CAR_Public/180523.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Wednesday, May 23, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 103



                            Headlines


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: 2d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Marentette"
ACETO CORP: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action Lawsuit
ACETO CORP: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
ADVANCED CALL: Faces "Allen" Suit in E.D. New York
ADVANCED CARE: Manning Sues over Background Checks

ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: RM Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
ALLIANT CAPITAL: Faces "Hollander" Suit in E.D. New York
ALLSAINTS RETAIL: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Myhre Balks at Evergreen Merger Deal
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Bartholomew Sues over Evergreen Merger Deal

APPLE INC: iPhone Owner Dismisses Class Action Without Prejudice
ASSET RECOVERY: Martin Sues over Debt Collection Practices
BALDWIN MUTUAL: Court Reverses "McCain" Class Certification
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Sept. 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
BEECHER'S HANDMADE: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York

BERKSHIRE HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Systemic Wage Theft
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Osorio Seeks OT Compensation under FLSA
CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION: Court Certifies Class in "Henceroth" Suit
CJFOUR INC: Faces "Mejia" Suit in S.D. New York
COLONY NORTHSTAR: Klein Law Firm Commences Class Action

COMPASS GROUP: Faces "Thomas" Suit in Calif. Super. Court
CONVERGENT COMMERCIAL: Faces "Torres" Suit in New Jersey
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Espinoza" Suit in New Jersey
CVS PHARMA: Class Dismisses Privacy Violations Claims
DANONE NORTH: Organic Milk False Labeling Class Action Tossed

DE WELL: Fails to Pay Overtime and Minimum Wages, McCalebb Says
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Hearing Set for Class Action Settlement
DREAM CONCEPTS: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Pyrilis Claims
EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Suit
ENCORE HOSPITALITY: Lau Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code

ENERMEX INTERNATIONAL: Gonzalez Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
EXPERIAN INFO: Hotchkiss Says Tax Liens Info Inaccurate
FAIRMOUNT SANTROL: Schneider Balks at Unimin Merger Deal
FINALE BUILDING: Faces "Morales" Suit in S.D. New York
FOCUS CONSUMER: Hertel Sues over Dietary Cholesterol Supplement

FUJITSU TECHNOLOGY: Judge Awards $3.7MM in Attorneys' Fees
GARDENA HOSPITAL: Fails to Pay Regular & OT Pay, Rodriguez Says
GC SERVICES: Johnson Sues over Debt Collection Practices
GEICO CASUALTY: "Butta" Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
GLOSSIER INC: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York

GOLDEN GATE: Settlement in "Jama" Suit Has Prelim Approval
GOOGLE INC: Supreme Court to Review 8.5MM Class Action Settlement
HARTSDALE DIAGNOSTIC: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
HARVARD COLLECTION: Faces "Smith" Suit in M.D. Tennessee
IDAHO: Sued for Allegedly Depriving Students of "Free Education"

INDOCHINO APPAREL: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Fischler Says
INVESTMENT TECH: Filing of 2nd Amended Securities Suit Denied
ITG INC: Mauthe Sues over Unsolicited Fax Advertisements
JANSSEN PHARMA: Excluded Evidence Led to Defense Verdicts
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Faces "Capmbell" Suit in E.D. Wisconsin

KEURIG GREEN: Settlement in "Sanchez" Suit Has Prelim Approval
LANCELOT INVESTMENT: Aug. 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
LAW OFFICES HOWARD: Faces "Truglio" Suit in Connecticut
LEASE SUPERVISOR: Court Denies Bid to Transfer "Mallory" Suit
LEON KROUS: Fails to Pay Overtime & Minimum Wages, Sanchez Says

LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces Class Action Over Felons' Right to Vote
LUCKY 99: Gomez Sues over Wage and Hour Laws Violation
LYFT INC: Drivers' Pay Scheme "Deceptive", Villasenor Says
LYFT: Class Action Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Approval
MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Brower Piven Files Class Suit

MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
MADISON GLOBAL: $343K Settlement in "Surdu" Has Final Approval
MAGIC PLASTICS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Garcia Says
MARINER HEALTH: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Valentine Says

MARS PETCARE: "Hull" Suit Moved to Central District of California
MEDICAL ARTS: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
MEHDI MEDICAL: Mauthe Sues over Unsolicited Fax Advertisements
MILWAUKEE: Settles Stop-and-Frisk Class Action for $1.9MM
MONSANTO COMPANY: Lovetts Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

NEW ROCHELLE: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
NYC TAXI: Voluntary Dismissal of "Nnebe" Remaining Claims Granted
OAK HILL ACADEMY: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Norwood" ADA Suit
OMNITRITION INT'L: Court Dismisses "Pattison" with Leave to Amend
ONLINE INFORMATION: Faces "Kelly" Suit in E.D. New York

OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Klein Law Firm Commences Class Action
PERFORMANCE TEAM: Underpays Employees, Torres Claims
PHH CORPORATION: Franchi Balks at Merger Deal with Ocwen
PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA: Ramsey Sues over 401(k) Plan Losses
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Gomes Sues over Debt Collection Practices

PREMIER INSURANCE: Underpays Workers, Balbastro Claims
PRIME ASCOT: Apartment Infested with Mice, Leaser & Wongsaroj Say
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Faces "Espinoza" Suit in New Jersey
PUMA'S AUTO: Faces "Cortez" Suit in E.D. New York
PURDUE PHARMA: City of Los Angeles Files Suit Over Opioid Crisis

QUINSTREET INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Lawsuit
REV1 POWER: "Hall" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
REVIVAL HOME: "Kaiser" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
SANMEDICA INT'L: Anti-Aging Product Doesn't Work, Pizana Claims
SANOFI-AVENTIS: Robins Kaplan Seeks to Consolidate Taxotere Cases

SECURITY CREDIT: Faces "Anderson" Suit in M.D. Tennessee
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Arguello Says
SPOKANE, WA: School-Zone Speeders Seek Class Action Lawsuit
SQUARE INC: Faces "Woodle" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
SUPERIOR ACCESS: Mittelmark Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing

TEXAS: Settlement Requiring Air Conditioning at Prison Okayed
TEZOS: Securities Class Action Split Into Two Proceedings
THINK FINANCE: "Gibbs" Transferred to N.D. Tex.
TIGER BRANDS: Listeria Class Action Team Commends Transparency
TRANS UNION: Mello Sues over Employee Background Check

TREK TRAVEL: Faces "King" Suit over Unpaid Overtime Wages
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: $8.1MM Settlement Obtains Final Court Approval
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Lawsuits Over Unsolicited Text Messages
UNITED STATES: Suit Targets Cuts to Teen Pregnancy Prevention
UNITED STATES: Bid to Review "Campbell" Dismissal Denied

UTAH: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Remick" Suit
VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Pangelinan Sues over Debt Collection
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Can Compel Arbitration in "Sidney" Suit
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Prosecutors Unseal Conspiracy Charges v. Ex-CEO
WALMART: Faces Class Action Over E. Coli-Tainted Lettuce

WCA WASTE: "Rios" Suit Seeks Unpaid Compensation under FLSA
WELLS FARGO: Customer Must Amend Mortgage-Fraud Claims
WILLIAMS COS: 10th Cir. Affirms Securities Class Action Dismissal
WN 1380: Class Action Mulled Over Emergency Landing
ZUFFA LLC: UFC Fans Settle Suit Over Mayweather vs. McGregor Suit




                            *********


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: 2d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Marentette"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Brian Cogan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment dismissing the
case, SARA MARENTETTE, MATTHEW O'NEIL NIGHSWANDER, ELLEN
STEINLIEN, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee, Docket No. 17-62-cv (2d Cir.).

Three parent consumers filed a putative class-action complaint
against Abbott, alleging that Abbott violated New York and
California statutes and common law by advertising and selling
Similac infant formula branded as organic and bearing the "USDA
Organic" seal when the formula contained ingredients not
permitted by the Organic Foods Production Act ("OFPA")

According to the operative first amended complaint, Parents
purchased Similac Advance Organic Infant Formula at various times
from August 2012 through August 2014.  The formula's packaging
states that it is organic and displays the "USDA Organic" seal.

The Parents allege that they purchased Similac Organic formula
after seeing and relying on the word "organic" and the "USDA
Organic" seal on the packaging, and that these labels led them to
believe that the formula was organic.  They allege that the
Similac Organic formula was falsely labeled because it contains
16 ingredients1 that are prohibited by the OFPA, and that the
formula is therefore not organic.  They brought statutory
consumer-protection claims, common-law breach-of-express-warranty
claims, and common-law unjust-enrichment claims under New York
and California law, all based on their false-labeling allegation.

Abbott moved to dismiss, arguing primarily that the Parents'
state-law claims were preempted by the Act under the doctrine of
conflict preemption (specifically, obstacle preemption), because
permitting Parents to sue under state law for a label authorized
by a certification scheme enacted by Congress would thwart
Congress's purpose in enacting that scheme. Abbott also argued
that Parents' claims were expressly preempted, along with other
defenses.

After oral argument on the motion, the district court granted
Abbott's motion to dismiss solely on conflict-preemption grounds.
Citing the Eighth Circuit's decision in In re Aurora Dairy Corp.
Organic Milk Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, the district
court concluded that the Parents' challenge to the organic label
on Abbott's products was in essence a challenge to the USDA-
accredited certifying agent's certification decision itself, and
that the state-law causes of action therefore posed an obstacle
to Congress's objectives in enacting the OFPA.

After the district court denied the Parents' motion for leave to
amend the complaint a second time, the Parents appealed the order
dismissing their first amended complaint.  The Court held oral
argument on Aug. 23, 2017.  After oral argument, the Court
solicited the views of the United States Department of
Agriculture as amicus curiae on two questions related to the
certification process and the USDA's regulations: (1) whether the
certification process requires the certifying agent to review and
approve the ingredients of the final product to be labeled
organic, and (2) whether certification is co-extensive with
statutory and regulatory compliance, that is, whether products
made in accordance with a properly certified plan will
necessarily comply with the OFPA.

The USDA responded on Oct. 6, 2017.  Its amicus brief stated that
certifying agents review and approve both the process and the
ingredients of the final product to be labeled organic, but
generally do not inspect or certify batches of products.  The
USDA also explained that certification is intended to be
coextensive with compliance, but that it may not be if a plan is
improperly certified or if a producer or handler changes the plan
after certification

Judge Cogan concludes that the Parents' claims are preempted.  He
says there is simply no way to rule in the Parents' favor without
contradicting the certification decision in In re Aurora Dairy
Corp. Organic Milk Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, and,
through it, the certification scheme that Congress enacted in the
OFPA.

The Judge finds that the Parents' primary argument rests on a
false premise -- that their claim that Abbott's products violate
federal law is distinct from a claim that Abbott falsely or
wrongfully obtained its organic certification.  The Judge sees no
such distinction.  The Parents allege that although Abbott's
product was certified as organic pursuant to the OFPA, the
product is not actually organic under the Act.  This position, he
says, necessarily undermines Congress's purpose in enacting the
OFPA, because it demands adjudication of a product's organic
status separate and apart from the scheme Congress laid out in
the law.  Unlike the state-law claims that survived in Aurora,
these claims are indeed state law challenges to the certification
decision itself, rather than state law challenges to the facts
underlying certification.

Because determining whether the Parents have meritorious state-
law claims requires the Court to look behind Abbott's
certification granted pursuant to a federal scheme, those state-
law claims are an obstacle to the federal scheme's objectives and
are preempted.  The enforcement scheme that Congress actually
provided, which allocates enforcement power to the federal agency
and accredited agents, is further evidence that Congress did not
want to permit individual consumers to challenge certification
decisions made pursuant to the OFPA.  The lack of private right
of action in the statute, and the complex enforcement scheme that
Congress did enact, combined with the statute's explicit
purposes, suggest that Congress did not want individuals to be
able to challenge the merits of a decision to certify a product
as organic under the OFPA.

In light of his conclusion that the Parents' claims are preempted
by federal law, the Judge says he needs not address Abbott's
remaining arguments based on primary jurisdiction, failure to
exhaust, or failure to state a claim.  Accordingly, he affirmed
the judgment of the district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/create.php from Leagle.com.

YVETTE GOLAN -- ygolan@tgfirm.com -- The Golan Firm, Washington,
DC (D. Greg Blankinship -- gblankinship@fbfglaw.com -- Todd Seth
Garber -- tgarber@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-
Pearson & Garber, LLP, White Plains, NY; Kim Richman --
ker@kerichman.com -- The Richman Law Group, Brooklyn, NY, on the
brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellants Sara Marentette, Matthew O'Neil
Nighswander, and Ellen Steinlien.

SCOTT GLAUBERMAN (Shawn J. Gebhardt -- sgebhardt@winston.com --
on the brief), Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-
Appellee Abbott Laboratories, Inc.

Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Mark B.
Stern, Joshua M. Salzman, United States Department of Justice;
Carrie F. Ricci, Mai P. Dinh, United States Department of
Agriculture, for Amicus Curiae United States Department of
Agriculture, in support of neither party.


ACETO CORP: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., disclosed that a complaint has been filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the
common stock of Aceto Corporation ("Aceto" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ GS: ACET) between August 25, 2017 and April 18, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain
of its officers (the "Complaint").

If you purchased shares of Aceto during the Class Period, or
purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Aceto,
and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Seth D.
Rigrodsky or Timothy J. MacFall at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 300
Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, by
telephone at (888) 969-4242, or by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and
omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company's business,
operations and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges
that the defendants concealed from the investing public that: (i)
due to undisclosed competitive and pricing pressures, Aceto was
unlikely to meet the performance metrics the Company provided to
its investors as financial guidance; (ii) accordingly, Aceto's
financial guidance was overstated; and (iii) as a result of the
foregoing, Aceto's financial statements and Defendants'
statements about Aceto's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. As a
result of defendants' alleged false and misleading statements,
the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during
the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, on April 18, 2018, after the market
closed, Aceto disclosed that "the financial guidance issued on
February 1, 2018, should no longer be relied upon," and suspended
"further financial guidance for at least the balance of the
fiscal year." Aceto also disclosed that "the Company anticipates
recording non-cash intangible asset impairment charges, including
goodwill, in the range of $230 million to $260 million on certain
currently marketed and pipeline generic products as a result of
continued intense competitive and pricing pressures." Aceto also
disclosed the resignation of its Chief Financial Officer, Edward
Borkowski, who had joined Aceto just two months earlier.

On this news, shares of Aceto declined over 64%, closing at $2.66
per share on April 19, 2018, on heavy trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than June 25, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or
may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

         Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
         Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
         Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
         Telephone: 888-969-4242
                    516-683-3516
         Fax: 302-654-7530
         E-mail: tjm@rl-legal.com [GN]


ACETO CORP: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP disclosed that
purchasers of Aceto Corporation  have filed a class action
complaint against the company's officers and directors for
alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between
August 25, 2017 and April 18, 2018. Aceto, together with its
subsidiaries, sources, markets, sells, and distributes finished
dosage form generics, nutraceutical products, pharmaceutical
intermediates and active ingredients, agricultural protection
products, and specialty chemicals.

According to the complaint, Aceto assured investors that the
company's internal control over financial reporting was
effective. In reality, Aceto failed to implement proper internal
control to identify the misapplication of cash. Aceto began to
reveal its troubles on November 3, 2017, when it disclosed that
the company's system of internal control failed to generate a
report to assure that the aging of trade receivables was
accurate. Aceto's problems became more apparent on February 1,
2018, when the company revealed a net loss of $13.9 million,
compared to a net loss of $0.6 million in the previous year's
comparable quarter. Aceto finally announced on April 18, 2018,
that its 2018 fiscal year earnings guidance should no longer be
relied upon and that it anticipates recording non-cash intangible
asset impairment charges in the range of $230 million to $260
million. On this news, Aceto's stock plummeted over 64% to close
at $2.66 per share on April 19, 2018.

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

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


ADVANCED CALL: Faces "Allen" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advanced Call
Center Technologies, LLC. The case is styled as Clease Allen,
Mary Altonen and Igor Sidorkin, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Advanced Call Center
Technologies, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02873 (E.D. N.Y.,
May 14, 2018).

Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC provides contact center
and back office support services to companies in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


ADVANCED CARE: Manning Sues over Background Checks
--------------------------------------------------
TISHA MANNING, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, ADVANCED CARE SCRIPTS, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-00716-GAP-DCI (Fla. Cir., 9th
Judicial, May 9, 2018), seeks to recover damages under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act of 1970.

The Defendant owns and operates a pharmacy business in Orlando,
Florida. The Defendant routinely obtains and uses information in
consumer reports to conduct background checks on prospective and
current employees, and frequently relies on such information, in
whole or in part, as a basis for taking adverse employment
action, such as termination of employment, reduction in working
hours, demotion, failure to hire, and failure to promote. The
Defendant willfully violated these requirements, thereby
systematically violating Plaintiff s rights and the rights of
other putative class members.

Advanced Care provides specialty pharmacy management services for
patients on biotech therapies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: 813 224 0431
          Facsimile: 813-229 8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfblaw.com
                  twells@wfclaw.com


ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: RM Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C., disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased
Allegiant Travel Company (NASDAQ: ALGT) ("Allegiant" or the
"Company") publicly traded securities between June 8, 2015 and
April 13, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Allegiant shareholders may, no later than June 25, 2018, move the
Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class.  If you
purchased shares of Allegiant and would like to learn more about
these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299.

Allegiant focuses on the provision of travel services and
products to residents of under-served cities in the United
States. The company offers scheduled air transportation on
limited frequency nonstop flights between under-served cities and
leisure destinations.

The Class Period commences on June 8, 2015, when The Enquirer
reported that the company issued a statement in connection with
an Allegiant plane that was forced to make an emergency landing
in Florida after smoke was detected in the cabin shortly after
takeoff. The company stated afterward that the safety of its
passengers and crew were its "number one priority."

According to the complaint, on April 13, 2018, CBS News announced
it would air a 60 Minutes segment on April 15, 2018, criticizing
the company's safety and maintenance record. Following this news,
shares of Allegiant fell $14.20 per share or over 8.59% to close
at $151.05 per share on April 13, 2018.

Then, on April 15, 2018, CBS News aired a 60 Minutes report
revealing that: (i) Allegiant aircraft had a high number of
serious mechanical incidents from mid-2015 through October 2017;
(ii) Allegiant lacks the infrastructure and personnel to
adequately maintain their aircraft; and (iii) Allegiant has
discouraged pilots from reporting safety and maintenance issues.
Following this news, shares of Allegiant fell $4.65 per share or
over 3% to close at $146.40 per share on April 16, 2018.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that (1) Allegiant lacked adequate systems to ensure
its aircraft were being properly maintained; (2) consequently,
Allegiant was not operating responsibly and ethically, and
providing safe working conditions for its employees; and (3) as a
result, the defendants' public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than June 25,
2018, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed 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.  Under certain circumstances, one or more
class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your
ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the
decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may
retain RM LAW, P.C. or other counsel of your choice, to serve as
your counsel in this action.

         Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
         RM LAW, P.C.
         1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300
         Berwyn, PA 19312
         Telephone: 484-324-6800
                    844-291-9299
         E-mail: rm@maniskas.com [GN]


ALLIANT CAPITAL: Faces "Hollander" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alliant Capital
Management, LLC. The case is styled as Rosa Hollander,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Alliant Capital Management, LLC, Oliphant Financial
Group, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02808
(E.D. N.Y., May 10, 2018).

Alliant Capital Management, LLC is a collections agency in
Amherst, NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ALLSAINTS RETAIL: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allsaints Retail
Limited. The case is styled as Kathleen Sypert, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allsaints
Retail Limited and Allsaints USA Limited, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-04213 (S.D. N.Y., May 10, 2018).

All Saints Retail Limited retails various collections for women
and men in the United Kingdom and internationally.[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


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Myhre Balks at Evergreen Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
JOHN MYHRE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMTRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,
DONALD T. DECARLO, SUSAN C. FISCH, ABRAHAM GULKOWITZ, GEORGE
KARFUNKEL, LEAH KARFUNKEL, RAUL RIVERA, MARK SEROCK, and
BARRY ZYSKIND, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04175 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 9, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting
in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or
closing a proposed merger transaction, and in the event
Defendants consummate proposed transaction, rescinding it and
setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on March
1, 2018, pursuant to which AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. will
be acquired by Evergreen Parent, L.P., an entity formed by
private equity funds managed by Stone Point Capital LLC, together
with Barry Zyskind, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, in
which Parent will acquire the approximately 45% of the Company's
issued and outstanding common shares that the Karfunkel-Zyskind
family and certain of its affiliates and related parties do not
presently own or control.

On March 1, 2018, AmTrust's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Parent and
Evergreen Merger Sub, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, shareholders of AmTrust will receive $13.50 per share
in cash. On April 9, 2018, defendants filed a proxy statement
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement
omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges that defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement.

AmTrust Financial is a New York City-based multinational property
and casualty insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 683 3516


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Bartholomew Sues over Evergreen Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES BARTHOLOMEW, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMTRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES,
INC., DONALD T. DECARLO, SUSAN C. FISCH, ABRAHAM GULKOWITZ,
GEORGE KARFUNKEL, LEAH KARFUNKEL, RAUL RIVERA, MARK SEROCK, and
BARRY ZYSKIND, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04178 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 9, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants and all persons acting
in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or
closing a proposed merger transaction, and in the event
Defendants consummate the Proposed Transaction, rescinding it and
setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on March
1, 2018, pursuant to which AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. will
be acquired by Evergreen Parent, L.P., an entity formed by
private equity funds managed by Stone Point Capital LLC, together
with Barry Zyskind, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, George
Karfunkel, and Leah Karfunkel, in which Parent will acquire the
approximately 45% of the Company's issued and outstanding common
shares that the Karfunkel-Zyskind family and certain of its
affiliates and related parties do not presently own or control.

