided at
Appendix "C" to RicePoint Administration Inc.

In order for your opt-out to be valid, your complete and signed
Opt-Out Form must be postmarked or received by RicePoint
Administration Inc. by no later than June 19, 2018.

A Class Member who opts out will not be entitled to participate
in the Valeant Canadian Class Action.

CLASS COUNSEL AND LEGAL FEES

The class action plaintiffs and the Class in the Valeant Canadian
Class Action are represented by a consortium of Canadian law
firms consisting of Siskinds LLP, Faguy & Co, Siskinds Desmeules,
Koskie Minsky LLP, Rochon Genova LLP, Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP,
Morganti & Co., PC and Investigation Counsel PC ("Class
Counsel"). Class Counsel is conducting the litigation on a
contingent fee basis.

In the event of success in the Valeant Canadian Class Action,
class counsel will make a motion to the Court to have their fees
and disbursements approved.

As a Class Member, you will not be required to pay any costs in
the event that the Valeant Class Action is unsuccessful.

Class Members have the right to seek intervenor status in the
Valeant Canadian Class Action. A Class Member who intervenes in
the class action may be required to pay legal costs arising from
the class action.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

This notice has been approved by the Superior Court of the
Province of Quebec. The Court offices cannot answer any questions
about the matters in this notice. The Orders of the Court and
other information in both languages are available on Class
Counsel's websites at http://www.siskinds.com/valeant/and
http://www.faguyco.com/class-actions/.

Questions relating to the Valeant Canadian Class Action may be
directed to Class Counsel:

         Siskinds LLP
         Suite 302, 100 Lombard Street
         Toronto, ON, Canada  M5C 1M3
         Telephone: +1.800.461.6166 ext. 4390 (toll free)
         Telephone: +1.416.594.4390 (outside North America)
         Email: sajjad.nematollahi@siskinds.com

         Contact:
         En francais:

         Faguy & Co.
         329 de la Commune St W
         Montreal, QC, Canada  H2Y 2E1
         Telephone: +1.514.285.8100
         Email: classactions@faguyco.com


NOTICE TO BROKERAGE FIRMS

Please deliver this notice by email to your clients who purchased
Valeant's securities during the Class Period and for whom you
have valid email addresses. If you have clients who purchased
Valeant's securities during the Class Period for whom you do not
have valid email addresses, please contact RicePoint
Administration Inc. to obtain hard copies of this notice for the
purpose of mailing the notice to those clients. Brokerage firms
may request up to $15,000 in total for the expenses relating to
the distribution of this notice to the Class Members. If the
amounts submitted in aggregate exceed $15,000, each brokerage
firm's claim shall be reduced on a pro rata basis.

         Contact:
         Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.
         Securities Litigation
         c/o RicePoint Administration Inc.
         PO Box 4454, Toronto Station A,
         25 The Esplanade
         Toronto, ON, Canada
         M5W 4B1 [GN]


VOYA FINANCIAL: Patrico Appeals Opinion to Second Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Lisa Patrico filed an appeal from a District Court
opinion and order dated March 13, 2018, in her lawsuit styled
Patrico v. Voya Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-cv-7070, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiff brings this putative class action on behalf of all
participants and beneficiaries of the Nestle 401(k) Savings Plan
and All Other Similarly Situated Individual Account Plans.  She
claims that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties and
engaged in self-interested transactions in violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act by charging excessive
fees for investment advisory services offered to 401(k) plan
participants.

The appellate case is captioned as Patrico v. Voya Financial,
Inc., et al., Case No. 18-1057, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Lisa Patrico, On behalf of The Nestle 401(K)
Savings Plan and all other similarly situated Individual Account
Plans, is represented by:

          James A. Bloom, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          E-mail: jbloom@schneiderwallace.com

Defendants-Appellees Voya Financial, Inc.; Voya Institutional
Plan Services, LLC; Voya Investments Management, LLC; and Voya
Retirement Advisors, LLC, are represented by:

          James Frederick Jorden, Esq.
          JORDEN BURT LLP
          1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 965-8135
          E-mail: jjorden@carltonfields.com