On March 1, 2018, AmTrust's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Parent and
Evergreen Merger Sub, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, shareholders of AmTrust will receive $13.50 per share
in cash. On April 9, 2018, the Defendants filed a proxy statement
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement
omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges herein that
defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement.

AmTrust Financial is a New York City-based multinational property
and casualty insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 683 3516

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324 6800


APPLE INC: iPhone Owner Dismisses Class Action Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
an iPhone owner dismissed without prejudice on May 14 his federal
class action accusing Apple computers of intentionally slowing
the operating system in older phone models.

Attorneys for Plaintiff Keaton Harvey, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated:

     Jeffrey L. Fazio, Esq.
     Dina E. Micheletti, Esq.
     FAZIO | MICHELETTI LLP
     2410 Camino Ramon, Suite 315
     San Ramon, CA 94583
     Tel: 925-543-2555
     Fax: 925-369-0344
     Email: jlf@fazmiclaw.com
            dem@fazmiclaw.com

        -- and --

     Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
     Amy E. Keller, Esq.
     DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
     Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: 312-214-7900
     Fax: 440-953-9138
     Email: alevitt@dlcfirm.com
            akeller@dlcfirm.com


ASSET RECOVERY: Martin Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Kadjah Martin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC and
John Does 1-25, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-11484-LJM-RSW
(E.D. Mich., May 9, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory relief
under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

According to the complaint, First Premier Bank or a subsequent
owner of the First Premier Bank debt contracted with the
Defendant to collect the alleged debt. The Defendant collects and
attempts to collect debts incurred or alleged to have been
incurred for personal, family or household purposes on behalf of
creditors using the United States Postal Services, telephone and
internet.

On or about June 8, 2017, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff an
initial contact notice regarding the alleged debt owed to First
Premier Bank. When a debt collector solicits payment from a
consumer, it must, within five days of an initial communication
(1) the amount of the debt; (2) the name of the creditor to whom
the debt is owed; (3) a statement that unless the consumer,
within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the
validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be
assumed to be valid by the debt collector; (4) a statement that
if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the
thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is
disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt
or a copy of the judgment against the consumer and a copy of such
verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the
debt collector; and (5) a statement that, upon the consumer's
written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector
will provide the consumer with the name and address of the
original creditor, if different from the current creditor.

The Defendant is aware that during the collection of this debt
the balance will not vary at all and stating that it may increase
is merely a deceptive collection tactic. The threat of a balance
increase overshadows the "g-notice" language and coerces the
consumer not to exert her rights under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act. This language is confusing to Plaintiff since it
is unclear as to whether or not the account was actually
currently accruing interest. The Plaintiff incurred an
informational injury because Defendant falsely threatened that
interest may be accruing on her account when Defendant knew that
it was not. As a result, Plaintiff felt pressure to pay
immediately in order to avoid additional interest on the account.
As a result of Defendant's deceptive, misleading and unfair debt
collection practices, Plaintiff has been damaged.

Asset Recovery is a full service asset recovery management
company that is committed to establishing unmatched standards of
performance.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          RC Law Group, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282 6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282 6501


BALDWIN MUTUAL: Court Reverses "McCain" Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Baldwin Mutual Insurance Company, v. Gloria Mitchell
McCain, Case No. 160093 (Ala.), Judge Brad Mendheim of the
Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the order of the Montgomery
Circuit Court certifying for class treatment pursuant to Rule 23,
Ala. R. Civ. P. the action filed against it by McCain.

McCain owned a house in Montgomery and was insured by Baldwin
Mutual.  The insurance policy provides that, any covered property
losses would be settled at actual cash value at the time of loss
but not exceeding the amount necessary to repair or replace the
damaged property.

McCain's house was damaged by a windstorm in 2005 and by a
lightning strike in 2006.  In both occasions, Baldwin Mutual
retained an independent adjuster to examine McCain's damage
property and to prepare an estimate to repair the damage and paid
McCain's claim in accordance with the estimate prepared by the
adjuster. Pursuant to a work-authorization form signed by McCain,
Baldwin Mutual paid the funds directly to McCain's contractor.

On Sept. 29, 2010, McCain filed a complaint against Baldwin
Mutual.  As subsequently amended, the complaint stated one claim
of breach of contract and another claim generally asserting
misrepresentation and suppression of material facts.  Noting that
hundreds or thousands of Baldwin Mutual policyholders were likely
negatively affected by Baldwin Mutual's practices in this regard,
McCain also sought class-action certification of her claims.

Baldwin Mutual filed an answer denying that it had improperly
calculated what was owed McCain or any other policyholder under
the terms of its actual-cash-value policies, and it subsequently
moved for a summary judgment on the same basis, however, that
summary-judgment motion was ultimately denied.  On June 3, 2014,
the trial court entered an order certifying the action as a class
action. Baldwin Mutual appealed the order.  The Court reversed
the trial court's order certifying the action and remanded the
case to the Montgomery Circuit Court.

Upon remand, and with leave from the trial court, McCain filed on
October 11, 2015, a second amended complaint that retained the
allegations in her first amended complaint and amended the
definition of the proposed class.  On Oct. 20, 2015, Baldwin
Mutual answered the second amended complaint.  Following further
discovery, McCain on April 28, 2016, filed a motion for class
certification along with a supporting brief and exhibits. On May
5, 2016, with leave of the trial court, McCain filed her third
amended complaint, which corrected an error in the class
definition but otherwise retained the allegations of the second
amended complaint.

On May 27, 2016, Baldwin Mutual filed a motion for a summary
judgment.  On the same date, Baldwin Mutual filed a response in
opposition to the motion for class certification, along with a
brief and evidentiary submissions.  On July 15, 2016, McCain
filed responses to Baldwin Mutual's motion for a summary judgment
and to its response in opposition to her motion for class
certification.  On July 21, 2016, the trial court held a hearing
on the motion for class certification and the motion for a
summary judgment.

On Sept. 21, 2016, the trial court entered an order denying
Baldwin Mutual's motion for a summary judgment.  On Oct. 18,
2016, the trial court entered an order certifying McCain's
purported class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). The
order defined the class as (1) All current and former Baldwin
Mutual insureds; (2) who are citizens of the State of Alabama;
(3) who in the six years preceding the Complaint suffered a
covered loss to property situated within the State of Alabama;
(4) where the damage estimate for such loss prepared by Baldwin
Mutual or their adjusters did not include as a separate item cost
for 'removal' of damaged building components, and/or depreciated
the cost of labor for removal to a lesser amount; (5) where
calculation of the loss was based on either replacement cost or
actual cash value; and (6) where the payment for such loss was
made to the insured or directly to a contractor.

Baldwin Mutual filed a timely appeal of the class-certification.

Judge Mendheim is persuaded that the foregoing reasoning and
authorities announce the correct rule, and that that rule is
dispositive of the issue before him.  He finds that the trial
court erred in certifying McCain's action for class treatment
because the claims of the purported class representative are
subject to a unique defense -- res judicata.  He says there are
no other named class representatives in the complaint, and the
action obviously cannot continue on a class basis without a
representative, so the class-certification order must be
reversed.

Accordingly, the Judge reversed the trial court's order
certifying the action for class treatment.  Because of his
resolution of the first issue raised by Baldwin Mutual, its
remaining arguments concerning why the action may not be
appropriate for class certification under Rule 23, Ala. R. Civ.
P., are pretermitted.  He remanded the action for an order or
further proceedings consistent with his Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/6BiFZ4 from Leagle.com.


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Sept. 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP regarding the BancorpSouth Securities Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

WILLIAM E. BURGES and ROSE M. BURGES,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

BANCORPSOUTH, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01564
The Honorable Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr.
The Honorable Jeffery S. Frensley
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE

TO:

ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED BANCORPSOUTH,
INC. ("BANCORPSOUTH") PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK BETWEEN
JULY 12, 2013 AND JULY 21, 2014, INCLUSIVE

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee,
Nashville Division, that a hearing will be held on September 21,
2018, 2018, at 1:30 p.m., before the Honorable Waverly D.
Crenshaw, Jr. at the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, Estes Kefauver Federal
Building & Courthouse, 801 Broadway, Nashville, Tennessee 37203,
for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed
settlement of the Litigation for $13 million should be approved
by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a
Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice should be
entered by the Court dismissing the Litigation with prejudice and
releasing the Released Claims; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation
for the Net Settlement Fund is fair, reasonable, and adequate and
should be approved; and (4) whether the application of Class
Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses and any
award to Class Representative pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec.
78u-4(a)(4) should be approved.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED BANCORPSOUTH COMMON STOCK BETWEEN
JULY 12, 2013 AND JULY 21, 2014, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"),
YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION,
INCLUDING THE RELEASE AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF CLAIMS YOU MAY
POSSESS RELATING TO YOUR PURCHASE OR ACQUISITION OF BANCORPSOUTH
COMMON STOCK DURING THE CLASS PERIOD.  If you have not received a
detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice")
and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain
copies by writing to BancorpSouth Securities Litigation, Claims
Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 404061,
Louisville, KY 40233-4061, or on the Internet at
www.BancorpSouthSecuritiesLitigation.com.  If you are a Class
Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release by
mail (postmarked no later than August 23, 2018,), or online at
www.BancorpSouthSecuritiesLitigation.com no later than August 23,
2018, establishing that you are entitled to recovery.

If you purchased or acquired BancorpSouth common stock during the
Class Period and you desire to be excluded from the Class, you
must submit a request for exclusion so that it is received no
later than August 31, 2018, in the manner and form explained in
the detailed Notice referred to above.  All Members of the Class
who do not timely and validly request exclusion from the Class
will be bound by any judgment entered in the Litigation pursuant
to the Stipulation of Settlement.

Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, Class
Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses, and Class
Representative's request for time and expenses must be received
by counsel no later than August 31, 2018 and the Court no later
than September 7, 2018:

          CLERK OF THE COURT
          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
          MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
          NASHVILLE DIVISION
          Estes Kefauver Federal Building & Courthouse
          801 Broadway, Room 800
          Nashville, TN 37203

         Class Counsel:

         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         Ellen Gusikoff Stewart
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101

         Counsel for Defendants:

         K&L GATES LLP
         Amy J. Eldridge
         1601 K Street, NW
         Washington, DC 20006-1600

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact Class Counsel at the address listed above.

DATED: April 3, 2018
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION


BEECHER'S HANDMADE: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beecher's Handmade
Cheese-NY, LLC. The case is styled as Kathleen Sypert, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Beecher's Handmade Cheese-NY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
04214-RWS (S.D. N.Y., May 10, 2018).

Beecher's Handmade Cheese-NY, LLC is an upscale shop featuring a
variety of American cheeses, plus a sit-down cafe with shareable
plates in New York, 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


BERKSHIRE HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Systemic Wage Theft
-------------------------------------------------------------
Live 95.9 reports that Berkshire Health Systems is facing a
potential class action lawsuit, with one licensed practical nurse
claiming BHS engaged in systematic wage theft.

According to The Berkshire Eagle, a lawsuit filed in U.S.
District Court in Springfield, filed by an LPN from Pittsfield,
claims the counties largest employer deducted wages for meal
breaks she and others weren't able to take. Shayla Clark seeks to
be the lead plaintiff in a proposed class action lawsuit again
the health care giant. The suit needs to be approved as class
action, by the District Court in Springfield.  If it is, the
health systems could be forced to notify current and former LPNs
that they are eligible to join the litigation.

Benjamin Steffans, Esq. -- bsteffans@steffanslegal.com -- and his
co-counsel, Springfield attorney Jeffrey S. Morneau, Esq. --
jmorneau@cmolawyers.com -- are representing Clark in the suit.
They claim BHS' use of a "Meal Break Deduction Policy" led the
business to shortchange employees. The lawsuit claims BHS knew,
or should have known that Clark and others perform work during
the meal and other unpaid breaks, but still do not compensate
them for this time. Work done during such breaks, the suit says,
happened in the view of managers at the defendant's work
locations.

Berkshire Health Systems denies Clark's claims, saying in a
recent court filing and in an attorney's interview on April 26
that it never made LPNs work without compensation.  An attorney
for BHS, Lucy Prashker, Esq. -- lprashker@cainhibbard.com -- said
that LPNs who are paid on an hourly basis are able to take 30-
minute meal breaks when they work shifts of more than six hours.

It is our policy and practice to pay all of our employees for all
time worked . . . That policy applies to the hospital and to all
other BHS subsidiaries . . . We work very hard to make sure all
those things happen

Lucy Prashker, Esq., Attorney for BHS.

Clark's claims were filed in December of 2017, and in a March
26th response, Prashker denied dozens of accusations in Clark's
lawsuit, including the central claim of wage theft, denying any
knowledge that Clark ever worked during a scheduled meal break
for which she was not paid by Berkshire Medical Center.

Lawyers for Clark claim more than 100 LPNs could be affected by
this case. If successful, Clark and others who join the proposed
class action could be compensated not only past wages going back
as far as six years, but interest and damages.

A hearing in the case is scheduled May 16 in Springfield.[GN]


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Osorio Seeks OT Compensation under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARCO OSORIO, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated, the PLAINTIFF v. CENTERPOINT ENERGY, INC. the
DEFENDANT, Case No. 4:18-cv-01497 (S.D. Tex., May 9, 2018), seeks
to recover declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs,
including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of Defendant's
commonly applied policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated overtime compensation for the
hours in excess of 40 hours in each week that they were/are made
to work , pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other Financial
Analysts 1 and 2 regularly worked more than 40 hours per week.
The Defendant failed to pay these workers overtime. Instead,
Defendant paid (and pays) Plaintiff and all similarly situated
employees a salary.

CenterPoint is a Fortune 500 electric and natural gas utility
serving several markets in the U.S. states of Arkansas,
Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION: Court Certifies Class in "Henceroth" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DALE H. HENCEROTH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHESAPEAKE
EXPLORATION, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 4:15CV2591 (N.D. Ohio),
Judge Benita Y. Pearson of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and denied the
Defendant's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony.

The named Plaintiffs, Henceroth and Marilyn S. Wendt, along with
eight others brought suit against CELLC for breach of contract in
this putative class action. Eight of the 10 original proposed
class representatives were dismissed after the Plaintiffs filed
their Second Amended Complaint.

CELLC is in the business of exploring and producing oil and gas,
collectively known as "hydrocarbons."  The Plaintiffs are
landowners in Ohio who originally entered into oil and gas leases
with Anschutz Exploration Corp.  CELLC later entered into a
business relationship with the Plaintiffs after CELLC purchased
Anschutz's interests in these leases.  Through these leases, the
Plaintiffs agreed to lease the oil and gas rights to their land
to CELLC.  In exchange, the Plaintiffs received an up-front bonus
and are entitled to a percentage of the revenues received from
the sale of the hydrocarbons in the form of royalty payments.
The royalty payments are calculated based on the terms of the
lease.  The Plaintiffs allege that CELLC calculated the royalties
using the incorrect price as proscribed by the terms of the
leases.

There are 623 total leases at issue.  The leases can be divided
into three groups.  All leases have a royalty provision in the
body of the lease at Section 5(B).  The first group consists of
526 leases that are governed solely by Section 5(B). The second
group consists of 90 leases containing an addendum with a
governing royalty provision.  This royalty provision is commonly
referred to in the oil and gas industry as a "Market Enhancement
Clause."  The third group consists of seven leases containing an
addendum with a different royalty provision.  Henceroth's two
leases are a part of Group Two because they contain the Market
Enhancement Clause. Wendt's lease is a part of Group One.

The Plaintiffs move for class certification on a single claim --
that CELLC calculated the royalties using the incorrect price.
They seek to certify a class, defined as every person except
governmental entities who is, or has been, a royalty owner under
an oil and gas lease in which (1) Anschutz is named as the
lessee, (2) the lease was assigned to or otherwise acquired by
CELLC., (3) the lease conveys rights to oil, natural gas and
natural gas liquids in Ohio, and (4) one or more of these
products was produced under the lease.

The Defendant does not challenge Plaintiff's proposed class
definition.  Both the named Plaintiffs own royalties with oil and
gas leases that fall within the proposed class definition.  The
Defendant supported its opposition to certification with the
expert report of Kris Terry.  Consequently, the Plaintiffs
supported its reply with the expert reports of W.R. Harper, Jr.
and Daniel T. Reineke.

The Defendant moves to exclude the testimony and opinions of
Harper and Reineke.  First, it argues that Harper's expert
opinion is neither reliable nor relevant because he relies on oil
and gas decisions from jurisdictions outside of Ohio.  Second, it
argues that Reineke's expert opinion should be excluded as
unreliable because he failed to review all 623 leases in
question.

Judge Pearson finds that the Plaintiffs have shown numerosity,
typicality, commonality, adequacy, and ascertainability; and,
therefore, have satisfied Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b).

He also finds that Harper based his expert opinions on law from
outside of Ohio due to necessity, not preference.  Reineke, on
the other hand, admits that he failed to individually examine
every single lease at the onset of litigation, but instead relied
upon a summary provided by the Plaintiffs' counsel.  However,
experts are not strictly required to examine every single lease
in large cases to meet the requirements of admissibility under
Rule 702.  Additionally, Reineke has since stated that he was
able to individually review all 623 leases and maintain the same
opinion in support of certification.

Given that Harper had limited Ohio law on which to rely and that
Reineke eventually reviewed all 623 leases, the Plaintiffs'
expert witness testimony will not be excluded and has been
considered by the Court in ruling on the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification.

For these reasons, Judge Pearson granted the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification, and denied the Defendant's Motion to
Exclude Expert Testimony of W.R. Harper, Jr. and Daniel T.
Reineke.  Additionally, Robert C. Sanders, Mark A. Hutson, James
A. Lowe, and Robert L. Guehl are appointed the lead class
counsel.  She finds that these attorneys will fairly and
adequately represent the interests of the class, in consideration
of the work counsel has done in investigating potential claims in
the action, the counsel's experience in handling class actions,
other complex litigation, and claims of the type asserted in the
action, the counsel's knowledge of the applicable law, and the
resources counsel will commit to representing the class.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/JlGqjI from Leagle.com.

Dale H. Henceroth & Marilyn S. Wendt, Plaintiffs, represented by
Mark A. Hutson, Robert L. Guehl , Robert C. Sanders --
rcsanders@rcsanderslaw.com -- & James Allison Lowe --
jlowe@lewlaw.com -- Lowe, Eklund & Wakefield.

Chesapeake Exploration, LLC, Defendant, represented by Alexandra
I. Russell -- alexandra.russell@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis,
Alexia R. Brancato -- alexia.brancato@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis, Daniel T. Donovan -- daniel.donovan@kirkland.com --
Kirkland & Ellis, Jenna M. Poligo -- jenna.poligo@dbr.com --
Drinker Biddle & Reath, pro hac vice, Jessica Knopp Cunning --
jkcunning@vorys.com -- Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Peter A.
Lusenhop -- palusenhop@vorys.com -- Vorys, Sater, Seymour &
Pease, Ragan Naresh -- ragan.naresh@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis, Seamus C. Duffy -- seamus.duffy@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle
& Reath, pro hac vice, Siobhan F. Moran -- siobhan.moran@dbr.com
-- Drinker Biddle & Reath, pro hac vice, Timothy B. McGranor --
tbmcgranor@vorys.com -- Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease & William
M. Connolly -- william.connolly@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle &
Reath.


CJFOUR INC: Faces "Mejia" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CJFour Inc. The
case is styled as Mardoqueo Abilio Mendez Mejia, on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CJFour Inc. doing
business as: Kori Tribeca, Tonghan Kim, Janet J Kim, Jennifer
Doe, Kori Lim, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04199 (S.D. N.Y.,
May 10, 2018).

CJFour Inc. is a Korean restaurant located at NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


COLONY NORTHSTAR: Klein Law Firm Commences Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm disclosed that a class action complaint has
been filed on behalf of shareholders of Colony NorthStar, Inc.
(NYSE: CLNS) who purchased shares between February 28, 2017 and
March 1, 2018. The action, which was filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, alleges
that the Company violated federal securities laws.

In particular, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that (1) Colony NorthStar's
Healthcare and Investment Management segments were performing
worse than reported; (2) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Shareholders have until June 5, 2018 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery does
not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. You may choose to
be an absent class member.

If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain
additional information, please contact Joseph Klein, Esq. by
telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-c/colony-northstar-inc?wire=2

         Joseph Klein, Esq.
         The Klein Law Firm
         Telephone: 212-616-4899
         Fax: 347-558-9665
         E-mail: joseph@dknlegal.com [GN]


COMPASS GROUP: Faces "Thomas" Suit in Calif. Super. Court
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Compass Group USA,
Inc. The case is styled as James Thomas, on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Compass Group USA, Inc. a
Delaware Corporation, Crothall Healthcare Inc. a Delaware
Corporation and Does 1 to 50 inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
CGC18566489 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 10, 2018).

Compass Group USA, Inc. provides foodservice management and
support services in the United States and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
   Setareh Law Group
   9454 Wilshire Blvd Ste 907
   Beverly Hills, CA 90212
   Tel: (310) 888-7771
   Fax: (310) 888-0109
   Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com


CONVERGENT COMMERCIAL: Faces "Torres" Suit in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Commercial, Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Torres,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Convergent Commercial, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-09219 (D. N.J., May 14, 2018).

Convergent Commercial, Inc. was founded in 1961. The company's
line of business includes collection and adjustment services on
claims and other insurance related issues.[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


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Espinoza" Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Alida Espinoza,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-09178 (D. N.J., May 14, 2018).

Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. offers business process outsourcing,
revenue cycle, and receivables management services. It also
provides receivables collection services to credit grantors in
retail, telecommunications, and utilities industries. Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. was formerly known as ER Solutions, Inc. and
changed the name to Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. in November,
2011. The company was founded in 1972 and is based in Atlanta,
Georgia, with additional facilities in Glendale, Arizona; Renton,
Washington; Houston, Texas; and Montgomery, Alabama. Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Convergent
Resources Holdings, LLC.[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


CVS PHARMA: Class Dismisses Privacy Violations Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
without prejudice, a class dismissed its federal claims that CVS
Pharmacy violated privacy by the way it handles their
prescriptions for HIV/AIDS medicine.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

     Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
     Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
     C. Nicholas Dorman, Esq.
     WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
     1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Fl.
     New York, NY 10036
     Tel: (212) 447-7060
     Fax: (800) 922-4851
     Email: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
            ekallas@whatleykallas.com
            ndorman@whatleykallas.com

        -- and --

     Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
     WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
     16870 W. Bernardo Dr., Suite 400
     San Diego, CA 92127
     Tel: (858) 674-6641
     Fax: (855) 274-1888
     Email: amansfield@whatleykallas.com

     Jerry Flanagan, Esq.
     Benjamin Powell, Esq.
     CONSUMER WATCHDOG
     2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112
     Santa Monica, CA 90405
     Tel: (310) 392-0522
     Fax: (310) 392-8874
     Email: jerry@consumerwatchdog.org
            ben@consumerwatchdog.org

Attorneys for CVS Health Corporation and Caremark Rx, L.L.C.

     Grant A. Geyerman, Esq.
     WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
     725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
     Washington, DC 20005
     Telephone: (202) 434-5000
     Facsimile: (202) 434-5029
     Email: ggeyerman@wc.com

        -- and --

     Tami S. Smason, Esq.
     FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
     555 South Flower Street, Ste. 3500
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Telephone: (213) 972-4500
     Facsimile: (213) 486-0065
     Email: tsmason@foley.com


DANONE NORTH: Organic Milk False Labeling Class Action Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge dismissed a putative class action on May 1
accusing Danone North America of falsely labeling its Horizon
Organic milk, because the USDA has certified it as organic, the
plaintiff failed to show economic injury, and because the label
"prominently disclosed" that it contains the nutritional additive
docosahexaenoic acid.

The case is CRYSTAL BROWN, Plaintiff, v. DANONE NORTH AMERICA,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-07325-JST (N.D. Cal.).


DE WELL: Fails to Pay Overtime and Minimum Wages, McCalebb Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARIANNE MCCALEBB, individually, and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DE
WELL LOGISTICS LLC, a California limited liability company; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC705076
(Cal. Super. Ct., May 9, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime,
unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, and
unpaid minimum wages under the California Labor Code.

At all relevant times, the Defendants employed Plaintiff and
other persons as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the
State of California, including the County of Los Angeles. The
Defendants, jointly and severally, employed Plaintiff as an
hourly-paid, nonexempt employee, from approximately April 2013 to
approximately June 2015, in the State of California, County of
Los Angeles. The Defendants hired Plaintiff and the other class
members, classified them as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees,
and failed to compensate them for all hours worked and missed
meal periods and/or rest breaks. The Defendants had the authority
to hire and terminate Plaintiff and the other class members, to
set work rules and conditions governing Plaintiffs and the other
class members' employment, and to supervise their daily
employment activities.

De Well provides logistics services since its establishment in
1992.[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

               - and -

          Amir Nayebdadash, Esq.
          Heather Davis, Esq.
          PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP
          136 Main Street, Suite A
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 290 3095
          Facsimile: (866) 264 7880


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Hearing Set for Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you underwent hip replacement surgery between 2003 and 2010,
and received a DePuy ASR(TM) XL Acetabular Hip System or ASR(TM)
Hip Resurfacing System ("ASR Implants"), this notice may affect
your rights.

A settlement resolving a class action instituted against Johnson
& Johnson, Inc. and DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., alleging that the
ASR Implants are defective, will be submitted for approval of the
Quebec Superior Court.

Pursuant to the settlement, the Defendants will pay a lump-sum of
$20 million to settle the claims of the following Class of
individuals, without any admission of liability:

     All natural persons who, between July 2003 and August 24,
2010 (the "Period"), were surgically implanted with an ASR XL
Acetabular Hip System or an ASR Hip Resurfacing System ("ASR
Implant System" or "ASR Implant Systems"), designed,
manufactured, sold or distributed by the Defendants, which system
was recalled by the Defendants on August 24, 2010, and who were
either: (i) Quebec residents at the time of receipt of the ASR
Implant System or any revision thereof; or (ii) Quebec residents
at the time of the Defendants' recall of the ASR Implant System;
or (iii) Recipients of the ASR Implant System or any revision
thereof in Quebec, who were Canadian residents at that time, and
who now reside outside of Canada. All individuals who make claims
against the Defendants in the context of class actions elsewhere
in Canada will be excluded from the Quebec ASR Class.

The Settlement amount will be distributed to Class members who
timely submit all forms and documentation, according to a "Claims
Administration Protocol and Award Schedule" that has been
established solely by Class Counsel.  The Claims Administration
Protocol and Award Schedule provides that all Class members are
eligible to receive compensation.  The amount of compensation
payable to Class members who timely submit valid claims will
depend upon whether it was necessary to undergo additional
operations to revise the ASR Implant and the occurrence of
certain extraordinary medical complications.

If approved, the Settlement will be the exclusive remedy for
Quebec Class Members, and the Defendants will receive a complete
release from all members of the Class.

During the Settlement Approval Hearing, the Court will also be
asked to approve the payment of Class Counsel Fees of 25% of the
settlement fund, plus Disbursements and applicable taxes, out of
which required payments will be made to the Fonds d'aide aux
actions collectives.

You may consult the Settlement Agreement, the Claims
Administration Protocol and Award Schedule, as well as the
"Application to Approve the Settlement, the Claims Administration
Protocol and Award Schedule, and the payment of Class Counsel
Fees" by visiting Class Counsel's website www.kklex.com. You may
also contact Class Counsel for additional information or if you
have any questions.

Court Hearing and Your Right to Participate

The Hearing of the Application to Approve will take place on May
22, 2018 at 9:00 am in room 1.156 of the Montreal Courthouse,
situated at 1 Notre-Dame Street East, in Montreal, Quebec, H2Y
1B6.

Quebec Class Members who do not oppose the Settlement or the
Application to Approve do not need to attend the Hearing.

If a Quebec Class Member wishes to object to the Settlement or to
the Application to Approve, the Court will hear your objection on
the condition that you write to Class Counsel on or before May
17, 2018, stating the following:

   (a) The full name, current mailing address, fax number,
telephone number, and email address of the person who is
objecting;

   (b) A brief statement of the nature and reasons for the
objection;

   (c) A declaration that the person believes he or she is a
member of the Quebec ASR Class, specifying the reasons for that
belief including, if available, the catalogue and lot numbers of
his/her ASR(TM) XL Acetabular Hip System or ASR(TM) Hip
Resurfacing System; and

   (d) Whether the Quebec ASR Class Member intends to appear at
the Approval Hearing or intends to appear by counsel and, if by
counsel, the name, address, telephone number, fax number, and
email address of counsel.

         Robert Kugler, Esq.
         Olivera Pajani, Esq.
         Kugler Kandestin LLP
         Telephone: 514-878-2861
         Facsimile: 514-875-8424
         Email: rkugler@kklex.com
                opajani@kklex.com [GN]


DREAM CONCEPTS: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Pyrilis Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
PAULA PYRILIS, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated employees of Defendants, and MARC DEMOTT, individually
and on behalf of other similarly situated employees of
Defendants, the Plaintiffs, v. DREAM CONCEPTS, LLC, a Colorado
limited liability corporation, ORDERUP INC., a Maryland
Corporation, GROUPON, INC., a Deleware Corporation, and
JEFF MARCUS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01124 (D. Colo.,
May 10, 2018), seeks minimum wage and overtime pay under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Colorado Wage Act, and Colorado
Minimum Wage Order.  The lawsuit alleges that, instead of paying
wages in compliance with state and federal law, OrderUp
classifies its drivers as independent contractors. Additionally,
OrderUp permitted a customer to expose his genitals to Plaintiff
Pyrilis on several occasions, even after Pyrilis complained about
the customer. Following her complaints, instead of exercising any
care to prevent further harassment, OrderUp retaliated against
Pyrilis by giving her fewer hours and less lucrative
deliveries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sam Cannon, Esq.
          CANNON HADFIELD STIEBEN & DOUTT, LLC
          3534 John F. Kennedy Pkwy., Ste. B
          Fort Collins, CO 80525
          Telephone: (970) 689 3037
          E-mail: scc@cannonlaw.com

               - and -

          J. Bennett Lebsack, Esq.
          LOWREY PARADY, LLC
          1725 High St., Suite 1
          Denver, CO 80218
          Telephone: (303) 593 2595
          Facsimile: (303) 502 9191
          E-mail: ben@lowrey-parady.com


EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Edge Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: EDGE) from
December 29, 2017 through March 27, 2018, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Edge Therapeutics investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Edge Therapeutics class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1330.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO
NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Edge Therapeutics' lead product candidate, EG-
1962, would likely fail a futility analysis in connection with
the NEWTON 2 study; and (2) as a result, Edge Therapeutics'
financial statements and defendants' statements about the
company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

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 22, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 zhalper@rosenlegal.com


ENCORE HOSPITALITY: Lau Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
SIU LAU, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ENCORE HOSPITALITY SERVICES,
LLC, a Kansas limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC70S073 (Cal. Super. Ct., May
9, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under the California
Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants jointly and severally have
acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and
conscious disregard to the rights of all employees by failing to
pay overtime for all hours in excess of 8 hours in a day and/or
40 hours in a workweek at the correct, higher regular rate of
pay, failing to provide off-duty meal and rest periods, failing
to pay all accrued vacation, and failing to provide accurate
itemized wage statements. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
have engaged in, among other things a system of willful
violations of the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Orders by creating and maintaining
policies, practices and customs that knowingly deny employees the
above stated rights and benefits.

Encore Hospitality provides catering and event planning for
weddings, celebrations and corporate events in a host of iconic
Glasgow venues.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Majed Dakak, Esq.
          KESSELMAN BRANTLY STOCKINGER LLP
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 690
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 307 4555
          Facsimile: (310) 307 4570
          E-mail: mdakak@kbslaw.com
                  dhyun@hyunlegal.com

               - and -

          Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
          HYUN LEGAL, APC
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488 6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488 6554


ENERMEX INTERNATIONAL: Gonzalez Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
RAUL VILLARREAL GONZALEZ on behalf of himself individually, and
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. ENERMEX
INTERNATIONAL, INC., ENERMEX RENTALS & SERVICE LLC., and EDGAR H.
PADILLA, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01511 (S.D. Tex., May
10, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
penalties, interest, attorneys' fees, and litigation costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants misclassify their
workers as independent contractors instead of as employees. In
doing so, Defendants deny those workers the overtime they are
entitled under the FLSA. The Defendants have enacted a company
policy to misclassify the Plaintiff and Putative Class Members as
independent contractors, which was enforced at all of their
locations throughout the United States. By doing so, Defendants
illegally denied Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members
compensation at time and one half their regular rates of pay for
all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

The Plaintiff regularly worked over 40 hours each week. However,
when he worked more than 40 hours, he was not paid any overtime
wages for those hours worked in excess of 40. Like Plaintiff, the
Putative Class Members regularly worked more than 40 hours each
week and were not paid overtime for those hours worked in excess
of 40 in a workweek. Given that they were misclassified as
independent contractors, they were denied overtime pay.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EXPERIAN INFO: Hotchkiss Says Tax Liens Info Inaccurate
-------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH HOTCHKISS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00083-gwc (D.
Vt., May 10, 2018), seeks to recover actual, statutory and
punitive damages caused by Defendant's violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.  Experian prepares and furnishes consumer
reports that include tax liens that, despite being listed in
Vermont public records as having been paid, satisfied, or
released, are reported by Experian as unpaid, unsatisfied, or
outstanding.

Experian is one of the "big three" credit reporting agencies
(singular "CRA") in the United States. Experian sells consumer
reports (commonly called "credit reports") about millions of
consumers annually, including consumers in Vermont. Experian is
regulated by the FCRA.  According to the lawsuit, Experian has
not retrieved actual public records from courthouses or
government offices for many years. Moreover, Experian does not
purchase the actual court or taxing authority records from its
public records information vendor. Rather, it purchases a
condensed, summary version of those records, which does not
include all the information or most up-to-date information
available at the actual courthouses or government offices where
the actual records are housed.

Experian has known since as early as 2013 that its public records
vendor makes mistakes in the condensed, summary public records
information that it purchases for credit reporting purposes.
Experian has known since as early as 2013 that the condensed,
summary public records information it purchases for credit
reporting purposes routinely does not include the most up-to-date
status of the actual records themselves.

Experian thus routinely fails to report accurate information
about Vermont tax liens, including the most up-to-date status of
those liens. Experian's practices and procedures regarding the
reporting of tax lien information, specifically its failure to
report the most up-to-date status of paid or satisfied tax liens,
causes widespread harm to Vermont consumers. Experian also
routinely fails to remove Vermont liens from consumers' reports
when those liens have become nullities.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Josh L. Simonds
          TH BURLINGTON LAW PRACTICE
          2 Church Street, Suite 2-G
          Burlington, VT 05401
          Telephone: (802) 651 5370
          Facsimile: (802) 651 5374
          E-mail: jls@burlingtonlawpractice.com

               - and -

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
          Land Title Building, Suite 1902
          100 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735 8600
          Facsimile: (214) 940 8000
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com


FAIRMOUNT SANTROL: Schneider Balks at Unimin Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------
BARRY SCHNEIDER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FAIRMOUNT SANTROL HOLDINGS
INC., WILLIAM E. CONWAY, JENNIFER D. DECKARD, MICHAEL G. FISCH,
CHATRES D. FOWLER, STEPHEN J. HADDEN, MICHAEL C. KEARNEY,
WILLIAMP. KELLY, MATTHEW F. LEBARON, MICHAEL E. SAND, and
LAWRENCE N. SHULTZ, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01085-DAP
(N.D. Ohio, May 10, 2018), seeks to enjoin the Defendants and all
persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing a proposed merger transaction, and in
the event Defendants consummate proposed transaction, to rescind
it and set it aside, or award rescissory damages.

According to the complaint, on December 12, 2017, Fairmount and
Unimin issued a joint press release announcing that the Board had
caused the Fairmount to enter into the Merger Agreement on
December 11, 2017. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Fairmount
common stockholders and holders of Fairmount equity awards will
control 35% of the combined Fairmount and total cash
consideration of $170,000,000 or approx. $0.74 per share.

On April 26, 2018, the Defendants authorized the filing of a
Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy Statement with the Securities
Exchange Commission designed to convince Fairmount stockholders
to approve the proposed transaction. The Proxy is materially
deficient and misleading because, inter alia, it fails to
disclose material information regarding (i) the Company's
financial projections; (ii) the valuation analyses conducted by
the Company's financial advisor, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC to
support its fairness opinions; (iii) the Board's process leading
up to approval of the Merger Agreement, and (iv) potential
conflicts of interest on the parts of Well Fargo.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Cummins, Esq.
          CUMMINS LAW LLC
          312 Walnut Street, Suite 1530
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 721 9000
          Facsimile: (513) 721 9001
          E-mail: jcummins@cumminslaw.com

               - and -

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Elizabeth K. TRipodi, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th Street N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524 4290
          Facsimile: (202) 337 1567
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com


FINALE BUILDING: Faces "Morales" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Finale Building and
Construction Corp. The case is styled as Elihu Romero Morales,
Sergio Avila Lopez and Willis Hernandez, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Finale Building and
Construction Corp. and Vincent Cannistraci, as an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04200 (S.D. N.Y., May 10, 2018).

Finale Building and Construction Corp is a constructions company
located in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


FOCUS CONSUMER: Hertel Sues over Dietary Cholesterol Supplement
---------------------------------------------------------------
LELAND REX HERTEL, individually, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FOCUS CONSUMER HEALTHCARE,
LLC and CHATTEM, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01176-
MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal., May 10, 2018), seeks damages, interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, restitution, other
equitable relief, and disgorgement of all benefits the Defendants
have enjoyed from their unlawful and/or deceptive business
practices.

The case arises out of the Defendants' unlawful merchandising
practices with respect to their Garlique (TM) standardized
dietary cholesterol supplement. The Product's trademarked slogan
is "Cholesterol's Natural Enemy (TM)." Moreover, on the top of
the principal display panel, Defendants reinforce the Product's
"Natural" slogan by this time stating that the Product is "All
Natural." Indeed, the Defendants label and advertise the Product
as being "natural" by prominently and uniformly displaying the
word "Natural" on the Product's principal display panel, against
natural coloring and imagery.  The coloring and imagery further
reinforces the Defendants' "natural" labeling. As a result, the
Product's labeling and packaging conveys to reasonable consumers
that the Product is natural and free of unnatural, synthetic,
and/or artificial, ingredients.

However, in spite of labeling, packaging, and advertising the
Product as being "natural," the Product actually contains
numerous unnatural, synthetic, and/or artificial ingredients,
including (and as more specifically described infra) Magnesium
Stearate, Stearic Acid, titanium dioxide, triacetin, and triethyl
citrate, as well as sodium lauryl sulfate, which is the main
industrial chemical that causes soaps and cleansers to foam.
Consequently, the Product is not natural. In sum, the
representations made in the advertising and on the packaging and
labeling of the Product are false, misleading, and likely to
deceive reasonable consumers. Additionally, despite the
implication by the name of the Product, Garlique, the Product
does not contain garlic. Reasonable consumers would believe a so-
called 'natural' cholesterol dietary supplement named 'Garlique'
to contain garlic.[BN]

Counsel for Leland Rex Hertel and the putative Classes:

          Michael T. Fraser, Esq.
          THE FRASER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          4120 Douglas Blvd., No. 306-262
          Granite Bay, CA 95746
          Telephone: (888) 557 5115
          Facsimile: (866) 212 8434
          E-mail: mfraser@thefraserlawfirm.net

               - and -

          Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
          Sara Avila, Esq.
          Andrew Whitman, Esq.
          MILSTEIN JACKSON, Esq.
          FAIRCHILD & WADE LLP
          10250 Constellation Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 396 9600
          Facsimile: (310) 396 9635
          E-mail: gwade@mjfwlaw.com
                  savila@mjfwlaw.com


FUJITSU TECHNOLOGY: Judge Awards $3.7MM in Attorneys' Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
of the $14 million class settlement involving Fujitsu Technology
and Business of America's mishandling of employees' retirement
funds, $3.7 million will go to attorneys' fees, a federal judge
ruled.

The case is JERRY JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FUJITSU
TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 16-cv-03698-NC (N.D. Cal.).


GARDENA HOSPITAL: Fails to Pay Regular & OT Pay, Rodriguez Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARACELI RODRIGUEZ, as an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GARDENA HOSPITAL, L.P., a
Limited Partnership, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BG705075 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 9, 2018),
seeks to recover to regular pay, overtime and/or double time
wages, as well as waiting time penalties, and penalties or
damages under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have engaged in, among
other things, a system of willful violations of the California
Labor Code and the Unfair Practices Act by creating and
maintaining policies, practices and customs that knowingly deny
employees' rights and benefits. The policies, practices and
customs of the Defendants have resulted in unjust enrichment of
Defendants and an unfair business advantage over businesses that
routinely adhere to the strictures of the California Labor Code
and the Unfair Practices Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward W. Choi, Esq.
          Paul M. Yi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES, PC
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 381 1515
          Facsimile: (213) 465 4885
          E-mail: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com

               - and -

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488 6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488 6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitvlaw.com

               - and -

          David Lee, Esq.
          DAVID LEE LAW
          515 S. Flower Street, Suite 3600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213)236-3536
          Facsimile: (866) 658-4722
          E-mail: david@davidjleelaw.com


GC SERVICES: Johnson Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
LAKEDIA JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GC SERVICES LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00705-UNA (D. Del., May 10, 2018), seeks to recover actual
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, pre-judgment
interest and post-judgment interest under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The alleged obligation arose out of a transaction involving a
Department Stores National Bank debt incurred by Plaintiff in
which money, property, insurance or services were the subject of
the transaction. The Plaintiff used the DSNB funds to purchase
goods that were primarily for personal, family or household
purposes. The owner of the obligation contracted the Defendant GC
Services to collect the alleged debt. Defendant GC Services
collects and attempts to collect debts incurred or alleged to
have been incurred for personal, family or household purposes on
behalf of creditors using the United States Postal Services,
telephone and internet. The Defendant violated unfairly and
falsely scaring Plaintiff into believing she would be reported to
the IRS is she accepted the settlement offer. The Defendant is
liable to Plaintiff for judgment that Defendant's conduct
violated Section 1692f et seq. of the FDCPA.