WALMART INC: Faces "Dowell" Suit Over Racial Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cedric Dowell and Rochelle Daniels, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Walmart Inc.; West
Berlin Walmart Supercenter; John Does 1-5; and 6-10, Defendants,
Case No. CAM-L-001502-18 (N.J. Cal., Camden Cty., April 20, 2018)
alleges that the Plaintiffs suffered discrimination on the basis
of race in the course of public accommodation.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs, being an African
American, as they were exiting the facility of the Defendants, an
employee of the Defendants stopped them to check their receipts.
While they were awaiting on the view of their receipts, the
Plaintiffs remarked that they disliked coming to Walmart because
of the long lines. Thereafter, the employee of the Defendants
then remarked "If you niggers don't like it, you can shop at
ShopRite." As a result of that discrimination, the Plaintiffs
experienced emotional pain and suffering.

Walmart Inc. engages in the retail and wholesale operations in
various formats worldwide. The company was formerly known as
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and changed its name to Walmart Inc. in
February 2018. Walmart Inc. was founded in 1945 and is based in
Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel T. Silverman, Esq.
          COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
          18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 727-9700


WELLS FARGO: Hammered by Feds for Auto Loan Insurance Scam
----------------------------------------------------------
David Kiley, writing for Forbes, reports that Wells Fargo was hit
on April 20 with a $1 billion fine from the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau and the Office of The Comptroller of the
Currency to punish the bank for disregarding its own advertising
promise to lock in interest rates on mortgages, as well as
coercing consumers to pay for insurance on top of their auto
loans that they did not need. Each offense carried a cost of $500
each.

Wells Fargo has been caught over the last two years violating
numerous regulations, including opening unauthorized accounts for
customers as a means for the bank's sales force to meet quotas
and earn bonuses for new business. That initial scandal cost CEO
John Stumpf his job in 2016. He was replaced by CFO Tim Sloan,
who was selected by the bank's board despite his apparent
culpability in Wells Fargo's unprincipled practices.

Sloan's selection and tenure has not played well with Democratic
lawmakers. Last fall, Sen. Elizabeth Warren excoriated Sloan in
hearings, specifically over the auto loan scandal. "At best, you
were incompetent, and at worst, you were complicit," Warren told
him. "Either way, you should be fired."

The crux of the new penalties are this: When a mortgage closing
dragged on due to Wells Fargo's administrative issues, and not
the customer, the bank charged customers to keep the rates
locked, despite this being specifically mentioned in Wells
Fargo's own advertising language. In the case of auto loans, the
bank forced unnecessary and unwanted insurance on hundreds of
thousands of borrowers who already had insurance. When customers
pointed this out, the bank often failed to remedy the problem,
"lost" the complaint and did not refund the money.

How did Wells Fargo's culture get so toxic for its customers?
Cindy Schipani, a professor at the Stephen M. Ross School of
Business (where Wells Fargo CEO Tim Sloan is an adviser), writing
in Harvard Business Review last year, said companies often tell
their employees one thing, but reward them for bad behavior.

"Nobody wakes up in the morning and says, 'I'm going to become a
white-collar criminal today.' But when there's money on the
table, the wrong behavior can emerge. Wells Fargo, for example,
discouraged sham-account fraud. In ethics workshops, employees
were specifically warned not to create fake accounts and credit
cards to boost sales numbers. But a recent class action suit
alleges that Wells Fargo actively promoted those who stole
customer identities, opened sham accounts, and pressured
customers into purchasing unwanted or unnecessary accounts. An
environment that rewards such conduct is a breeding ground for
unprincipled behavior."

CEO Sloan said on April 20 in a press release: "These orders
affirm that we share the same priorities with our regulators and
that we are committed to working with them as we deliver our
commitments with focus, accountability, and transparency. Our
customers deserve only the best from Wells Fargo, and we are
committed to delivering that."

According to the CFPB, Wells Fargo will "remediate harmed
consumers" and address the risk and compliance issues that
precipitated the unfair practices.

Republicans, including President Donald Trump, have been open
about wanting to shutter the CFPB. Yet, under Acting Director
Mick Mulvaney, the bureau has, in fact, levied its heftiest fine.
"I am especially pleased that we were able to work closely and
effectively with our colleagues at the OCC, and I appreciate the
key role they played in the negotiations," said Mulvaney in a
press release. "As to the terms of the settlement: we have said
all along that we will enforce the law. That is what we did
here."