GC Services is the largest privately-held outsourcing provider of
call center management and collection agency services in North
America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Antranig Garibian, Esq.
          GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          1010 N. Bancroft Pkwy, Suite 22
          Wilmington, DE 19805
          Telephone: (302) 722 6885
          E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com


GEICO CASUALTY: "Butta" Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled FRANCIS J. BUTTA, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, the
Plaintiff, v. GEICO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and GEICO
INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 180401317, was removed from
the Common Pleas Philadelphia, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) on May 10, 2018.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-01979-MAK to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Mark A.
Kearney.

GEICO Casualty provides property and casualty insurance. The
company founded in 1982 as Guardian Casualty Company changed its
name to Criterion Casualty Company in 1983 and then further to
GEICO Casualty Company in 1994.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Haggerty, Esq.
          HAGGERTY GOLDBERG SCHLEIFER & KUPERSMITH PC
          1835 Market St Ste 2700
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 350 6609
          E-mail: jhaggerty@hgsklawyers.com

               - and -

          Kymberly Kochis, Esq.
          EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
          1114 Ave Of The Americas 38th Fl
          New York, NY 10036-7703
          Telephone: (212) 389 5000
          E-mail: kymberlykochis@eversheds-sutherland.com


GLOSSIER INC: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Glossier, Inc. The
case is styled as Kathleen Sypert, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Glossier, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04215 (S.D. N.Y., May 10, 2018).

Glossier, Inc. provides online beauty products. The Company
offers skin care, makeup, hair, and health products. Glossier
serves customers 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


GOLDEN GATE: Settlement in "Jama" Suit Has Prelim Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ABDIKHADAR JAMA an individual, JEES JEES, an
individual, and MOHAMED MOHAMED, an individual, Plaintiff, v.
GOLDEN GATE AMERICA LLC, a foreign limited liability company and
EAN HOLDINGS LLC, ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC., a foreign
corporation, and VANGUARD AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, a foreign business
entity d/b/a NATIONAL CAR RENTAL, ALAMO RENT A CAR, and
ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR, Case No. 2:16-cv-00611 RSL (W.D. Wash.),
Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, granted the parties' motion for
an Order Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement.

The counsel have advised the Court that the Parties have agreed,
subject to final approval by the Court following notice to the
Class and a hearing, to settle the Action on the terms and
conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Release of
Claims.

Judge Lasnik has reviewed the Agreement, as well as the files,
records, and proceedings to date in the matter.  Based upon
preliminary examination, it appears to him that the Agreement is
sufficiently fair, reasonable, and adequate to warrant notice to
the Class and that the Court should hold a hearing after notice
to the Class to determine whether to enter a Settlement Order and
Final Judgment in the action, based upon that Agreement.

Based on this, the Judge amended the class definition set forth
in its Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
entered on June 27, 2017.  Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3),
he certified the class of all individuals who performed office
work, service agent work, lead work, driver work, off-site car
shuttling work, and any other types of work covered by
Proposition 1 for Golden Gate from Jan. 1, 2014 to Aug. 22, 2015.

He appointed Analytics, LLC, as the Settlement Administrator,
which will fulfill the Settlement Administration functions,
duties, and responsibilities of the Settlement Administrator as
set forth in the Agreement and the Order.

A final approval hearing will be held before the Court on July
31, 2018, at 10:30 a.m.  Before the Settlement Hearing, EAN
Holdings, LLC will file with the Court proof of compliance with
the notice provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
("CAFA").  EAN will bear all costs of notice to the Class of the
pendency and settlement of the Action.

The Judge approved the form and content of the notices.  The
Settlement Administrator will comply with the notice requirements
of Paragraph 3.03 of the Agreement.  In compliance with that
Paragraph, beginning no later than 30 days after entry of the
Order, the Settlement Administrator will cause notice to be
delivered in the manner set forth in the Agreement to all the
Class Members.  Each Class Member who wishes to exclude himself
or herself from the Class must file with the Settlement
Administrator by 45 days after the Settlement Administrator's
initial mailing of the Class Notices.

Any Settlement Class Member who wishes to object to the
Settlement, must submit his or her objection in writing to the
Class Counsel, Attn: Duncan C. Turner, postmarked or received by
Class Counsel no later than 45 days after the Settlement
Administrator's initial mailing of the Class Notices.  The Class
Counsel will inform the Court and EAN's counsel accordingly.

The Class Counsel will file their Fee and Cost Application,
together with all supporting documentation, by no later than 30
days from entry of the Order, sufficiently in advance of the
expiration of the objection period that any Settlement Class
Member will have sufficient information to decide whether to
object and, if applicable, to make an informed objection.

The Plaintiffs will file with the Court their motion for final
approval of the Settlement and the Parties' responses to
objections to the Agreement or the Fee and Cost Application,
together with all supporting documentation, such that the motion
is timely noted for July 27, 2018.

In summary, the dates of performance are as follows:

     (a) The Settlement Administrator will send the Class Notice
to Class Members on or before April 23, 2018;

     (b) The Class Counsel's Fee and Cost Application, and all
supporting materials, will be filed no later than April 23, 2018;

     (c) The Class Members who desire to be excluded will mail
requests for exclusion postmarked, or deliver such requests to
the Settlement Administrator, within 45 days from the date of the
Settlement Administrator's initial mailing of the Class Notices.

     (d) The Plaintiffs' final approval motion, responses to
objections, and all supporting materials, will be filed and
served by June 29, 2018; and

     (e) The Settlement Hearing will be held on July 31, 2018, at
10:30 a.m.

All proceedings before the Court are stayed pending final
approval of the settlement, except as may be necessary to
implement the settlement or comply with the terms of the
Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/vmEkgs from Leagle.com.

Abdikhadar Jama, an individual, Jees Jees, an individual &
Mohamed Mohamed, an individual, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel
R. Whitmore & Duncan Calvert Turner -- dturner@badgleymullins.com
-- BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC.

EAN Holdings LLC, Defendant, represented by Harry James Franklyn
Korrell, III -- harrykorrell@dwt.com -- Laura Turczanski --
lauraturczanski@dwt.com -- Taylor S. Ball -- taylorball@dwt.com -
- at DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE.


GOOGLE INC: Supreme Court to Review 8.5MM Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
the U.S. Supreme Court on April 30 said it will review Google
Inc.'s $8.5 million settlement of a class action in which $5.3
million of the funds went to third parties and none to members of
the class.

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., writing in a 2013 case, said cy
pres relief raised "fundamental concerns."  The Google settlement
involved funds distributed to third parties, with no compensation
to the class.


HARTSDALE DIAGNOSTIC: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hartsdale
Diagnostic and Womens Imaging Services, P.C. The case is styled
as Kathleen Sypert, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Hartsdale Diagnostic and Womens Imaging
Services, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04209 (S.D. N.Y., May
10, 2018).

Hartsdale Diagnostic And Womens Imaging Services Pc is a Medical
Group that has only one practice medical office located in
Hartsdale 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


HARVARD COLLECTION: Faces "Smith" Suit in M.D. Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harvard Collection
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Joyceann Smith, 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. 3:18-cv-00443 (M.D.
Tenn., May 10, 2018).

Harvard Collection Services, Inc. is a debt collection agency in
Chicago, Illinois.[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


IDAHO: Sued for Allegedly Depriving Students of "Free Education"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a group of parents and
former students sued Idaho's public school districts and charter
schools in a class action on May 9, claiming the schools charge
students for supplies the school should provide, depriving the
students of a "free" education.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

     Robert C. Huntley, Esq.
     R. HUNTLEY LAW, PLLC
     815 W. Washington Street
     P.O. Box 2188
     Boise, ID 83701
     Telephone: 208-388-1230
     Facsimile: 208-388-0234
     Email: rhuntley@huntleylaw.com

        -- and --

     T. Jason Wood, Esq.
     WOOD LAW GROUP, PC
     1906 Jennie Lee Dr.
     Idaho Falls, ID 83404
     Tel: (208) 497-0400
     Fax: (208) 932-4380
     Email: jason@woodlaw.net


INDOCHINO APPAREL: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Fischler Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN FISCHLER, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. INDOCHINO APPAREL (US)
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02785-RJD-CLP (E.D.N.Y.,
May 9, 2018), seeks permanent injunction to cause Indochino to
change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

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

Indochino Apparel, Inc. retails custom online menswear. It offers
personalized suits, vests, shirts, and pants, as well as
accessories, such as ties, pocket squares, tie clips, cufflinks,
and collar pins and stays.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INVESTMENT TECH: Filing of 2nd Amended Securities Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 15 Civ. 6369 (JFK) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge John
F. Keenan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York denied the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file the
Second Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiff filed the putative securities class action against
ITG on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
acquired the publicly traded common stock of ITG between Feb. 28,
2011 and Aug. 3, 2015.  The Plaintiff asserts claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder against ITG and Robert Gasser, Steven Vigliotti, and
Mats Goebels.

In the April 26 Order, the Court granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' motions to dismiss the FAC. It found that
the Defendants made actionable statements while Omega was
operating during the Class Period.  It also determined that
Gasser made actionable statements when comparing ITG's operations
to those of a competitor and describing ITG's transparent
approach to communication.  The Court concluded that the
remaining allegedly misleading statements in the FAC were not
actionable.

With respect to Gasser and ITG, the Court determined that the FAC
raised an adequate inference of scienter.  Specifically, it found
that the FAC established a strong inference of Gasser's scienter
after considering all of the facts alleged, taken collectively,
including Gasser's statements before, during, and after Project
Omega's operation.  Further, the Court concluded that Gasser's
scienter could be imputed to ITG.

With respect to Vigliotti and Goebels, however, the Court found
that the allegations in the FAC failed to generate the cogent and
compelling inference of scienter that is required. After
considering allegations regarding Goebels' sales of ITG stock,
the corporate positions each individual held, Goebels'
resignation, and the Plaintiff's "core operations" theory, the
Court concluded that the Plaintiff had not alleged an adequate
inference of scienter.  It observed that that the Plaintiff does
not show with particularity that Goebels or Vigliotti knew facts
or had access to information suggesting the inaccuracy of the
actionable statements.  Thus, the Court dismissed the FAC against
Goebels and Vigliotti with leave to replead.

Before the Court is a motion by the Plaintiff for leave to file a
SAC.  The Plaintiff asserts that new allegations in the proposed
SAC cure the deficiencies identified by the Court in its previous
Opinion and Order, which granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motions to dismiss the FAC.

The Plaintiff contends that the SAC establishes Vigliotti's
scienter because it demonstrates that he knew no later than
December 2010 of the salient details of Project Omega.  It also
argues that the SAC states claims against Vigliotti and Goebels
for control person liability under Section 20(a) because they
allegedly knew "o later than December 2010 of the salient details
of Project Omega.

Judge Keenan finds that Vigliotti's mere knowledge of "Omega
itself" -- without knowledge of the Breaches or the continued
misconduct related to customer information in 2011 -- is
insufficient to establish his scienter with respect to the
actionable statements in the 2010 Annual Report.  Accordingly, he
concludes that the SAC does not generate a strong inference that
Vigliotti acted with scienter.

The Judge also concludes that the new allegations in the SAC do
not cure the deficiencies in the Section 20(a) claims against
Vigliotti or Goebels.  Furthermore, given the Court's earlier
determination that the SAC fails to establish a strong inference
of scienter with respect to Vigliotti, he says it is appropriate
to deny the Plaintiff's motion as futile.

For these reasons, Judge Keenan holds that the SAC fails to cure
the deficiencies identified by the Court in the April 26 Order.
Accordingly, he denied the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file
the SAC.  He directed ITG and Gasser to file an answer to the
Plaintiff's remaining claims by no later than 14 days from the
date of his Opinion.  The Clerk of the Court is respectfully
directed to close the motion docketed at ECF No. 72.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/ZnvFms from Leagle.com.

Metzler Investment GmbH, Plaintiff, represented by William H.
Narwold -- bnarwold@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Gregg
Steven Levin -- glevin@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Lance
V. Oliver -- loliver@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, pro hac
vice & William Stephen Norton -- bnorton@motleyrice.com -- Motley
Rice LLC.

Laurence Watterson, Movant, represented by Phillip C. Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A. & Laurence M.
Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm PA.

Christine M Bernacchi, Movant, represented by Laurence David King
-- lking@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.

Metzler Investment GmbH, Movant, represented by Lionel Z. Glancy
-- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy & Binkow Goldberg LLP, pro hac
vice.

Investment Technology Group, Inc. & Steven R. Vigliotti,
Defendants, represented by George T. Conway, III --
GTConway@wlrk.com -- Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, Warren R.
Stern -- WRStern@wlrk.com -- Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz &
Charles Pettengill Griffin -- CPGriffin@wlrk.com -- Wachtell,
Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

Robert C. Gasser, Defendant, represented by John Frederick
Baughman -- jbaughman@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison LLP, Julian Nahuel Radzinschi, Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Kristina Anne Bunting --
kbunting@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP.

Mats Goebels, Defendant, represented by Eric Jonathan Seiler --
eseiler@fklaw.com -- Friedman, Kaplan, Seiler & Adelman, LLP &
John Nicholas Orsini -- jorsini@fklaw.com -- Friedman Kaplan
Seiler & Adelman LLP.


ITG INC: Mauthe Sues over Unsolicited Fax Advertisements
--------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D., P.C., individually and as the
representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. ITG, INC., ITG INVESTMENT RESEARCH, INC., and M
SCIENCE LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-01968-JLS (E.D.
Pa., May 10, 2018), seeks to recover statutory damages, trebling
of statutory damages, injunctive relief, compensation and
attorney fees under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendants have sent advertisements by facsimile in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendants sent
Plaintiff at least five advertisements by facsimile and in
violation of the TCPA. The Plaintiff did not expressly consent to
receive Defendants' advertisement by fax. Moreover, Plaintiff
does not have an established business relationship with any of
the Defendants and Defendants' faxes.

Defendants' unsolicited faxes damaged Plaintiff and the other
class members. Unsolicited faxes tie up the telephone lines,
prevent fax machines from receiving authorized faxes, prevent
their use for authorized outgoing faxes, cause undue wear and
tear on the recipients' fax machines, and require additional
labor to attempt to discern the source and purpose of the
unsolicited message. The recipient of a "junk" fax loses the use
of its fax machine, and many lose their paper and ink toner in
printing the fax. Such an unsolicited fax interrupts the
recipient's privacy. A junk fax wastes the recipient's valuable
time that would have been spent on something else.

Defendants' faxes advertise a compensated market research
program, a commercially available service. Defendants' clients
are companies in the health care industry seeking "in-depth
qualitative insights and statistically significant quantitative
date" to make "important business decisions."

ITG is a United States-based multinational agency brokerage and
financial markets technology firm aimed at a hedge fund and asset
management clientele.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Shenkan, Esq.
          SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC
          P.O. Box 7255
          New Castle, PA 16107
          Telephone: (412) 716 5800
          Facsimile: (888) 769 1774
          E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com

               - and -

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658 5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658 5555
          E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com


JANSSEN PHARMA: Excluded Evidence Led to Defense Verdicts
---------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that plaintiffs who lost all three bellwether trials over Xarelto
last year have asked an appeals court to vacate the decisions,
saying the judge improperly excluded evidence and gave jurors
incorrect instructions.

In an opening brief filed on April 23 before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Frederick Longer of Philadelphia's
Levin Sedran & Berman wrote that U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon
of the Eastern District of Louisiana should not have excluded
evidence that would have supported the plaintiffs' claims.
Plaintiffs allege that Bayer and Johnson & Johnson's Janssen
Pharmaceuticals Inc. failed to instruct physicians that patients
could get a blood test assessing their risk of bleeding when
taking Xarelto, he wrote.

The Fifth Circuit's decision in the three cases, consolidated on
appeal, could affect more than 20,000 individual lawsuits
coordinated in multidistrict litigation in the Eastern District
of Louisiana, he wrote.

"Some issues raised in these appeals likely will be raised again
in most, if not all, subsequent trials," he wrote.  "All three
cases ended in defense verdicts, but those verdicts resulted from
the improper admission or preclusion of certain evidence and the
improper omission of essential jury instructions."
"This consolidated appeal is based on identical issues raised by
the three individual plaintiffs in post-trial motions after
juries in each case found unanimously in favor of the defendants,
and Judge Fallon rejected those motions in all cases," said Bayer
spokesman Christopher Loder.  "There is no merit to these
recycled arguments and we will be urging the court in our reply
to deny this appeal."

The press office of Janssen did not respond to a request for a
comment.

Mr. Longer referred requests for a comment to Andy Birchfield of
Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles in Montgomery,
Alabama, who wrote: "The defense verdicts in the three
bellwethers hinged on court rulings that, we argue, improperly
admitted or precluded important evidence from the jury.  Because
of these trial court rulings, jurors were not allowed to consider
key evidence, including how consumers outside the U.S. receive
more complete information about Xarelto's documented health
risks."

He added: "Thousands of viable lawsuits remain and are being
worked up for eventual trial, and these same issues are certain
to come up in each case.  It's important for the Fifth Circuit to
resolve these issues for these three plaintiffs and all who will
follow."

Lawsuits allege that Xarelto, an anticoagulant used to treat
blood clots, caused plaintiffs to suffer from uncontrollable
internal bleeding.  Defendants, represented by Beth Wilkinson of
Washington, D.C.'s Wilkinson Walsh + Eskovitz, scored speedy
defense verdicts on May 3 and June 12 in New Orleans.  In the
third verdict, on Aug. 18 in Jackson, Mississippi, Janssen was
represented by Richard Sarver -- rsarver@barrassousdin.com -- of
Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Sarver, while Bayer's lawyers
were Lyn Pruitt -- lpruitt@mwlaw.com -- of Mitchell Williams in
Little Rock, Arkansas, and Walter T. Johnson --
wjohnson@watkinseager.com -- at Watkins & Eager in Jackson.

Lead plaintiffs attorneys in the trials were Brian Barr --
bbarr@levinlaw.com -- a shareholder at Levin Papantonio Thomas
Mitchell Rafferty Proctor in Pensacola, Florida, and Birchfield.
Mr. Longer, who is on the plaintiffs steering committee of the
Xarelto MDL, filed the appeal brief.

In particular, he wrote, jurors weren't allowed to hear evidence
of foreign labels and medical associations in other countries,
like Canada and New Zealand, which acknowledged the effectiveness
of the blood test.  Jurors in the third trial also were unaware
of "striking new evidence": a study by Bayer scientists backing
up use of the blood test that "probably would have changed the
outcome of trial if it had been available for presentation to the
jury before the evidence was closed."

The brief also challenged the jury instructions in all three
cases and Judge Fallon's decision in one of the trials to allow
Dr. Gary Peters, a clinical senior director in Janssen's
cardiovascular department, to testify about his wife's use of
Xarelto.

In separate litigation, plaintiffs lawyers in Philadelphia plan
to appeal reversal of a $28 million Xarelto verdict in the first
trial in Pennsylvania state court, while a second trial opened in
March.


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Faces "Capmbell" Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jefferson Capital
Systems LLC. The case is styled as Duane J Campbell, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jefferson
Capital Systems LLC, a Georgia Limited Liability Company and John
Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00731 (E.D. Wis., May 10,
2018).

Jefferson Capital Systems LLC is a debt collection agency in St.
Cloud, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Andrew T Thomasson, Esq.
   Stern Thomasson LLP
   150 Morris Ave-2nd Fl
   Springfield, NJ 07081
   Tel: (973) 379-7500
   Fax: (973) 532-5868
   Email: andrew@sternthomasson.com


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

Sanchez's Motion came on for hearing on March 22, 2018. For
settlement purposes, the parties have proposed and Judge Davila
granted conditional certification of the settlement class of all
former non-exempt, hourly associates who worked for temporary
staffing agencies, including but not limited to Select Staffing,
at any time between July 14, 2011 and July 3, 2017, who were
assigned by such temporary staffing agencies to work at the
Defendant's Castroville Plant.  Notwithstanding the foregoing,
any temporary staff person who performed work and/or allegedly
suffered violations of any law occurring while such person was in
the employ of either Manpower US Inc. and/or any Manpower
franchise and assigned to work at the Defendant's Castroville
Plant during the applicable period will not be considered a Class
Member.

Having reviewed the Plaintiff's motion, the parties' Joint
Stipulation of Class Action Settlement, along with the files and
records of the case, and oral argument made at the hearing, Judge
Davila appointed Sanchez to serve as the Class Representative and
his counsel, Fitzpatrick, Spini & Swanston as the Class Counsel.

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

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

Promptly following the entry of the Order, the Settlement
Administrator will prepare a final version of the Class Notice
Packet, incorporating into it the relevant dates and deadlines
set forth in the Order.  The Class Notice Packet will be
initially prepared in English and then, once finalized,
translated into Spanish.

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

The Class Members may exclude themselves from participating in
the Settlement by submitting a completed Opt-Out Form to the
Settlement Administrator and postmarked by the deadline.

The Class Members will have 45 calendar days after the date on
which the Settlement Administrator mails the Class Notice Packets
to submit to the Settlement Administrator a valid Opt-Out Form.
A valid Opt-Out Form will be deemed timely submitted to the
Settlement Administrator if it is mailed to the Settlement
Administrator by first-class mail and postmarked by no later than
45 calendar days after the Settlement Administrator first mails
the Class Notice Packets to the Class Members.

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

Any Class Member who wishes to object to the fairness,
reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement must do so no later
than 45 calendar days after the date that the Class Notice
Packets are first mailed to the Class Members by the Settlement
Administrator.

Judge Davila appointed Simpluris, Inc. as the Settlement
Administrator to carry out the duties set forth in the Order and
the Settlement.  The deadline for the Class Members to submit any
dispute of their pro-rata settlement payments will be 60 days
from the date the Class Notice is first mailed.  He directed the
parties to meet and confer regarding whether their currently
selected cy pres recipient (California Department of Industrial
Relations) is appropriate.  They will file a joint stipulation
informing the Court of the outcome of this meet and confer,
including a proposal for an alternate cy pres recipient if
necessary.  The parties will modify the Settlement, the Class
Notice Packet materials, and all other necessary documents to be
consistent with these modifications.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/AcEcd1 from Leagle.com.

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

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


LANCELOT INVESTMENT: Aug. 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION

TRADEX GLOBAL MASTER FUND SPC LTD., THE
ABL SEGREGATED PORTFOLIO 3, and TRADEX
GLOBAL MASTER FUND SPC LTD., THE ORIGINAL
SEGREGATED PORTFOLIO 3, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

- against -


LANCELOT INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.,
GREGORY BELL, McGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP,
McGLADREY & PULLEN, CAYMAN,
ALTSCHULER, MELVOIN & GLASSER, CAYMAN,
ALTSCHULER, MELVOIN & GLASSER, LLP, AND
SIMON LESSER,
Defendants.

10-CH-13264
Judge David B. Atkins

SUMMARY NOTICE

To: All Persons who purchased or who are currently, or were at
any point in time, legal and/or beneficial owners or custodians
of record of shares in Lancelot Investors Fund Ltd. (the
"Lancelot Fund"), including their assignees and transferees.
If you meet the definition of a Settlement Class Member, you
could get a payment from a class action settlement.

This is a court-authorized notice. This is not a solicitation
from a lawyer.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on August 3,
2018 at 11:00 a.m. before the Honorable David B. Atkins at the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department,
Chancery Division, Richard J. Daley Center, Room 2102, 50 West
Washington Street, Chicago, Illinois 60602 for the purpose of
determining (1) whether the proposed settlement of claims
against: (i) McGladrey & Pullen, LLP (n/k/a RSM US LLP),
McGladrey & Pullen, Cayman (f/k/a Altschuler, Melvoin and Glasser
(Cayman)), and Simon Lesser; and (ii) Altschuler, Melvoin and
Glasser LLP (collectively, the "Auditor Defendants") for a cash
payment of $27,500,000 (the "Settlement Amount") should be
approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether this
action should be dismissed as to the Auditor Defendants pursuant
to the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation of
Settlement dated as of April 12, 2018 ("Stipulation"); (3)
whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement Amount is
fair, reasonable and adequate and therefore should be approved;
and (4) whether the application of Plaintiffs' Counsel for the
payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, and an
incentive award for Plaintiffs, should be approved.

The "Settlement Class" includes all Persons who purchased or who
are currently, or were at any point in time, legal and/or
beneficial owners or custodians of record of shares in the
Lancelot Fund, including their assignees and transferees (each a
"Settlement Class Member"), but excluding (i) all persons who
previously opted out of the Settlement Class by filing or
settling their own claims against one or more of the Auditor
Defendants; (ii) any Persons who otherwise would be
Settlement Class Members but who have timely and validly
requested exclusion from this Settlement Class; and (iii) any of
the defendants named in the above-captioned action, as well as
their past or present shareholders, officers, directors, and
employees.  However, only Current Legal Owners (as defined below)
of Lancelot Fund shares will be entitled to receive a payment
from the Settlement Amount.  "Current Legal Owner" means a
Settlement Class Member who, as identified by the Claims
Administrator: (i) is a legal owner of record of shares in the
Lancelot Fund as of the date the Court enters an order finally
approving the Settlement; and (ii) suffered a Net Loss
(defined in the Plan of Allocation) with respect to those shares.
If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a written request for exclusion to the Claims
Administrator that is received by June 22, 2018, addressed to
Duff & Phelps LLC (Attn: Jenna O'Brien), 55 East 52nd Street,
Floor 31, New York, New York 10055.
In order to be valid, each request for exclusion by a Person
seeking to opt-out (a) must state (i) the name, address, e-mail
address, and telephone number of the Person seeking exclusion;
(ii) that the sender "requests exclusion from the Settlement
Class in Tradex Global Master Fund SPC Ltd. et ano. v. Lancelot
Investment Management, LLC, et al., 10-CH-13264"; (iii) the
date(s), number, and dollar amount of shares of the Lancelot Fund
purchased, and of any redemption or transfer transactions; and
(iv) the number of shares currently held by that Person in the
Lancelot Fund; and (b) must be submitted with documentary proof
of all transactions in Lancelot Fund shares, including whether
any such shares have been assigned or transferred to such Person.
Any such request for exclusion must be signed by the Person
requesting exclusion.

If you do not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you
will be deemed to have released certain claims against the
Auditor Defendants and other related parties, as set forth in the
Stipulation.  If you wish to remain part of the Settlement Class,
you may still object to the terms of the Settlement.  Any
objection to any aspect of the Settlement must be filed with the
Court no later than July 10, 2018.

If you wish to receive a detailed notice concerning the terms of
the Settlement or a copy of the Stipulation and/or the Plan of
Allocation, you may obtain copies by writing to the Claims
Administrator, Duff & Phelps LLC (Attn: Jenna O'Brien), 55 East
52nd Street, Floor 31 New York, New York 10055 (Email address:
tradexsettlement@duffandphelps.com) or by visiting
the Claim Administrator's website at
www.duffandphelps.com/tradexsettlement.  These documents contain
important information with respect to your rights and obligations
and the effect of the Settlement.

DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE OR ANY OF THE
DEFENDANTS OR COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

DATED: May 7, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK
COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT,
CHANCERY DIVISION


LAW OFFICES HOWARD: Faces "Truglio" Suit in Connecticut
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Law Offices Howard
Lee Schiff, P.C. The case is styled as David Truglio,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Law Offices Howard Lee Schiff, P.C. and Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00794-VAB
(D. Conn., May 10, 2018).

Law Offices Howard Lee Schiff, P.C. operates as a legal firm. The
Company offers attorneys, collections, litigation, and client
services. Law Offices Howard Lee Schiff serves clients in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LEASE SUPERVISOR: Court Denies Bid to Transfer "Mallory" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, denied the
Defendants' motion to transfer the case, DON MALLORY and TY
FARRELL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. LEASE SUPERVISORS, LLC, Defendant, Civil
Action No. 3:17-CV-3063-D (N.D. Tex.), to the Western District of
Texas, Midland-Odessa Division.

The collective action seeks unpaid overtime pay under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA").  Lease Supervisors is a
Texas limited liability company that maintains its corporate
office in Odessa, Texas.  In June 2016, Mallory, a resident of
Mabank, Texas, filed a proposed class action against Lease
Supervisors in the Western District of Texas Midland-Odessa
Division, asserting claims under ERISA for breaches of fiduciary
duty.  In March 2017, Farrell, a resident of Malakoff, Texas,
filed a similar ERISA lawsuit against Lease Supervisors in the
Western District of Texas, Midland-Odessa Division.  The Western
District of Texas denied Mallory's motion for class certification
and ultimately dismissed both cases.

In November 2017, while Farrell's proposed ERISA class action was
still pending in the Western District of Texas, Mallory and
Farrell filed the instant lawsuit in the Court, alleging FLSA
unpaid overtime claims on behalf of themselves and Lease
Supervisors' current and former plant operators/managers who were
paid a salary.

Lease Supervisors now moves under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) to
transfer the case, contending that it conducts its operations and
maintains its corporate records in Odessa, Texas; that Bobby
Allison, its former manager, resides there; and that the
interests of justice and convenience of the parties and witnesses
requires that the case be transferred to the Western District of
Texas, Midland-Odessa Division.  The Plaintiffs oppose the
motion.

Judge Fitzwater holds that the Plaintiffs could have brought the
lawsuit in the Western District of Texas.  For venue purposes,
Lease Supervisors "resides" in Odessa, which is located in Ector
County, Texas, within the Midland-Odessa Division of the Western
District of Texas.  And given the nature of FLSA collective
actions, and the fact that the Plaintiffs performed their job
duties in the Northern District of Texas, she finds that the
Plaintiffs' choice of forum is entitled to some weight.

The Judge holds that the relative ease of access to sources of
proof factor weighs slightly in favor of transfer.  In the case,
the Plaintiffs point to no documentary or other evidence located
in the Northern District of Texas.  Accordingly, he concludes
this factor weighs slightly in favor of transfer.

The Judge finds that the availability of compulsory process over
witnesses factor to be neutral.  Although it appears that the
Western District of Texas would have a greater subpoena power
over Allison than would the Court, Lease Supervisors neither
contends that a subpoena will be necessary to compel Allison's
attendance nor identifies any other non-party witness for whom
compulsory process will be necessary.

As to the cost of attendance for willing witnesses factor, the
Judge holds that this factor weighs slightly in favor of
transferring the case to the Western District of Texas.  She
assigns little weight to the convenience to Lease Supervisors'
employees because this factor primarily concerns the convenience
of nonparty witnesses.  Lease Supervisors has identified one non-
party witness -- Allison -- for whom a trial in the Western
District of Texas would be more convenient, and has identified
the general content of Allison's testimony.  But the convenience
of this single witness alone is insufficient to support a finding
that the factor does more than slightly favor a transfer.

With respect to the fourth private interest factor, a catch-all
consideration that includes all other practical problems that
make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive, the
Judge concludes it to be neutral.  Although the Western District
of Texas may have familiarity with the parties and their ERISA
dispute, Lease Supervisors has not explained how this knowledge
would make the trial of the Plaintiffs' FLSA case any easier,
more expeditious, or less expensive in the Western District of
Texas than in the Court.

Finally, turning to the public interest factors: the comparative
administrative difficulties due to court congestion in the
potential venues, the local interest in the dispute, and the
familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case,
the Judge holds that Lease Supervisors has failed to meet its
significant burden to shown that the Western District of Texas is
clearly more convenient than the Northern District of Texas.  The
Plaintiffs' choice of forum is entitled to some deference, the
Defendants have only demonstrated that two factors slightly favor
transfer, and the remaining factors are neutral.

For these reasons, Judge Fitzwater denied the Defendant's motion
to transfer venue.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/8Kcv8z from Leagle.com.

Don Mallory, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated & Ty Farrell, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by William S. Hommel,
Jr. -- bhommel@hommelfirm.com -- Hommel Law Firm & J. Derek
Braziel -- jdbraziel@l-b-law.com -- Lee & Braziel LLP.

Lease Supervisors LLC, Defendant, represented by R. Layne Rouse,
Shafer, Davis, O'Leary & Stoker & Stephen M. Steen, Jr., Shafer,
Davis, O'Leary & Stoker.


LEON KROUS: Fails to Pay Overtime & Minimum Wages, Sanchez Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN SANCHEZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LEON KROUS
DRILLING, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC70569 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
May 9, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid meal
period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, and unpaid minimum
wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants hired Plaintiff and
the other class members and classified them as hourly-paid or
non-exempt employees, and failed to compensate them for all hours
worked, missed meal periods and/or rest breaks. The Plaintiff and
the other class members worked over 8 hours in a day, and/or 40
hours in a week during their employment with Defendants.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a pattern and
practice of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt
employees within the State of California, involving, inter alia,
failing to pay them for all regular and/or overtime wages earned,
missed meal periods and rest breaks in violation of California
law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces Class Action Over Felons' Right to Vote
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
All of Us or None-Los Angeles Chapter accuses the Los Angeles
County Registrar of improperly disenfranchising thousands of
felons who are not in prison or on parole, in an L.A. Superior
Court class action.


LUCKY 99: Gomez Sues over Wage and Hour Laws Violation
------------------------------------------------------
ITALUBI SANCHEZ GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, LUCKY 99 CENT SHOP INC., XIAN
CE ZHOU, as individual, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04143
(S.D.N.Y., May 9, 2018), seeks to recover compensatory and
liquidated damages in an amount exceeding $100,000.00 for
egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by
Defendant. Plaintiff's primary duties were as cashier, stocker,
and laborer and performing other miscellaneous duties form march
2012 to April 2017. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and
half for hours worked over 40 hours, a blatant violation of the
overtime provisions contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York Labor Law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Helen F. Dalton, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          69-12 Austin Street
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (718) 263 9591


LYFT INC: Drivers' Pay Scheme "Deceptive", Villasenor Says
----------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO VILLASENOR, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. LYFT, INC., a corporation;
Doe 1-5, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02769-JCS (N.D. Cal.,
May 10, 2018), seeks disgorgement of unjust enrichment obtained
by Lyft, Inc. without legal entitlement, through deceptive
business practices and fraud.

"Lyft" is a familiar smartphone-app driven taxi service. While
characterizing its drivers as independent contractors, Lyft
exercises enormous control over its drivers' 'independent'
businesses, such as instantly terminating a driver's 'business'
at the drop of a hat.  Lyft's smartphone app and business model
are highly similar to the smartphone app and business model of
the earlier and highly-successful 'ridesharing' service, Uber.

Lyft competes with Uber in the same market; and each of these two
leading "transportation network companies" must compete against
taxi service. Since its 2012 launch, Lyft has enjoyed astounding
growth, achieving a market value of $11 billion in less than 5
years' time. Lyft's growth rate is remarkable, particularly in
light of Uber's 3-year head-start, viral growth rate, and
competitive pricing, designed to undercut taxi prices in all but
the most extreme markets, by an average of 30%.

Uber fares are so competitive with taxi fares that, in 2018,
competition from Uber had driven the free-market resale price of
a New York City Taxi Medallion (license) from a high of well over
$1,000,000 in 2013 to a little better than $150,000 in 2018.

In order to gain market entry against Lyft and compete with
taxis, like Uber, Lyft regularly set its standard prices to
average about 30% below taxi prices. As the new company in town,
in order to quickly increase its market share, Lyft had to
attract and retain drivers, including drivers who drove for Uber
or had the option of driving for Uber. To attract its rapidly-
growing staff, which has swollen to nearly 1,000,000 drivers,
Lyft advertising conveys the impression of being driver-friendly
and of offering drivers a better deal.  To a degree, this is
true. Lyft was the first major app-driven ride-sharing service to
allow drivers to accept and retain tips. Lyft advertised this
over the Internet and through email to prospective drivers.

However, in order to attract drivers while producing extra to
fuel its rapid growth, advertised more than it delivered,
resorting to what can only be characterized as deceptive business
acts and practices.  For example, the Plaintiff noticed that he
first made about $1800 per week. But, after the first two weeks
his referrals from Lyft resulted in shorter, lower-profit ride
referrals which only generated $1000 to $1200 per week gross
(less gasoline costs and 100,000 mile-per-year car expenses).
Lyft also gave new drivers an extra hour of prime time pricing in
order to boost the new driver's impression of earning more than
he would.

The Plaintiff also lost income when Lyft referred him a
scheduled, high-profit airport ride but, after he had driven most
of the way from Mission Viejo to LAX, Lyft suddenly withdrew the
ride and referred the ride to a driver closer to the arriving
passenger's LAX location, leaving Plaintiff to drive a 2.5 hour,
80 miles round-trip without compensation.

Most particularly relevant to the present suit, Lyft attracted
Plaintiff, as it attracts all drivers, by advertising, and in its
Terms of Service agreement promising, drivers 80% of the fare,
when in fact Lyft paid the driver far less; in one typical
example from February 1, 2018, paying Plaintiff only 57% of the
fare.

Until April 9, 2018, Lyft repeated the deceptive practice it had
used to attract drivers in its smartphone app display for every
ride. In one typical example, the Lyft app offered the passenger
a ride priced at over $7 while offering Plaintiff, the driver,
the same ride at a fare of only $5. The app displayed to the
driver a Lyft "commission" of $1, leaving the driver $4. But to
the passenger, the app displays a $7 ride. Thus Lyft retained an
additional $2 of the fare while continuing to misrepresent to the
driver that he was receiving 80% of the fare.

On information and belief, Lyft will assert that the 20%
constituted its "commission" under the contract with the driver,
and that the additional charge to the passenger constituted its
"service fee" under a different contract. The fact is that Lyft
deceives the driver as to the amount of the fare and retains
funds earned by the driver. This is a deceptive business
practice. Until April 9, 2018, Lyft did not disclose to the
driver that his 'independent business' had generated the higher
fare than he knew. Lyft may argue that there has been no
misrepresentation and no fraud -- that its additional service
fees are under a separate contract with the rider -- that the
service fee was a charge to the rider only, under a rider
contract that is entirely separate and distinct from its contract
with the driver -- and that this in no way decreases the driver's
net earnings.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class:

          Larry A. Peluso, Esq.
          PELUSO LAW GROUP, PC
          14435-C Big Basin Way No. 289
          Saratoga, CA 95070
          Telephone: (310) 593 1821
          E-mail: pelusolaw@gmail.com


LYFT: Class Action Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge granted
preliminary approval on May 11 to a $1.9 million settlement
between Lyft and its drivers, who claimed in a class action that
the ride-sharing company pocketed money from "premium fares" that
was supposed to go to them.


MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Brower Piven Files Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A
Professional Corporation, 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 purchasers of
Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation (NYSE:MIC) ("Macquarie" or
the "Company") securities during the period between February 22,
2016 and February 21, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors who wish to become proactively involved in the
litigation have until June 25, 2018, to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff.

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

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that the performance
and utilization of Macquaries International-Matex Tank Terminals
business were at risk of significant decline due to ongoing
industrywide changes in the market for heavy residual oils and,
in particular, declining demand and pricing for No. 6 fuel oil.

According to the complaint, following a February 21, 2018
announcement that the Company was slashing its dividend and
reporting disappointing fourth quarter earnings, the value of
Macquaries shares declined significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Macquarie securities purchased on or after February 22, 2016
and held through the revelation of negative information during
and/or at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn
more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead
plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please contact
Brower Piven either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by
telephone at (410) 415-6616.

         Charles J. Piven, Esq.
         Tel: 410-415-6616
         E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com
                 piven@browerpiven.com [GN]


MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation ("Macquarie"
or the "Company") (NYSE:MIC) and certain of its officers.   The
class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, and docketed under 18-cv-03744, is on
behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Macquarie's securities between February 22,
2016, and February 21, 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 Macquarie's securities
between February 22, 2016, and February 21, 2018, both dates
inclusive, you have until June 25, 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.

Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation owns, operates, and invests
in a portfolio of infrastructure businesses. The Company's
businesses consist of bulk liquid terminals, airport services,
gas processing and distribution, and a portfolio of contracted
power and energy investments.  Macquarie's International-Matex
Tank Terminals ("IMTT") business provides bulk liquid storage and
handling services at 12 marine terminals in the United States and
Canada, is Macquarie's most important business segment.

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) IMTT's performance
and utilization were at risk of significant decline due to
ongoing industrywide changes in the market for heavy residual
oils, and in particular, declining demand and pricing for No. 6
fuel oil; (ii) IMTT relied significantly on demand for storage of
heavy residual fuel oils, including No. 6 fuel oil; (iii)
Macquarie needed to undertake significant capital expenditures to
repurpose IMTT storage tanks to accommodate alternative products;
and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Macquarie's shares traded
at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, and
class members suffered significant losses and damages.

On February 21, 2018, after the market closed, Macquarie
surprised the market by announcing disappointing fourth-quarter
earnings of $0.43 per share, well short of analysts' estimate of
$0.51 per share, and that the Company would be slashing its
dividend by 31%. Macquarie blamed its poor performance on the
declining use of heavy residual oil products, declining demand
and prices for No. 6 fuel oil.

On this news, Macquarie's share price fell $26.21, or 41.19%, to
close at $37.41 on February 22, 2018.

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


MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation (NYSE: MIC)
from February 22, 2016 through February 21, 2018, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Macquarie investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the Macquarie class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1331.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO
NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Macquarie's International-Matex Tank
Terminals' ("IMTT") performance and utilization were at risk of
significant decline due to ongoing industrywide changes in the
market for heavy residual oils, and in particular, declining
demand and pricing for No. 6 fuel oil; (2) IMTT relied
significantly on demand for storage of heavy residual fuel oils,
including No. 6 fuel oil; and (3) Macquarie needed to undertake
significant capital expenditures to repurpose IMTT storage tanks
to accommodate alternative products. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

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 25, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN]


MADISON GLOBAL: $343K Settlement in "Surdu" Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEXANDRU SURDU, DINO TITO, ANASTASIA MAYFAT,
CIPRIAN GROSU and LUIS LOPEZ, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MADISON GLOBAL, LLC,
d/b/a "Nello," Nello Balan and Thomas Makkos, Defendants, Case
No. 15 Civ. 6567 (HBP) (S.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted the Plaintiffs' move for an order: (1) certifying the
final Settlement Class; (2) approving the class action
settlement; (3) approving the FLSA settlement; (4) awarding fees
to the class counsel; (5) granting service awards to named
Plaintiffs Surdu, Tito, Mayfat, Grosu and Lopez and (6) awarding
fees to the claims administrator.