Well Fargo is not out of the woods yet. The bank still the target
of an ongoing investigation ongoing into practices by its wealth
management division.

Even being under the scrutiny of Congress and regulators, and
admitting serial offenses against its own customers, Wells Fargo
shares have not been too badly beaten down. A year ago, the
bank's shares were trading at $53 and they hit a 52-week high of
$66 in January. Wells stock was trading at $52 on April 20.[GN]


WELLS FARGO: Royal Park Strikes Out Again in MBS Trustee Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that it's been a
tough few months for Royal Park Investments and its lawyers at
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd. On April 17, U.S. District Judge
Katherine Polk Failla of Manhattan refused to certify a class led
by Royal Park, which sued Wells Fargo for failing in its duties
as the trustee of two mortgage-backed securities trusts. Judge
Failla adopted the recommendation of the magistrate in the Wells
Fargo case, U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn, who found
individual issues -- including constitutional standing to sue,
timeliness of claims and potential damages - predominated over
common issues for investors in the trusts overseen by Wells
Fargo.

As Judge Failla noted, she is actually the fourth Manhattan
federal judge to deny class certification in an MBS trustee suit
by Royal Park -- and the third since the beginning of 2018.  U.S.
District Judge Alison Nathan issued her denial of Royal Park's
renewed class certification motion in an MBS trustee case against
Deutsche Bank. U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield denied class
certification in January in Royal Park's suit against HSBC. Last
August, U.S. District Judge Gregory Woods refused to certify an
investor class against MBS trustee BNY Mellon, though Royal Park
has filed a renewed motion for class certification in that case.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero hasn't yet ruled on class
certification in a fifth Royal Park trustee class action, this
one against U.S. Bank, but his colleagues' decisions will
undoubtedly weigh on his analysis. As Judge Failla wrote in this
week's Wells Fargo ruling, judges' reasons for denying class
certification in these MBS trustee cases has evolved in light of
last summer's precedent from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals on ascertaining class membership, but "none has found
that a class action would be an appropriate vehicle for
prosecuting such a case," the judge wrote. "The court finds no
reason to chart a new course here."

Just over a year ago, I told you that MBS noteholders had fared
better than trustees hoped in fending off dismissal motions, but
that lawyers for the trustees planned to make post-dismissal
litigation as tough as possible for investors, demanding loan-by-
loan, trust-by-trust proof. Royal Park's disappointing track
record on class certification is a pretty good indicator that MBS
trustees made a smart strategic decision to keep litigating
instead of settling investor class actions. I'm not aware of any
MBS trustee that has settled a noteholder class action claiming
the trustee breached its duties to investors. I'd guess the Royal
Park rulings make such a settlement increasingly unlikely.

Royal Park has been a determined plaintiff, too. The Brussels-
based company, which consists of onetime assets of Fortis Bank,
exists only to prosecute MBS litigation claims. Its lawyers at
Robbins Geller fought hard to get the New York cases to class
certification, only to see them falter.

The author emailed two of the Robbins Geller lawyers, Lucas Olts,
Esq. -- lolts@rgrdlaw.com -- and Darryl Alvarado, Esq. --
dalvarado@rgrdlaw.com -- to ask what's next for Royal Park, but
didn't hear back. Wells Fargo is represented by Jones Day, Esq.,
and Drinker Biddle & Reath. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: More Refunds Coming After $1 Billion Fine
------------------------------------------------------
Spencer Tierney, writing for WFMY News 2, reports that Wells
Fargo agreed on April 20 to pay $1 billion in penalties after the
bank was fined by two federal regulators -- the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau and the Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency. If you have had an auto or home loan at the bank,
you could get money back for any wrongfully charged fees.

The fines, the highest ever imposed by the CFPB, are in response
to abusive practices from about 2005 to 2017 that cost thousands
of Wells Fargo home and auto loan customers millions in fees. The
$1 billion doesn't include amounts that consumers could receive
in refunds. The CFPB also ordered the bank to create plans to
improve internal business practices and pay back consumers.

What customers can do now

Auto loans: If Wells Fargo has contacted you or you have
questions, call the auto lending number at (800) 289-8004. The
bank is in the process of identifying affected customers and how
much they will be refunded.