The named Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, commenced this action pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law (the
"NYLL") Section 190 et seq. against the Defendants to recover
unpaid minimum wages, misappropriated gratuities, uniform
purchase and maintenance costs and penalties for failure to
provide wage statements and notices.  The Plaintiffs brought the
action as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b) with respect to the FLSA claims and as a class action with
respect to the NYLL claims.

Following the filing of the complaint, opt-in Plaintiffs Gulnaz
Badakshanova, Constantine Haralabopolous, Bilguun Ganhuyag,
Francesco Desideri, Gian Maria Montoro, Stefano Naia, Adnan
Dibra, Susanna De Martino, Luca Federico and Juan Carlos Rios
consented to join the FLSA collective action.

By letter to the Hon. Paul G. Gardephe, United States District
Judge, dated Sept. 30, 2016, the parties informed the Court that
they had reached a settlement of the FLSA collective action and
the NYLL class action.  The parties subsequently memorialized
their agreement in a written Settlement Agreement.

The Settlement Agreement provides that the Defendants, without
conceding the validity of the Plaintiffs' claims or admitting
liability, agree to create a common settlement fund of $342,500.
From the settlement fund, Surdu, Tito, Mayfat, Grosu and Lopez
will each receive an $8,500 service award and their counsel will
receive no more than $114,166.66, or one-third of the total
settlement amount, in attorneys' fees and costs, subject to the
Court's approval.

The Settlement Agreement provides that the claims administrator
will allocate the remainder of the settlement proceeds to those
class members who validly file a claim form as follows: (i) all
Class Members will receive one point for each week worked for
Nello between Aug. 19, 2009 and the date the Agreement is signed;
(ii) the Net Settlement Fund will be divided by the aggregate
number of points accrued by all of the Class Members during the
period of Aug. 19, 2009 through the date the Agreement is signed;
(iii) each Authorized Claimant's total points will be multiplied
by the Point Value to determine his or her Individual Settlement
Amount; and (iv) no authorized Claimant will receive less than
$100.

If any Authorized Claimant's Individual Settlement Amount under
this formula is less than $100, that Authorized Claimant's
Individual Settlement Amount will be increased to $100, with the
difference subtracted from the Net Settlement Fund, and all other
Authorized Claimants' Individual Settlement Amounts recalculated
according to the formula set forth above to account for the
difference.

Any portion of the net settlement amount not claimed by class
members will revert to the Defendants.  For tax purposes, 33% of
the settlement checks paid to class members will be reported to
the IRS as W-2 wage payments and 67% will be paid as 1099 non-
wage payments for interest, liquidated damages and statutory
penalties.

Additionally, the Settlement Agreement provides that upon final
approval of the Settlement Agreement, each individual who does
not opt out of the class, including those who do not submit a
claim form, will release the Defendants from all wage-and-hour
claims that were brought, or could have been brought, in the
action through the date of the Order.  It also provides that
neither side will make any statement to the media about the
settlement, other than the matter has been resolved.

Finally, the Settlement Agreement provides that either party has
the right to terminate the Settlement Agreement if the Magistrate
Judge declines to approve the Settlement Agreement, except if the
denial is solely due to attorneys' fees.  Additionally, the
Defendants have the right to terminate the Settlement Agreement
if ten percent or more of the putative class members opt out.

On Sept. 1, 2017, the Magistrate Judge conditionally certified
the NYLL class, appointed Klein Law Group, P.C. as the class
counsel, preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement and
authorized the notice of settlement (with modifications) to all
putative class and collective members.

Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, the claims
administrator sent the approval notice to all the putative class
members on Oct. 17, 2017.  On Jan. 3, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed
the pending motion for final approval.  The Defendants do not
oppose the motion.

Magistrate Judge Pitman granted the Plaintiff's motion for final
approval.  Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b) (3), he
certified the class, for settlement purposes, of all individuals
who worked for defendants as tipped employees, including servers,
runners, bussers and bartenders, between Aug. 19, 2009 until
Sept. 1, 2017.  The Settlement Agreement is unconditionally
approved.

The Effective Date of the settlement will be the date 30 days
after entry of the Final Approval Order approving the Settlement
Agreement, if no appeal is filed.  If an appeal is taken, the
Effective Date will be the next business day after all appeals
are finally resolved in favor of final approval.

In accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and
after the Effective Date of the Order, the Magistrate Judge
directed the claims administrator will distribute the funds in
the settlement amount by making the following payments: (i)
paying the claims administrator fee of $5,588.23; (ii) paying
$66,340.30 to class counsel as payment of attorneys' fees; and
(iii) paying a service award of $8,500 to Surdu, Tito, Mayfat,
Grosu and Lopez.  Following the disbursement set forth, the
claims administrator will distribute the remaining funds in the
settlement account to the collective and class members in
accordance with the allocation plan described in the Settlement
Agreement.

The litigation was dismissed with prejudice on April 23, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/Q5ppo3 from Leagle.com.

Alexandru Surdu, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Dino Tito, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Anastasia Mayfat, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Ciprian Grosu,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Luis
Lopez, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Constantine Haralabopolous, Gian Maria Montoro, Stefano
Naia, Adnan Dibra, Susanna De Martino, Luca Federico & Juan
Carlos Rios, Plaintiffs, represented by Darren Paul Brian Rumack,
The Klein Law Group.

Thomas Makkos, Nello Balan & Madison Global, LLC, doing business
as Nello, Defendants, represented by Heather Claire Hili --
Heather.Hili@jacksonlewis.com -- Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP,
Noel P. Tripp -- TrippN@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. &
Roger H. Briton -- BritonR@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C.

Bilguun Ganhuyag & Francesco Desideri, ADR Providers, represented
by Darren Paul Brian Rumack, The Klein Law Group.


MAGIC PLASTICS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Garcia Says
------------------------------------------------------------
AUSENCIA GARCIA, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MAGIC PLASTICS, INC., a
California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC705074 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 9, 2018),
seeks to recover minimum and straight time wages, overtime
compensation, and timely pay final wages under the California
Labor Code.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in Los Angeles, California as
a non-exempt, machine operator from 2004 to May 19, 9 2015. The
Defendants paid Plaintiff a regular rate hourly wage of $8.96 per
hour up until June 8, 2014, and $9.10 per hour after June 9,
2014. During Plaintiffs employment for Defendants, the Defendants
typically scheduled Plaintiff to work 5-6 days in a workweek and
typically in 12 excess of 8 hours per workday.

Throughout the statutory period, the Defendants failed to provide
Plaintiff with meal 14 periods, failed to authorize and permit
Plaintiff to take rest periods, failed to pay Plaintiff for all
hours worked (including minimum wages, straight time wages, and
overtime wages), failed to pay Plaintiff the correct amount of
overtime wages, and failed to timely pay all final wages to
Plaintiff when Plaintiff's employment was terminated.

Magic Plastics Inc. manufactures injection molding. The Company
produces check, external locks, and uni-body valves, as well as
manifold plugs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MARINER HEALTH: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Valentine Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY VALENTINE, individually, and. on behalf of all other
similarly situated and/or aggrieved employees of DEFENDANTS in
the State of California, the Plaintiff, v. REHABILITATION CENTER
OF SANTA MONICA HOLDING COMPANY GP, LLC; REHABILITATION CENTER OF
SANTA MONICA OPERATING COMPANY, LP; MARINER HEALTH CARE
MANAGEMENT COMPANY; SAVAS EN10RCARE, LLC; SAVASENTORCARE
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC; MARINER HEALTH CARE, INC; MARINER
HEALTH CENTRAL, INC. AND NATIONAL SENIOR CARE, INC. and DOES 1
THROUGH 50, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC705078 (Cal.
Super. Ct., May 9, 2018), seeks to recover minimum and regular
wages and overtime wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in a
systematic pattern of wage and hour abuse towards Plaintiff and
other current and former employees by denying them specific
rights afforded to them under the California law, including the
California Labor Code and rules promulgated by the Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Orders.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Terry Valentine and Aggrieved Employees

          Graham S.P. Hollis, Esq.
          Caroline G. Massey, Esq.
          GRAHAMHOLLIS APC
          3555 Fifth Avenue Suite 200
          Sail Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: 619 692 0800
          Facsimile: 619 692 0822
          E-mail: ghollis@grahamhollis.com
                  cmassey@grahamhollis.com


MARS PETCARE: "Hull" Suit Moved to Central District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Dennis Hull, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Mars Petcare US, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
and Mars Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CIVDS1807459, was removed
from the Superior Court of California County San Bernardino, to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Eastern Division - Riverside) on May 10, 2018. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-01021-PSG-KK to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Philip S.
Gutierrez.

Mars Petcare provides pet care products. The Company offers pet
health care and food products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arnab Banerjee, Esq.
          Brandon Kyle Brouillette, Esq.
          Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAWYERS APC
          1875 Century Park East Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556 4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943 0396
          E-mail: arnab.banerjee@capstonelawyers.com
                  brandon.brouillette@capstonelawyers.com
                  ruhandy.glezakos@capstonelawyers.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Megan O'Bannon, Esq.
          HARMON AND DAVIES PC
          1428 South Jones Boulevard
          Las Vegas, NV 89146
          Telephone: (702) 253 6996
          Facsimile: (702) 253 6997
          E-mail: megan@jharmonlaw.com


MEDICAL ARTS: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical Arts
Radiological Group, P.C. The case is styled as Kathleen Sypert,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Medical Arts Radiological Group, P.C., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-04212 (S.D. N.Y., May 10, 2018).

Medical Arts Radiological Group Pc was founded in 1970. The
company's line of business includes the practice of general or
specialized medicine and surgery for various licensed
practitioners.[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


MEHDI MEDICAL: Mauthe Sues over Unsolicited Fax Advertisements
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT W. MAUTHE, MD P.C. a Pennsylvania corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class similarly-
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. MEHDI MEDICAL LLC, LDR
HOLDING CORPORATION, and ZIMMER BIOMET HOLDINGS, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-01967-JLS (E.D. Pa., May 10, 2018),
alleges that the Defendants have sent advertisements by facsimile
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The
Defendants sent Plaintiff at least one advertisement by facsimile
and in violation of the TCPA. The Plaintiff did not expressly
consent to receive Defendants' advertisement by fax. Moreover,
the Plaintiff does not have an established business relationship
with Defendants and Defendants' fax does not contain an opt out
notice.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. LaSalle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Mobile: (512) 739 0390
          Direct: (312) 658 5515
          E-mail phil@classlawyers.com


MILWAUKEE: Settles Stop-and-Frisk Class Action for $1.9MM
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Milwaukee reportedly
approved a $1.9 million payment on April 30 to settle a class
action brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin
claiming city police used abusive stop-and-frisk tactics
motivated by race and ethnicity.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Lovetts Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
TOMMY LOVETT and VALETTA LOVETT, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00727
(E.D. Mo., May 10, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by
Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendants'
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting,
marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of
the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient
glyphosate.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Eric D. Holland, Esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM
          300 North Tucker, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241 8111
          Facsimile: (314) 241 5554
          E-mail: eholland@allfela.com

               - and -

          Jessica L. Richman, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          6 Harbor Park Drive
          Port Washington, NY 11050
          Telephone: (516) 723 4627
          Facsimile: (516) 723 4727
          E-mail: jrichman@yourlawyer.com


NEW ROCHELLE: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Rochelle
Radiology Associates, P.C. The case is styled as Kathleen Sypert,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. New Rochelle Radiology Associates, P.C., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-04211 (S.D. N.Y., May 10, 2018).

New Rochelle Radiology Associates, P.C. is a medical diagnostic
imaging center in New Rochelle, 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


NYC TAXI: Voluntary Dismissal of "Nnebe" Remaining Claims Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JONATHAN NNEBE et al., Plaintiffs, v. MATTHEW DAUS
et al., Defendants, Case No. 06-cv-4991 (RJS) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge
Richard J. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the Plaintiffs' motions for nominal
damages and to voluntarily dismiss their remaining claims
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a).

On June 28, 2006, Nnebe, a New York City taxi driver, initiated
the action against the Defendants.  On Oct. 27, 2006, Plaintiffs
Karmansky, Avenaut, Amin, and the New York Taxi Workers Alliance
joined in the Second Amended Complaint.  On Sept. 30, 2009, the
Court granted summary judgment to the Defendants with respect to
the Plaintiffs' federal due process claims.  That decision
contained multiple holdings including that the Plaintiffs had
fair and adequate notice that they faced suspension if they were
arrested for any of the enumerated crimes.  The Plaintiffs timely
appealed.

The Second Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and
remanded the case to the Court for additional fact-finding.
Specifically, the Second Circuit agreed with the Court that the
Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution did not require that
the Plaintiffs receive a pre-deprivation hearing before the TLC
suspended their taxi licenses.  Nevertheless, based on the City's
representations during oral argument, the panel was unable to
discern what standard the TLC applied at the post-deprivation
hearings.

As a result, the panel remanded the case and directed the Court
to conduct additional fact-finding, in the manner it deems
appropriate, to determine whether the post-suspension hearing the
City affords does indeed provide an opportunity for a taxi driver
to assert that, even if the criminal charges are true, continued
licensure does not pose any safety concerns.

The Second Circuit then instructed the Court to determine whether
the hearing the City actually provides comports with due process.
Finally, the panel ordered that, in the event the Court
determines that the post-suspension hearing does not comport with
due process, it is instructed to reconsider its summary judgment
ruling in its entirety.

On remand, the Court held a bench trial focused on "the narrow
issue" highlighted in the Second Circuit's remand order -- what
standard is applied at the post-suspension hearings.  Thereafter,
it issued an opinion setting forth its factual determination that
the TLC utilized an "arrest-plus-nexus" standard whereby the
decision-maker considered only whether (a) the suspended driver
has been charged with a crime, (b) the charge is still pending,
and (c) there is a nexus between the charged crime, as defined by
its statutory elements, and public health or safety.

After an additional round of briefing in light of these factual
findings, the Court issued a separate opinion setting forth its
conclusions of law.  Specifically, it determined that the TLC's
post-suspension hearings did not violate procedural or
substantive due process requirements, except with respect to the
notices provided by the TLC prior to December 2006, which failed
to inform the Plaintiffs that he critical issues relevant to the
summary suspension hearing were limited to the fact of charges,
the pendency of charges, and the nexus between those charges and
public health or safety.

As for the remedies available to the Plaintiffs, the Court
determined that they were precluded from seeking injunctive
relief because they had established only a past violation, not a
continuing or future violation as required for such prospective
relief.  However, because the parties had not yet had an
opportunity to brief the issue of damages pertaining to the pre-
2006 notice letters, the Court directed the parties to file
supplemental briefs addressing this remedial question and others
not relevant.

On May 24, 2016, without first seeking leave of the Court, the
Plaintiffs sought interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section
1292(a)(1).  On June 3, 2016, the Court stayed the case during
the pendency of the Plaintiffs' appeal, which the Second Circuit,
predictably, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on Feb. 3, 2017.
On Feb. 7, 2017, the Court again ordered the parties to submit
briefs addressing the remaining issues in the case.

Although the parties filed submissions addressing several
outstanding issues, the Court received a letter from the
Plaintiffs on Jan. 31, 2018 withdrawing all remaining claims not
decided by the Court's April 28, 2016 Memorandum and Order.  As
for the sole claim on which they prevailed -- the pre-December
2006 notice claim -- the Plaintiffs withdrew all requests for
relief except for nominal damages.

The Defendants responded, agreeing to stipulate to dismissal of
all remaining claims and requesting entry of final judgment on
the condition that such dismissal is with prejudice.  They
nevertheless asserted that (1) the Plaintiffs had waived their
notice argument per the Second Circuit's footnote, and (2) none
of the individual Plaintiffs were entitled to nominal damages.

Judge Sullivan finds that each of the individual Plaintiffs
received inadequate notice; they are not required to show that
this procedural due process violation caused any additional harm
other than that inherent in the deprivation of process to which
they were entitled.  Accordingly, he finds that the individual
Plaintiffs are entitled to nominal damages of $1.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs' state law claims,
although factually related to their federal claims, involve legal
theories of liability wholly distinct from the federal claims, so
there is little likelihood of duplicative expense of
relitigation.  In sum, he says the Defendants would not be
prejudiced by having to litigate these claims in some future
action: the parties never really litigated them in the Court, and
the legal issues are sufficiently distinct from the claims that
were actually adjudicated over the course of the litigation,
which were limited to the Plaintiffs' federal due process claims.
Accordingly, he determines that dismissal without prejudice is
appropriate for the Plaintiffs' state law claims.

Judge Sullivan awarded each of the individual Plaintiffs $1 in
nominal damages in light of his determination that the notice
provided by the TLC with respect to summary post-suspension
hearings held prior to December 2006 violated the Due Process
Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  He concludes that the
Plaintiffs have failed to prove all other constitutional claims
for the reasons set forth in the Court's previous Memorandum and
Order.  He directed the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment
accordingly, to dismiss the Plaintiff's state law claims without
prejudice, to dismiss all other claims with prejudice, and to
close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2018 Opinion, Order,
and Judgment is available at https://is.gd/dUbCpk from
Leagle.com.

Jonathan Nnebe & Alexander Karmansky, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Daniel Lee Ackman -- dan@danackmanlaw.com -- Daniel L. Ackman,
Esq. & David Thomas Goldberg -- dgoldberg@law.stanford.edu --
Donahue & Goldberg, L.L.P.

Kharirul Amin, Eduardo Avenaut & New York Taxi Workers Alliance,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel Lee Ackman, Daniel L. Ackman,
Esq., David Thomas Goldberg, Donahue & Goldberg, L.L.P., Janice
Mac Avoy -- janice.macavoy@friedfrank.com -- Fried, Frank,
Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP & Michael Alexander Kleinman --
michael.kleinman@friedfrank.com -- Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver
& Jacobson LLP.

Matthew Daus, Joseph Eckstein, Elizabeth Bonina, The New York
City Taxi and Limousine Commission, The City of New York &
Charles Fraser, Defendants, represented by Mary M. O'Sullivan,
NYC Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel & Amy J.
Weinblatt, NYC Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel.


OAK HILL ACADEMY: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Norwood" ADA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERICA D. NORWOOD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OAK HILL
ACADEMY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 7:17cv00222 (W.D. Va.),
Judge Michael F. Urbanski of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Virginia, Roanoke Division, (i) adopted the
Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation to the extent it is
consistent with the Opinion; (ii) overruled the Plaintiffs'
objections; (iii) granted Oak Hill's motion to dismiss; and (iv)
denied Oak Hill's motion for summary judgment.

Pro se Plaintiffs Norwood and Elizabeth D. Tate, brought the
civil action against Oak Hill, claiming a violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), breach of contract, and
negligence.  Pending before the court are Oak Hill's motion to
dismiss and motion for summary judgment.  Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 636(b)(1)(B), the Court referred both motions to U.SS
Magistrate Judge Robert S. Ballou for a report and
recommendation.

In his report and recommendation, the Magistrate Judge
recommended that Oak Hill's motion for summary judgment be denied
because the Plaintiffs' claims are not barred by res judicata.
The Magistrate Judge further recommended granting Oak Hill's
motion to dismiss, specifically dismissing the Plaintiffs' ADA
claim (Count I) with prejudice; dismissing the breach of contract
claim (Count II) without prejudice; and dismissing the negligence
claim (Count III) with prejudice.

The Plaintiffs filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's report
regarding the motion to dismiss.  The Plaintiffs contest the
recommendation to not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
breach of contract claim because Oak Hill would not suffer
prejudice from such jurisdiction, Oak Hill may receive
preferential treatment in state court, the Plaintiffs likely
would not receive a fair trial in state court for lack of
counsel, and a remand would increase their travel expenses
relating to the litigation.  Oak Hill responded to the
Plaintiffs' objections.

Judge Urbanski finds no merit to the Plaintiffs' objection, based
on the Magistrate Judge's provided rationale and because no
federal claims remain in the action.  He explains that as state
law governs Count II, the Court may only exercise its power
either through diversity or supplemental jurisdiction.  Diversity
jurisdiction cannot be exercised because the alleged amount in
controversy in this action does not exceed $75,000.  The
Plaintiffs do not dispute the lack of diversity jurisdiction or
claim that the value of their case exceeds $75,000.

The Judge notes that this is the Plaintiffs' second action for
negligence and breach of contract against Oak Hill Academy.
Although the Court is mindful of the considerations of judicial
economy for both this court and the state court, this breach of
contract claim is better addressed by a state court given that
Grayson Circuit Court already has been involved in the
adjudication of these state claims.  The Plaintiffs' reasons for
maintaining the suit in federal court are not persuasive.  They
Plaintiff opted to file this breach of contract claim, or a
similar version of this claim, in state court.  Oak Hill should
not have fairly expected to defend this breach of contract claim
in federal court given these circumstances.  The Court will not
exercise its supplemental jurisdiction.

Therefore, Judge Urbanski will adopt the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation and will dismiss Count I with prejudice and Count
II without prejudice.

While he is inclined to agree with the magistrate judge that the
Plaintiffs currently have not pled sufficient facts to support a
breach of Oak Hill's duty in loco parentis, the Judge again
elects to not exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over this
negligence claim and dismisses the claim without prejudice.  Oak
Hill had a duty in loco parentis to Norwood, and whether the
Plaintiffs' allegations show a breach of that duty is a fact-
based question.  He finds that this state claim should be
resolved by the state court that previously dealt with the
negligence claim for the same reasons applicable to the breach of
contract claim.  The decision to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction is within the Court's discretion, and he is not
persuaded that exercising such jurisdiction would advance
judicial economy or be fair given the state court's prior
involvement with similar or identical claims involving Norwood.

Therefore, he will adopt the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to
the extent consistent with his Opinion and will dismiss Count III
without prejudice.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Urbanski denied Oak Hill's
motion for summary judgment, granted Oak Hill's motion to
dismiss, adopted the report and recommendation to the extent
consistent with the Opinion, overruled the Plaintiffs' objections
to the report, and dismissed and struck the matter from the
active docket of the Court.  An appropriate Order will be
entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/pJWVFH from Leagle.com.

Erica D. Norwood, Plaintiff, pro se.

Elizabeth D. Tate, Plaintiff, pro se.

Oak Hill Academy, a Virginia corporation, Defendant, represented
by Mark Andrew Fulks -- mfulks@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker
Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC.


OMNITRITION INT'L: Court Dismisses "Pattison" with Leave to Amend
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEANA PATTISON, Plaintiff, v. OMNITRITION
INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. C17-1454JLR
(W.D. Wash.), Judge James L. Robart of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, (i) granted the
Omnitrition Defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend,
(ii) granted Defendant Jennifer Van Vynck's motion to dismiss
with leave to amend, and (iii) denied Ms. Pattison's motion for
relief from a deadline relating to the Omnitrition Defendants'
motion to dismiss.

Ms. Pattison brought the putative class action on July 25, 2017,
against the Omnitrition Defendants, Ms. Van Vynck, and Does 1-100
unnamed Omnitrition Independent Marketing Associates.  She
challenges the Defendants' illegal and deceptive practice of
manufacturing, promoting, marketing, selling, and distributing
over-the-counter weight-loss products, called Omni Drops, which
contains human chorionic gonadotropin ("hCG"), a hormone that has
been prescribed to assist weight loss.  Allegedly relying on the
Defendants' representations and advertisements that users will
experience significant and rapid weight loss, Ms. Pattison
purchased Omni Drops and was misled into purchasing and paying
for a product that is not as represented.

Ms. Pattison lays out a brief history regarding the
ineffectiveness of hCG as a treatment for obesity, asserting that
as far back as 1962, scientific studies suggested that hCG intake
may potentially be more hazardous to the patient's health than
continued obesity.  In 2011, she alleges that the FDA announced
there was no evidence that hCG products are effective for weight
loss.  The FDA allegedly issued several warning letters to
companies marketing hCG products for weight loss, although
Omnitrition was not one of the companies receiving a warning
letter.  The FDA also allegedly announced to consumers that over-
the-counter products claiming to contain hCG are illegal.  Ms.
Pattison purports that by the end of 2011, the FDA and FTC
advised consumers to steer clear of over-the-counter and
homeopathic hCG products as unproven and illegal.

Ms. Pattison alleges that the Defendants introduced their hCG
product Omni Drops to the market in January 2011.  The complaint
describes purported misrepresentations in three areas: (1) on the
product label, (2) in training materials for Omitrition IMAs, who
sell Omnitrition products, and (3) in Omnitrition marketing
materials.

First, the "original label" on Omni Drops bottles allegedly
stated that "Omnitrition Official Homeopathic Weight Loss Drops"
were a fast and effective way to lose unwanted pounds and inches.
This label also allegedly contained a disclaimer that the product
is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.
Second, the Defendants' training materials allegedly instructed
agents to tell customers about the expected weight loss and to
share testimonials of individuals experiencing weight loss.
Third, the complaint asserts that the Defendants' advertisements
portray Omni Drops as safe and effective products that will
result in rapid and safe weight loss of up to two pounds per day.
By August 2011, the complaint alleges that the Defendants
reported a sales growth of 294%, largely attributable to the
sales of Omni Drops.

In response to the FDA and FTC advisements, Ms. Pattison asserts
that Defendants altered their marketing at the end of 2011.  The
Defendants allegedly revamped their Omni Drops label by removing
the "Weight Loss Drops" designation and the hCG lettering.  They
also purportedly required their agents to remove any photos or
images of the Omni Drops product from marketing materials,
websites, and social media platforms.  As a result of these
alleged misrepresentations and omissions, Ms. Pattison claims
that she and other putative class members were misled into paying
for a product that is not as represented.

Based on these allegations, Ms. Pattison brings five claims
against the Defendants: (1) violation of Washington's Consumer
Protection Act ("CPA") by engaging in unfair and deceptive acts
or practices; (2) fraud in its marketing of Omni Drops; (3)
misrepresentation regarding Omni Drops; (4) unjust enrichment
through the Defendants' wrongful conduct; and (5) piercing the
corporate veil as to Omnitrition and the Daleys.

In their two motions to dismiss, brought by the Omnitrition
Defendants and Ms. Van Vynck respectively, they seek to dismiss
all claims.  They make two main arguments in their motions to
dismiss.  First, the Defendants allege that all claims are time-
barred.  Alternatively, they maintain that the complaint, in its
entirety, fails to state a claim.

After the Omnitrition Defendants' motion to dismiss was filed,
Ms. Pattison submitted a motion for relief from the filing
deadline associated with that motion, in which she argues that a
dispositive motion should not be considered prior to class
certification.

Judge Robart rejects Ms. Pattison's contention that the Court
should not consider the Defendants' motions to dismiss simply
because it has not yet decided the class certification question.
Because he finds that Ms. Pattison's claims, as currently
pleaded, are time-barred, it does not reach the issue of whether
the complaint contains sufficient factual allegations to state a
claim.

The Judge finds that Ms. Pattison fails to include any factual
allegations regarding events occurring after July 25, 2013 in her
2017 complaint, and thus, even construing the complaint in the
light most favorable to Ms. Pattison, he cannot reasonably infer
that her CPA claim is timely brought within the four-year
limitation period.  Because the running of the statue is apparent
on the face of her complaint, the Judge will grant the
Defendants' motion to dismiss Ms. Pattison's CPA claim.  Because
the expiration of the limitations period is apparent on the face
of Ms. Pattison's complaint even when all reasonable inferences
are drawn in her favor, he will grant the Defendants' motions to
dismiss Ms. Pattison's fraud, misrepresentation, and unjust
enrichment claims.

The Judge holds that Ms. Pattison may not assert piercing the
corporate veil claim as a separate claim.  Tellingly, Ms.
Pattison makes no argument to the contrary in her responsive
briefing.  Accordingly, he will dismiss Ms. Pattison's piercing-
the-veil claim against Omnitrition and the Daleys.

The Judge will grant Ms. Pattison leave to amend her CPA,
misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment claims within 20
days of the entry of the Order.  Unlike the operative complaint,
which indiscriminately accuses the "Defendants" of taking a
number of actions, the second amended complaint must clearly
indicate by name which individuals or entities took which actions
and which claims Ms. Pattison asserts against which defendants.
He says Ms. Pattison must submit with her second amended
complaint a redlined version of the complaint or a document that
otherwise identifies the changed or added factual allegations.
The Judge cautions Ms. Pattison that the failure to timely amend
her complaint, or the failure to remedy the deficiencies
identified herein, will be treated as evidence of the futility of
further amendment and may result in dismissal with prejudice.

For these reasons, Judge Robart granted the Defendants' motions
to dismiss.  He dismissed Ms. Pattison's complaint in its
entirety and granted her leave to amend as stated within 20 days
of the entry of the order.  He further denied Ms. Pattison's
motion for relief.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/HeTvgl from Leagle.com.

Deana Pattison, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Tyler K. Firkins --
tfirkins@vansiclen.com -- VAN SICLEN STOCKS & FIRKINS & Victor J.
Torres -- vtorres@vansiclen.com -- VAN SICLEN STOCKS & FIRKINS.

Omnitrition International, Inc., a foreign corporation, Roger M.
Daley, individually and their marital community comprised
therewith & Barbara Daley, individually and their marital
community comprised therewith, Defendants, represented by Douglas
W. Greene --
greened@lanepowell.com -- LANE POWELL PC, Heidi Brooks Bradley --
bradleyh@lanepowell.com -- LANE POWELL PC & Kristin Beneski --
beneskik@lanepowell.com -- LANE POWELL PC.


ONLINE INFORMATION: Faces "Kelly" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Online Information
Services Inc. The case is styled as Dennis Kelly, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Online Information Services Inc. doing business as: Online
Collections, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02796 (E.D. N.Y., May
10, 2018).

Online Information Services Inc. is a collection agency in
Winterville, NC.[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


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Klein Law Firm Commences Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm disclosed that a class action complaint has
been filed on behalf of shareholders of Overstock.com, Inc.
(NASDAQ: OSTK) who purchased shares between August 3, 2017 and
March 26, 2018. The action, which was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Utah, alleges that the Company
violated federal securities laws.

In particular, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, defendants made 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.

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

         Joseph Klein, Esq.
         The Klein Law Firm
         Telephone: 212-616-4899
         Fax: 347-558-9665
         E-mail: joseph@dknlegal.com [GN]


PERFORMANCE TEAM: Underpays Employees, Torres Claims
----------------------------------------------------
RANDY TORRES, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated non-exempt former and current employees; CHRISTINA
TORRES, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
non-exempt former and current employees the Plaintiff, v.
PERFORMANCE TEAM, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company;
PERFORMANCE TEAM LOGISTICS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC705070
(Cal. Super. Ct., May 9, 2018), seeks to recover pay for all
hours worked and overtime wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, throughout the liability period, Non-
Exempt Employees were required to do work that fell outside the
piece-rate pay criteria, such as non-piece rate tasks, including
but not limited to pre-trips, post-trips, waiting time, fueling,
cleaning setting up, loading and/or unloading, waiting between
jobs and tasks and/or performing work or duties that otherwise
falls outside of the piece-rate pay criteria. Throughout the
liability period, the Defendants failed to provide 30 minute,
uninterrupted meal periods to Non-Exempt Employees who worked for
work periods of more than five consecutive hours or pay
compensation in lieu thereof.

Performance Team is an industry-leading third-party logistics
company with over 30 years of experience in warehousing,
distribution, consolidation and transportation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Grant Joseph Savoy, Esq.
          Shona J. Saluki, Esq.
          SOLOUKI SAVOY, LLP
          316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (213) 814 4940
          Facsimile: (213) 814 2550


PHH CORPORATION: Franchi Balks at Merger Deal with Ocwen
--------------------------------------------------------
ADAM FRANCHI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. PHH CORPORATION, JANE D. CARLIN,
ROBERT B. CROWL, JAMES O. EGAN, JAMES C. NEUHAUSER, CHARLES P.
PIZZI, KEVIN STEIN, and CARROLL R. WETZEL, JR., the Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-09006 (D.N.J., May 9, 2018), seeks to enjoin the
Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing a proposed merger
transaction, and in the event the Defendants consummate the
Proposed Transaction, rescind and set it aside, or award
rescissory damages.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on
February 27, 2018, pursuant to which PHH Corporation will be
acquired by Ocwen Financial Corporation and POMS Corp.  Pursuant
to the terms of the Merger Agreement, stockholders of PHH will
receive $11.00 in cash for each share of PHH they own.

On April 27, 2018, the defendants filed a proxy statement with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the Proposed Transaction.  According to the
Complaint, the Proxy Statement omits material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy
Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy
Statement.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce D. Greenberg
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623 3000
          Facsimile: (973) 623 0858
          E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295 5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654 7530
          E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324 6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631 1305
          E-mail: rm@maniskas.com


PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA: Ramsey Sues over 401(k) Plan Losses
----------------------------------------------------------
TODD RAMSEY, FREDERICK BUTLER, MARTA NELSON, DIANE LEWIS, SIMONE
ADAMS, KASANDRA ADAMS, AND BRIAN ADAMS, individually and as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons of, and
on behalf of, the Philips North America 401(k) Plan, the
Plaintiffs, v. PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-01099-NJR-RJD (S.D. Ill., May 10, 2018), seeks to enforce
Defendant's personal liability under 29 U.S.C. section 1109(a) to
make good to the 401(k) Plan all losses resulting from each
breach of fiduciary duty and restore to the Plan any profits made
through Defendant's use of the Plan's assets. In addition,
Plaintiffs seek to reform the Plan to comply with the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and to prevent further
breaches of fiduciary duties as provided in ERISA.

With more than $3 billion in assets, the Defendants' 401(k) Plan
is in the top 0.08% -- less than 1% -- of more than 620,000
401(k) plans offered to participants based on plan assets. The
marketplace for 401(k) retirement plan services is established
and competitive.

According to the complaint, multi-billion dollar defined
contribution plans, like the Plan, have tremendous bargaining
power to demand low-cost administrative and investment management
services. As fiduciary to the Plan, according to the lawsuit, the
Defendant is obligated to act for the exclusive benefit of
participants and beneficiaries and ensuring that plan expenses
are reasonable. These duties are the "highest known to the law"
and must be performed with "an eye single to the interests of the
participants and beneficiaries." Donovan v. Bierwirth, 680 F.2d
263, 271, 272 n.8 (2d Cir. 1982). Instead of using the Plan's
bargaining power to benefit participants and beneficiaries,
Defendant selected and retained high-cost and poor-performing
investments compared to available alternatives and caused the
Plan, and hence participants, to pay unreasonable expenses for
administration of the Plan.

Philips North America LLC designs and manufactures products for
consumers, commercial professionals, and government
professionals.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
          SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP
          Jerome J. Schlichter
          100 South Fourth Street, Ste. 1200
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 621 6115
          Facsimile: (314) 621 5934
          E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Gomes Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
LEONARDO GOMES, the Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-21872-CMA (S.D. Fla., May
10, 2018), is a putative class action against the Defendant
pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the
Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.

According to the lawsuit, the Defendant knew that the Plaintiff's
Debt was outside the statute of limitations at the time it sent
the collection letter to the Plaintiff.  The Defendant also used
language in the Letter that gave, or would give, the least
sophisticated consumer the misleading impression that the Debt
was legally enforceable.  When he received the Letter, the
Plaintiff believed that he had received it because the seven-year
time period in which the creditor would be able to sue him was
approaching. As a result of the Letter, the Plaintiff became
concerned that a judicial enforcement action might be taken on
the Debt. The Disclosure does not state that the Defendant is
prohibited by law from suing the Plaintiff. In addition, the
least sophisticated consumer has no way of knowing whether the
Defendant will re-sell the Debt to someone else, who might sue
him. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff, or the least sophisticated
consumer, read and understood the Disclosure, the Letter could
have caused him, or the least sophisticated consumer, to make
payment under the false belief that the Defendant was offering a
final opportunity to pay the Debt before it was sold to another
creditor who would or might bring a lawsuit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex D. Weisberg, Esq.
          WEISBERG CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PA
          5846 S. Flamingo Rd, Ste. 290
          Cooper City, FL 33330
          Telephone: (954) 212 2184
          Facsimile: (866) 577 0963
          E-mail: aweisberg@afclaw.com

               - and -

          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
          5235 E. Southern Ave. D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          E-mail: tclg@consumerlawinfo.com


PREMIER INSURANCE: Underpays Workers, Balbastro Claims
------------------------------------------------------
JOSE BALBASTRO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PREMIER INSURANCE SERVICES,
INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
the Defendant, Case No. 37-2018-0DD23269-CU-OECTL (Cal. Super.
Ct., May 10, 2018), is a putative class action brought against
Defendant for (i) failing to pay straight-time and overtime wages
at the lawful rate of pay for all work performed; (ii) failing to
provide compensation for rest periods and other non-productive
time separate from any piece-rate compensation; (iii) failing to
provide duty-free meal breaks; (iv) failing to provide duty-free
rest periods; (v) failing to pay all owed wages each and every
pay period; (vi) failing to pay all owed wages upon termination
or resignation of employment; and, (vii) failing to provide
accurate itemized wage statements as mandated under the
California Labor Code.

Premier Insurance Services, Inc. provides insurance products and
services in California. It offers products that protect auto,
home, business, and family.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


PRIME ASCOT: Apartment Infested with Mice, Leaser & Wongsaroj Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NICHA LEASER and ATCHARA WONGSAROJ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PRIME ASCOT,
L.P., a California limited partnership; PRIME ASCOT ACQUISITION,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; PRIME ADMINISTRATION,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and doing business as
BLUE ROCK VILLAGE APARTMENTS; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. CGC-18-566423 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 9,
2018), seeks to recover monetary damages caused by the
Defendants' violation of the California Business and Professions.

The Blue Rock Village Complex is a housing complex consisting of
approximately 164 apartments in Vallejo, California. It is just
one of many complexes owned and/or operated by Prime Owner, Prime
Acquisition, Prime Administration, and (together with one or more
of these three entities) Does 1 through 50, inclusive, in the
State of California.

Shortly before May 25, 2017, Leaser and Wongsaroj entered into a
written lease 28 with Prime Administration for an apartment at
the Blue Rock Village Complex, which was at all times to be
occupied by Wongsaroj.  They both advised Prime Administration
that Wongsaroj would be occupying the Apartment. The term of the
lease was for approximately one year, beginning on May 25, 2017
and ending on May 31, 4 2018. The monthly rent was $1,390.00,
with an application fee of $80 and a security deposit of $500.00.

Leaser and Wongsaroj are currently unable to find a copy of the
lease that they signed with Prime Administration, and will amend
this complaint to provide a copy of this lease if and when they
find or obtain one.  They are informed and believe, and thereon
allege that the lease they signed was a standard form lease that
Prime Owner and Prime Administration used for all apartments in
the Blue Rock Village Complex.  They also allege that the lease
they signed was substantially similar to the lease that Prime
Owner and Prime Administration use for all of their housing
complexes in the State of California.

Wongsaroj moved into the Apartment in early June 2017. The cost
of the move was approximately $1,237.50 paid to the moving
company, plus several hundred dollars in incidental expenses.
Unbeknownst to the Plaintiffs, at the time Wongsaroj moved in,
the Apartment was infested with mice. The infestation rendered
the Apartment uninhabitable. Leaser and Wongsaroj did not
discover the infestation until after Wongsaroj moved into the
Apartment.

Leaser and Wongsaroj allege that the entire building within the
Blue Rock Village Complex in which the Apartment is located was
infested with mice at the time Leaser and Wongsaroj signed the
lease, and that Prime Owner, Prime Acquisition, Prime
Administration, and Does 1 through 50 inclusive all knew of the
infestation at that time. Despite this knowledge, each and every
one of the defendants failed to disclose the infestation. In
addition, Leaser and Wongsaroj would not have signed the lease,
and Wongsaroj would not have moved into the Apartment, had Leaser
and Wongsaroj known of the infestation.  They complained to
Administration and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, on many
occasions about the mouse infestation, both orally and in
writing. Despite their complaints, Prime Owner, Prime
Administration, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, failed to
remedy the condition and make the Apartment habitable.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles R. Perry, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES R. PERRY
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          3 San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 800 3937
          Telecopier: (415) 869 2822
          E-mail: rick@crperrylaw.com


PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Faces "Espinoza" Suit in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Claims
Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Alida Espinoza, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Professional Claims Bureau, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-
09176 (D. N.J., May 14, 2018).

Professional Claims Bureau, Inc. is a credit reporting agency in
East Garden City, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


PUMA'S AUTO: Faces "Cortez" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Puma's Auto Body,
Inc. The case is styled as Oscar Cortez, on behalf of himself,
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Puma's Auto Body,
Inc. doing business as: Puma's Auto Body and Anthony Puma, Jr.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02851 (E.D. N.Y., May 14, 2018).

Puma's Auto Body, Inc. is an auto body shop in the Barnum Island,
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


PURDUE PHARMA: City of Los Angeles Files Suit Over Opioid Crisis
----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Macias Jr, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Los Angeles sued nine pharmaceutical companies in federal
court on May 3, claiming the fraudulent and negligent business
practices of Big Pharma led to an explosion of the opioid crisis
in the city.

The 165-page lawsuit states companies intentionally mislead
doctors and patients about the appropriate uses, risks, and
safety of opioid drugs and downplayed the high risk of addiction.

LA Mayor Eric Garcetti called the opioid crisis a "war that has
claimed too many casualties" in communities across the city.

Opioids, Mr. Garcetti said, are a "killer on our streets" and
prevent homeless people from transitioning into support services
and housing.

LA City Attorney Mike Feuer said companies exaggerated the
benefits of casually using opioid drugs to treat chronic pain
instead of stressing short-term use.

Marketing for opioid drugs was "false and deceptive" and was used
by companies to "normalize aggressive prescribing of opioid
drugs" for patients with various kinds of pain, according to the
city's lawsuit.

"The public's mind has been poisoned," Mr. Feuer said.

He said Big Pharma's marketing practices were "reckless and
irresponsible" and manufacturers of opioids are "driving the
opioid epidemic" and should be held accountable.

False messages about the safety, addictiveness and efficacy were
disseminated by infiltrating professional medical societies and
crafting and influencing industry guidelines.  "Pro-opioid
[studies were disseminated] under the guise of science and
truth," the complaint says.

According to a February 2018 report by U.S. Senator Claire
McCaskill, D-Missouri, opioid manufacturers paid nearly $9
million between 2012 and 2017 to advocacy groups and professional
societies operating in the area of opioids policy.

Mr. Feuer said the city may consider filing a separate lawsuit
targeting doctors who overprescribe opioids or write
prescriptions in exchange for cash.  He did not offer a timetable
for future litigation.

The city's lawsuit will become part of a multidistrict litigation
consolidated in Ohio federal court.