Mortgages: Call the bank's home lending number at (800) 357-6675
if you have questions. Wells Fargo had expected the refund
process to be done by the end of 2018, but because of April 20's
penalties, a new timeline hasn't been determined.

Retail banking customers affected by a previous $142 million
class-action lawsuit can also file a claim. If you had any
credit, checking or savings accounts opened in your name from May
1, 2002, to April 20, 2017, you may be eligible to receive money.
The deadline to file a claim is July 7, 2018. The instructions
can be found at this website.

Creating plans to pay back customers
Although Wells Fargo couldn't confirm the exact number of
customers affected or the total fees or other costs that have
already been refunded, a representative told NerdWallet the bank
would be sending two comprehensive plans to regulators within the
next 30 days. The plans will address how Wells Fargo will
identify the auto and home loan customers who are eligible for
refunds and how much money they'll get.

But these plans could alter efforts underway to pay back auto and
home loan consumers. The bank began mailing refunds Aug. 31,
2017, and has delivered about 235,000 checks for a total of $11.7
million. The bank estimated in its 2017 annual report that it
expects to reimburse about $182 million to auto loan consumers,
including checks and credits to Wells Fargo accounts, but this
total could change. The bank hasn't finalized the amount due to
mortgage customers.

For mortgage customers who got a loan between 2013 and 2017,
Wells Fargo said it would offer anyone who's paid rate lock
extension fees, a refund plus interest if the fees on the
mortgage resulted in additional interest.

What is the penalty for?
The penalty is in response to two separate kinds of abusive
practices that the bank originally admitted to last year:

Mortgages: Wells Fargo charged about 110,000 home loan borrowers
for mortgage rate lock extensions, even when the bank was at
fault for delays that led to extensions, from Sept. 16, 2013, to
Feb. 28, 2017. This resulted in consumers paying $98 million in
extension fees.

When getting a mortgage, a consumer can lock in an interest rate
for a fixed period, such as for 90 days. If the scheduled date
for closing on a home needs to be pushed back because of
construction or other delays, the borrower can request an
extension. But Wells Fargo charged the extension fee even when
the bank caused delays.

Car loans: The CFPB says the bank forced hundreds of thousands of
auto loan customers from Oct. 15, 2005, through Sept. 30, 2016,
to pay for collateral protection insurance unnecessarily. The
CFPB order states that at least 27,000 customers might have had
their cars repossessed from 2011 to 2016 in part because of the
extra insurance.

When getting an auto loan, consumers can be required to have auto
insurance that covers collision and other damages. Wells Fargo
enforced a policy of collateral protection insurance in cases
where consumers didn't have adequate insurance but even tacked it
on at least 490,000 consumers who already had appropriate
insurance.[GN]


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Objections to "Abarca" Class Cert. Overruled
----------------------------------------------------------------
IN the cases, EZEQUIEL OLIVARES ABARCA, ALFREDO ALESNA Jr., DAVID
CAGLE, STEPHEN L. DAVIS, FRANK EADS and KENNETH J. SURMAN,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated;
Plaintiffs, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., DRIVERS MANAGEMENT, LLC,
and DOES 1-100, inclusive; Defendants. WILLIAM SMITH, on behalf
of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public; Plaintiff, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., a
corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive; Defendants, Case Nos.
8:14CV319, 8:15CV287 (D. Neb.), Judge Joseph F. Bataillon of the
U.S. District Court for the Nebraska overruled the objections
filed by Werner to the Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") of the
U.S. Magistrate Judge on the Plaintiffs' renewed motions for
class certification.

These are consolidated actions for alleged violations of wage and
hour laws.  The actions were removed from Superior Court for the
State of California, County of Alameda, to the U.S. District
Court for the Norther District of California under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1446(b) and then transferred to this court under the
doctrine of forum non conveniens.  The Court has jurisdiction
under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").

Defendant Werner objects to the Magistrate Judge's determination,
arguing (1) the recommendation is contrary to law because the
Magistrate Judge incorrectly concluded that California law
applies to drivers who are residents of California, when they are
picking up or dropping off a load in California, and Nebraska law
applies to those drivers (even when they are in California) and
all other drivers; (2) the Magistrate Judge F&R erroneously
suggests that any choice of law problems could be resolved by
limiting the California class to California residents; (3) the
California Class is impermissibly overbroad and violative of
Werner's due process rights; (4) or the Magistrate Judge erred in
determining, contrary to controlling California law, that the
reason a driver skipped a meal or rest break is not relevant to
whether Werner is liable for failing to provide breaks; (5) the
Magistrate Judge erred in failing to consider the importance of
the supplemental and discretionary pay drivers receive for non-
driving time; (6) the Magistrate Judge erred in failing to
recognize the numerous individual issues that plague the
Plaintiffs' improper deductions claims; (7) the Magistrate Judge
erred in failing to consider a key change in the law applicable
to the Plaintiffs' pay statement claims; (8) there are individual
issues with regard to whether any driver is estopped from
pursuing California claims, the calculation of the Plaintiffs'
claimed damages, the Plaintiffs' dependent unfair competition
claims, and Werner's affirmative defenses; and (9) the F&R
contains certain factual findings that are clearly erroneous.

Judge Bataillon has conducted a de novo review and finds the F&R
should be adopted.  For the most part, he finds that Werner
restates the arguments it made before the Magistrate Judge.  The
Judge overrules those objections for the reasons stated in the
F&R.  Also, Werner's objections generally relate to issues that
are not germane to the determination of whether questions of law
or fact are appropriate for class consideration, but relate to
the merits of the class claims.

The Judge agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the legality of
class-wide policies on compensation for all hours of work,
payment of minimum wages, payroll deductions, wage statements,
and meal and rest breaks are questions capable of resolution
through common evidence that can be resolved once for the entire
class.  The Plaintiffs' claims hinge on the question of whether
Werner's nationwide system of compensation violates the law.  To
the extent any of Werner's contentions ultimately prove
meritorious, Werner has a remedy in creation of subclasses, or,
ultimately, in a motion to decertify the class.

Accordingly, Judge Bataillon overruled the objections filed by
Werner and adopted the F&R of the Magistrate Judge in its
entirety.  He granted the Plaintiffs' renewed motions for class
certification.

These classes are certified:

     a. California Class: All truck drivers who were or are
California residents and who, while working for Werner, picked up
and/or dropped off a load in the state of California after the
completion of training at any time since four years before the
filing of the legal action until such time as there is a final
disposition of the lawsuit.

     b. Nebraska Class: All truck drivers who worked or work
anywhere for Werner after the completion of training at any time
since four years before the filing of the legal action until such
time as there is a final disposition of the lawsuit.

The Judge appointed Abarca, Alesna, David Cagle, Davis, Eads,
Smith, and Surman as the class representatives; and Justin L.
Swidler and Richard S. Swartz of Swartz Swidler LLC; James M.
Sitkin of Law Offices of James M. Sitkin; David A. Borgen, Laura
L. Ho, and Raymond A. Wendell of Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian &
Ho; and William D. Turley, David T. Mara, and Jamie Serb of the
Turley Law Firm are appointed as the Class Counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 20, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/cRxiRw from Leagle.com.

William Smith, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff,
represented by David A. Borgen -- dborgen@gbdhlegal.com --
GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN LAW FIRM, David T. Mara --
dmara@turleylawfirm.com -- TURLEY LAW FIRM, Jamie Serb --
jserb@turleylawfirm.com -- TURLEY LAW FIRM, Raymond A. Wendell --
rwendell@gbdhlegal.com -- GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN LAW FIRM & William D.
Turley -- bturley@turleylawfirm.com -- TURLEY LAW FIRM.

Werner Enterprises, Inc., a corporation, Defendant, represented
by Brandon J. Crainer -- bcrainer@fraserstryker.com -- FRASER,
STRYKER LAW FIRM, Elizabeth A. Culhane --
ECULHANE@FraserStryker.com -- FRASER, STRYKER LAW FIRM, Joseph E.
Jones -- jjones@fraserstryker.com -- FRASER, STRYKER LAW FIRM &
Kathryn A. Dittrick -- KDITTRICK@FraserStryker.com -- FRASER,
STRYKER LAW FIRM.


XOOM ENERGY: Mirkin Alleges Improper Pricing of Utilities
---------------------------------------------------------
Susanna Mirkin and Boris Mirkin, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Xoom Energy, LLC and
Xoom Energy New York, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 507892/2018,
alleges improper pricing practices of the Defendants that caused
thousands of New York consumers to pay many millions of dollars
more for their residential gas and electricity than they should
otherwise have paid.

XOOM Energy, LLC, through its subsidiaries, supplies electricity,
renewable energy, and natural gas solutions to residential, small
business, mid-market, and large commercial customers in
deregulated energy markets in North America. The company was
founded in 2011 and is based in Huntersville, North Carolina. It
has additional offices in Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, and Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven L. Wittels, Esq.
          J. Burkett McInturff, Esq.
          Tiasha Palikovic, Esq.
          WITTELS LAW, P.C.
          18 Half Mile Road
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Telephone: (914) 319-9945
          Facsimile: (914) 273-2563
          E-mail: slw@wittelslaw.com
                  jbm@wittelslaw.com
                  tpalikovic@wittelslaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel Hymowitz, Esq.
          HYMOWITZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
          1629 Sheepshead Bay Road
          Brooklyn, NY 11235
          Telephone: (718) 807-9900
          Facsimile: (866) 521-6040
          E-mail: daniel@hymowitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrey Belenky, Esq.
          Dmitry Kheyfits, Esq.
          KHEYFITS P.C.
          1140 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 203-5399
          Facsimile: (212) 203-6445
          E-mail: abelenky@kheyfits.com
                  dkheyfits@kheyfits.com


XPO LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Molina" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
DORA MOLINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. XPO LOGISTICS PORT SERVICES, LLC; XPO PORT
SERVICES, INC.; XPO LOGISTICS, INC.; XPO LOGISTICS PORT SERVICES,
INC., and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. BC703113 (Cal.
Super., April 20, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for
unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for
missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Molina was employed by the Defendants as a non-
exempt hourly employees in California.

XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics
services in the United States, North America, France, the United
Kingdom, Spain, Europe, Asia, and internationally. The company
offers its services to customers in various industries, such as
retail, e-commerce, food and beverage, manufacturing, technology
and telecommunications, aerospace and defense, life sciences,
healthcare, medical equipment, and agriculture. XPO Logistics,
Inc. was founded in 1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Yeremian, Esq.
          Roman Shkodnik, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230-8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
          E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com
                  roman@yeremianlaw.com


* Possible Class Suit After Spirit of 1770 Sinking
--------------------------------------------------
Julia Bartrim, writing for The Observer, reports that John
Clayton, of Lady Musgrave Cruises, plans to launch a multi-
million-dollar class action law suit against an unspecified
party.

In a letter he provided to The Observer, Mr Clayton says the
class action will sue for compensation for the damage caused to
himself personally and to the towns of Seventeen Seventy and
Agnes Water through loss of tourist dollars.

Mr Clayton's family-owned business ground to a halt with the
sinking of its catamaran, the Spirit of 1770, on May 11, 2016.

The cruise business started operating again in February, but with
a much smaller carrying capacity.

Prior to the sinking, Mr Clayton said they had been taking up to
300 tourists to Lady Musgrave Island daily, drawing large numbers
of holiday-makers to the Discovery Coast townships.

The Observer has obtained a copy of the letter Mr Clayton has
sent to local businesses to explore the possibility of a class
action.

After the sinking of the catamaran, local accommodation-providers
saw guest numbers plummet.

Simon Della Santa opened Lagoons 1770 Resort and Spa three years
ago and said he had expected his business to grow by about 10 per
cent in its second year.

But when LMC was forced to close down, his bookings went
backwards.

"I can safely say it's fantastic (LMC) is (back) up and running,"
he said.

"We need more consistent access to the reef."
Elvis Ferinac, owner/operator of family-run business 1770
Getaway, also experienced a significant decline in guest numbers
after the sinking.

"It was a huge hit when Lady Musgrave stopped," he said.

Mr Clayton, whose battle to re-start the beleaguered company is
well-known, stated in his letter he would be seeking $7 million
personally to compensate for lost profits, and ongoing stress.

He said anyone with a business reliant on or impacted by the
sinking could "put their hands up" and join the class action.[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  * * *