Prescription opioids include brand name pain medications
OxyContin, Opana, Subsys, Fentora and Duragesic as well as
generics like oxycodone, methadone and fentanyl.

According to the California Department of Public Health, 23.6
million Californians were prescribed opioids in 2016 and 2,031
deaths occurred as a result of overdoses.  Of those, 4.6 million
prescriptions and 407 opioid-related overdose deaths occurred in
Los Angeles County.

Drug overdoses killed 63,632 Americans in 2016, according to the
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Two-thirds of
those deaths involved a prescription or illegal opioid drug.

Up to 56 percent of patients receiving long-term prescription
opioids will become addicted, and one in five people who take an
opioid longer than 10 days will still be taking painkillers a
year later.

Prescription opioid overdose-related hospitalizations, drug
treatment and emergency room visits in Los Angeles County have
also steadily risen over the years.

The cost of opioid-related hospitalizations in Los Angeles County
rose from $399 million in 2006 to $673 million in 2013, according
to the complaint.

Mr. Garcetti said it's becoming increasingly expensive for
firefighters, paramedics and other departments to respond to the
growing opioid epidemic.

He touted the Los Angeles Fire Department's "sober unit," which
picks up homeless individuals living on Skid Row who are addicted
to drugs or alcohol and connects them to sobering centers.

The yearlong pilot program, launched in January, aims to reduce
the number of drug and alcohol-addicted homeless people in
emergency rooms and jails.

Named defendants include opioid drug manufacturing companies
Purdue Pharma, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Endo Pharmaceuticals,
Cephalon, Insys Therapeutics, and Mallinckrodt.

Three wholesale distributors -- McKesson Corporation, Cardinal
Health, and AmerisourceBergen Corporation -- are also named as
defendants.

The city seeks an injunction barring "further false marketing" by
drug companies and a court order requiring them to report
"suspicious orders" by doctors and hospitals.

Mr. Feuer said the city also seeks attorney fees and damages for
costs incurred in responding to the opioid crisis.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Michael N. Feuer, Esq.
     City Attorney
     James P. Clark, Esq.
     Chief Deputy City Attorney
     Thomas H. Peters, Esq.
     Chief Assistant City Attorney
     Michael J. Bostrom, Esq.
     Assistant City Attorney
     OFFICE OF THE LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY
     200 North Spring Street, 14th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90012-4131
     Tel: 213-978-1882
     Fax: 213-978-2286
     Email: mike.n.feuer@lacity.org
            james.p.clark@lacity.org
            thom.peters@lacity.org
            michael.bostrom@lacity.org

        -- and --

     Paul J. Geller, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
     Boca Raton, FL 33432
     Tel: 561-750-3000
     Fax: 561-750-3364
     Email: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com

        -- and --

     Aelish M. Baig, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Tel: 415-288-4545
     Fax: 415-288-4534
     Email: aelishb@rgrdlaw.com


QUINSTREET INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
QuinStreet, Inc. from February 10, 2016 through April 10, 2018,
both dates inclusive. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
QuinStreet investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the QuinStreet class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1318.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq., or Zachary Halper, Esq., toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
-- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or -- zhalper@rosenlegal.com -- for
information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO
NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) QuinStreet recklessly disregarded the occurrence of
click-through fraud; (2) QuinStreet-owned websites experienced
phony, low quality traffic for its clients; (3) QuinStreet's
practices were not geared toward providing its clients with
valuable customers or high-quality leads or clicks; and (4) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered
the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN]


REV1 POWER: "Hall" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------
JOHN HALL, Individually and for the Others Similarly Situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. REV1 POWER SERVICES, INC. the Defendant, Case
No. 3:18-cv-00314-JAG (E.D. Va., May 10, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay John
Hall, and other workers, overtime as required by FLSA. Instead
Rev1 paid Hall, and other workers, the same hourly rate for all
Hours worked, including, those excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Rev1 Power Services was founded in 2001. The company's line of
business includes providing management consulting services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Harris D. Butler, Esq.
          Zev H. Antell, Esq.
          BUTLER ROYALS, PLC
          140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 648 4848
          Facsimile: (804) 237 0413
          E-mail: harris.butler@butleroyals.com
                  zev.antell@butleroyals.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352 1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352 3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  rschreiber@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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


REVIVAL HOME: "Kaiser" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
RYAN KAISER, on behalf of himself and others similarly-situated,
the Plaintiff, v. REVIVAL HOME HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. and
SYLVESTER C. UDEZE, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00341 (E.D.
Tex., May 10, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated, who were formerly or are currently employed by
Defendants as home health aides and were not paid overtime for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours a week. The Plaintiff is
one of a number of home health aides who are or were formerly
employed by Defendants and whose compensation was improper under
the FLSA because Defendants failed and refused to compensate
Plaintiffs for their overtime hours worked as required by the
FLSA. As their employer, the Defendants required and/or permitted
Plaintiff and the other home health aides to routinely work in
excess of 40 hours per week, but failed or refused to compensate
them for such overtime hours worked in accordance with the FLSA.
Specifically, the Plaintiff and other home health aides were non-
exempt hourly employees, but Defendants failed to compensate them
at a rate of at least one-and-one-half times their regular hourly
rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Such
conduct by Defendants was a violation of the FLSA, which requires
non-exempt employees to be compensated for their overtime work at
a rate of at least one-and-one-half times their regular hourly
rate.

Because the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees are non-
exempt covered employees pursuant to the FLSA and have not been
paid pursuant to the wage and hour provisions of the FLSA by the
Defendants, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated employees, seeking legal and
equitable relief provided under the FLSA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Corinna Chandler, Esq.
          CHANDLER LAW, P.C.
          3419 Westminster #343G
          Dallas, TX 75205
          Telephone: (972) 342 8793
          Facsimile: (972) 692 5220
          E-mail: chandler@chandlerlawpc.com


SANMEDICA INT'L: Anti-Aging Product Doesn't Work, Pizana Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
RAUL PIZANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SANMEDICA INTERNATIONAL, LLC, and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-at-
00345 (E.D. Cal., May 9, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants from
pursuing policies, acts, and practices related to the SeroVital-
hgh anti-aging miracle product.

This is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all
California purchasers of SeroVital-hgh, a purported Human Growth
Hormone supplement touted by Defendants as an anti-aging miracle
which can increase HGH levels by 682% and thereby cause "wrinkle
reduction, decreased body fat, increased lean muscle mass,
stronger bones, improved mood, [and] heightened sex drive" so as
to make "users look and feel decades -- not years, but DECADES --
younger." The Product is sold online and at numerous retail
outlets throughout California.

In reality, the Product provides consumers with nothing more than
a false promise. The scientific community confirms: (1) the
Product cannot increase HGH levels whatsoever, let alone by 682%;
(2) the Product does not reduce wrinkles, "decrease body fat,"
"increase lean muscle mass," strengthen bones, "improve mood,"
"heighten sex drive," or make "users look and fees decades
younger" because the oral administration of amino acids like
SeroVital does not increase growth hormone bioactivity; (3) even
with growth hormone injection, there is no causal link between
increased HGH levels and most of the claimed uses, including
wrinkle reduction, increased lean muscle mass, stronger bones,
improved mood, [or] heightened sex drive; and (4) if SeroVital
were to increase HGH levels as claimed, it would cause
significant health risks. In short, the Product is no more
effective for its advertised purposes than a placebo, and is
therefore worthless to California consumers who, upon information
and belief, have collectively expended tens of millions of
dollars or more on the Product during the proposed four-year
class period.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Raul Pizana and the Proposed Plaintiff
Class:

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

               - and -

          Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP
          483 Ninth Street, Suite 200
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 254 6808
          E-mail: apersigner@tzlegal.com


SANOFI-AVENTIS: Robins Kaplan Seeks to Consolidate Taxotere Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that in response to a request to consolidate an apparently
mounting group of lawsuits over the chemotherapy drug Taxotere,
the New Jersey state court system has asked the bar for feedback
on the possible establishment of multi-county litigation.

The litigation involves, as of March, 353 pending cases against
drugmaker Sanofi-Aventis claiming products liability and fraud,
and alleging that Taxotere caused permanent hair loss.  A notice
to the bar dated April 11 and made public the following week was
issued by Acting Administrative Director of the Court Glenn A.
Grant.

The application for centralization, dated March 13, was filed by
lawyers from New York firm Robins Kaplan. The lawyers pointed to
the number of plaintiffs spread across New Jersey as the primary
reason for consolidation.  Additionally, the commonality of
claims contributes to the need for combining the litigation into
an MCL, the lawyers claimed.

"The Taxotere (docetaxel) cases involve numerous claims with
common, recurrent and complex issues of law and fact," the
application said. "All of these cases involved the chemotherapy
drug known as Taxotere (docetaxel).  All of the plaintiffs claim
that defendants knew, or should have known that Taxotere
(docetaxel) causes and contributes to permanent disfigurement and
hair loss, and that the defendants failed to adequately warn of
those risks."

The application continued, "Further, all of the actions proposed
for designation allege substantially similar violations of law
and are based upon the same or substantially similar underlying
claims surrounding the safety profile of Taxotere (docetaxel)."

The creation of an MCL would also improve coordination with the
national multidistrict litigation based in Louisiana federal
court, overseen by U.S. District Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt of the
Eastern District of Louisiana.

Once consolidated, the cases should be sent to each plaintiff's
home county for trial, the application urged.

"A contrary decision would severely prejudice a New Jersey
plaintiff who does not reside in or near the county to which the
centralized litigation is assigned, potentially requiring the
plaintiff to live away from home, at great inconveniences and
expense, due to the happenstance that there are multiple other
related cases pending," the application said.  "Allowing the MCL
judge to transfer the cases for trial to the plaintiffs' chosen
county will protect the plaintiffs' rights, while promoting the
primary goal of centralization -- efficiency and consistent
management and orders throughout the discovery process."

A Sanofi spokeswoman said in a statement: "We are aware of the
MCL application for the Taxotere litigation in New Jersey, and we
are fully prepared to abide by whatever decision is made by the
Court."

Rayna Kessler, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said in an email:
"Given the number of cases filed throughout the state of New
Jersey and how many women have suffered from permanent
disfigurement, we believe an MCL is necessary to effectively
manage this litigation."


SECURITY CREDIT: Faces "Anderson" Suit in M.D. Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Security Credit
Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Jazsmine Anderson, also known
as: Jazmine Anderson individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Security Credit Systems, Inc.
and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00457 (M.D.
Tenn., May 14, 2018).

Security Credit Systems, Inc. operates in the banking and finance
industry in Buffalo, New York.[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


SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Arguello Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
NOE ARGUELLO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY, an Ohio
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. 37-2018-00022985-CU-0E-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., May 9,
2018), seeks to recover straight time wages and overtime
compensation under the California Labor Code.

Throughout the time period involved in this case, Defendants have
wrongfully failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class with timely
and duty-free meal periods. The Defendants regularly required
Plaintiff and the Class to work in excess of five consecutive
hours a day without providing a 30 minute, continuous and
uninterrupted, duty-free meal period every for five hours of
work, or without compensating Plaintiff and the Class for meal
periods that were not provided by the end of the fifth hour of
work or tenth hour of work. The Defendants did not adequately
inform Plaintiff and the Class of their right to take a meal
period by the end of the fifth hour of work, or, for shifts
greater than 10 hours, by the end of the tenth hour of work.

Moreover, the Defendants did not have adequate written policies
or practices providing meal periods for Plaintiff and the Class,
nor did Defendants have adequate policies or practices regarding
the timing of meal periods. Defendants also did not have adequate
policies or practices to verify whether Plaintiff and the Class
were taking their required meal periods. Instead, Defendants'
policy and practice was to not provide meal periods to Plaintiff
and the Class in compliance with California law.

The Sherwin-Williams Company is an American Fortune 500 company
in the general building materials industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SPOKANE, WA: School-Zone Speeders Seek Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amy Edelen, writing for The Spokesman-Review, reports that
catching school-zone speeders in Spokane has netted the city more
than $1.3 million in fines. But those lucrative tickets have also
earned the city a legal problem: a possible class-action lawsuit.

A law firm alleges that hundreds of people have been improperly
ticketed for speeding in a school safety zone by the city's
photo-enforcement program.

Chris Williams, a lead plaintiff in the suit, claims he was
traveling southbound on Nevada Street near Longfellow Elementary
School and was ticketed for traveling 28 mph in a 20 mph school
zone.

Williams said it's not true: He wasn't driving in the school zone
when the camera captured his car.

"What we had found when Chris came to us is he didn't think it
was fair he got ticketed when he was not in the school zone at
the time," said attorney Larry Kuznetz, Esq., who is seeking
class-action status for the complaint against the city of Spokane
and Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions Inc., the company
the city contracts with to provide the cameras and send the
tickets.

Kuznetz believes such problems with the enforcement program are
widespread, and could include 500 people who he said were
improperly ticketed since 2015 by the city's photo enforcement
camera located near the school at the intersection of Nevada
Street and Empire Avenue.

The lawsuit claims the city and American Traffic Solutions
continue to engage in issuing notices of infractions to people
who aren't speeding in school zones.

The city implemented safety cameras in school zones in 2015. The
school safety cameras are similar to red light cameras, with
tickets mailed to vehicle owners after police officers review the
photos and approve infractions.

The speed zone at a school crosswalk extends 300 feet in either
direction and a $234 fine is issued for vehicles exceeding the 20
mph school speed limit by 6 to 10 mph.

In 2017, there were 7,347 speeding tickets issued at Longfellow
and Finch elementary schools, and those tickets generated $1.3
million in revenue, according to the city of Spokane.

City spokesman Brian Coddington said the city is unable to
comment on pending litigation.

American Traffic Solutions was not available for comment.

Kuznetz said clients are seeking damages, including reimbursement
for tickets and associated costs.

"The city has generated a significant amount of ticket fees, so I
think the people that are going to be a part of the class-action
will want to be reimbursed for the ticket," he said. [GN]


SQUARE INC: Faces "Woodle" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Square, Inc. The
case is styled as Joshua Woodle, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Square, Inc. (d/b/a
caviar), Defendant, Case No. CGC18566559 (Cal. Super. Ct., May
14, 2018).

Square, Inc. is a financial services, merchant services
aggregator, and mobile payment company based in San Francisco,
California.[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


SUPERIOR ACCESS: Mittelmark Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL MITTELMARK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SUPERIOR ACCESS INSURANCE
SERVICES, INC., a Texas corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
0:18-cv-61056-BB (S.D. Fla., May 10, 2018), is a putative class
action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, arising from
Defendant's knowing and willful violations of the TCPA. Defendant
markets itself as the ultimate online market network for the
independent insurance agent. Defendant provides goods and
services for both personal and commercial lines of insurance
products. The Defendant engages in unsolicited telemarketing
directed towards prospective customers with no regard for
consumers' privacy rights. Defendant's telemarketing consists of
sending text messages to consumers soliciting the consumer to
purchase the goods and services of Defendant. The Defendant
caused thousands of unsolicited text messages to be sent to the
cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class Members, causing them
injuries, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation,
annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

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


TEXAS: Settlement Requiring Air Conditioning at Prison Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that putting prison officials on notice throughout the sunbaked
South, a federal judge on May 8 approved a class-action
settlement requiring Texas to install air conditioning in a state
prison near Houston.

"I never dreamed we'd get air conditioning at the Pack Unit, and
I believe it will benefit future generations of prisoners . . .
What we have done is extraordinary.  It's a new day in Texas
prisons," U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison said on May 8 during
a 90-minute hearing at the Houston federal courthouse.

The Wallace Pack Unit is a minimum-security prison in Navasota,
70 miles northwest of Houston, where the heat index regularly
exceeds 100 degrees Fahrenheit.

One of more than 100 Texas state prisons, the Pack Unit houses
about 1,300 male inmates serving sentences for nonviolent crimes,
many of whom are disabled, sick and elderly, and take drugs that
make them more susceptible to heat stroke.

Over the past two decades, at least 23 Texas inmates have died
from heat-related illness.

But the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, or TDCJ, had never
seriously considered installing air conditioning in prisons that
were not built with it, maintaining that it would be too
expensive, until seven Pack Unit inmates filed a class action in
June 2014.

Judge Ellison found in July 2017 that the prison's sweltering
summer temperatures constitute cruel and unusual punishment in
violation of the Eighth Amendment for Pack Unit prisoners with
health conditions that make them sensitive to heat.

The TDCJ has already installed temporary air conditioning in the
Pack Unit's housing areas, and agreed to replace it with
permanent air conditioning by May 1, 2020, subject to approval by
the Texas Legislature.

Judge Ellison fielded objections on May 8 to the proposed
settlement from 20 Pack Unit inmates via speakerphone, but found
that most of their concerns did not apply to the settlement and
could be addressed through the prison system's grievance process
or by the inmate filing a civil rights lawsuit.

Inmate Jim Smith said he did not understand why the settlement
does not mandate air conditioning for the prison's chow hall and
gym, where religious services are held.

"I'm a fat boy.  I'm huge.  I get hot and I sweat a lot.  And
it's not good, not comfortable.  And I love air conditioning,"
Mr. Smith said.

"I think we all do," Judge Ellison said.

Mr. Smith conceded the settlement is a rare win for inmates,
despite his issues with it.

"Anything gained in TDCJ is a plus," he said.

"I think that's what we're losing sight of," Judge Ellison said,
before approving the settlement from the bench.

Standing in the sun outside the courthouse after the hearing,
with temperatures topping 90 degrees Fahrenheit, lead class
counsel Jeff Edwards beamed as he credited Texas officials for
being open to a settlement.

"This is as good a day as a civil rights attorney can have.  The
settlement will benefit thousands of people in the TDCJ.  All
Texans should be happy because it took the state of Texas to
realize that the rights of inmates are no different than the
rights of anybody else," he said.

Mr. Edwards said the settlement means Pack Unit prisoners will no
longer have to live in stifling heat "that can kill you," and it
could serve as a template for inmates at other Texas prisons and
in other states to make their own cases for air conditioning.

"[May 8] was about helping 1,300 people.  But my hope is that
makes waves down the road for Texas and other Southern states.
And I think it will," he said.

Most Texas prisons do not have air conditioning, and the same is
true for prisons in five other Southern states.  But as a result
of the Pack Unit settlement, TDCJ Executive Director Bryan
Collier said he has plans to move tens of thousands of at-risk
inmates to 29 prisons that already have air conditioning, the
Houston Chronicle reported.

Mr. Edwards had another reason to smile on May 8.  The settlement
calls for Texas to pay him and his co-counsel $4.5 million for
attorney's fees and expenses.

In addition to Mr. Edwards, the class was represented by
attorneys with Reynolds Frizzell in Houston and the Texas Civil
Rights Project.

Eight wrongful death lawsuits from families of inmates whose
deaths were precipitated by hot temperatures in Texas prisons
were also settled in the deal, the Chronicle reported. Edwards'
firm represented the families.


TEZOS: Securities Class Action Split Into Two Proceedings
---------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that the
pioneering securities class action litigation over the Tezos
blockchain project looks like it will be split into two separate
proceedings, after a federal judge ruled that one of the cases
should be sent back to state court.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg agreed that the first case to
be filed against Tezos belongs back in San Francisco Superior
Court, in light of a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on
jurisdiction.


THINK FINANCE: "Gibbs" Transferred to N.D. Tex.
-----------------------------------------------
In the case, DARLENE GIBBS, et al., individually and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. KENNETH
REES, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:17cv386 (E.D. Va.),
Judge M. Hannah Lauck of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, Richmond Division, granted Rees' and GPL's
Motions to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1412; and
transferred the action to the Northern District of Texas.

The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on May 19, 2017.  In their
four-count class complaint, the Plaintiffs challenge an allegedly
predatory lending scheme developed and implemented by the
Defendants.  According to the Plaintiffs, in an effort to
circumvent Virginia and federal lending laws, Rees contacted
members of two Native American tribes -- the Chippewa Cree Tribe
and the Otoe-Missouria Tribe -- in order to establish "rent-a-
tribe" enterprises.  The Plaintiffs contend that, through his
rent-a-tribe schemes, Rees sought to disguise Rees and his
companies' roles and to ostensibly shield the scheme from
liability based on the Tribes' sovereign immunity.  Through these
activities, the Plaintiffs aver that the Defendants made payday
loans to people in Virginia with annual percentage rates that
exceeded 400%.

All the named Plaintiffs are residents of Virginia who obtained
loans online from Plain Green, LLC ("Plain Green") or Great
Plains, LLC ("Great Plains").  The Defendants' identities and
relationships are slightly complex, but, according to the
Plaintiffs, although Plain Green and Great Plains held themselves
out as the actual lenders of these internet payday loans, the
Defendants marketed, funded, collected the loans, and controlled
the day-to-day operations and major business decisions of Plain
Green and Great Plains.  The Plaintiffs assert that Rees and
others created Think Finance to locate, arrange, and funnel the
lending capital to the Tribes.  According to them, Think Finance
procured the investment capital for Plain Green and Great Plains,
and initially performed the application processing, underwriting,
and customer service support for the loans.

The Plaintiffs contend that Rees was the architect of the lending
scheme, participated in the day-to-day operations of the scheme,
and controlled the businesses.  According to them, Rees
established the plan and strategy to create each of the Defendant
companies, and established their role in the making, marketing,
and collection of the high-interest online loans.  Further, they
assert that as CEO of Think Finance and the sole member of
several other affiliated entities, Rees intentionally directed
and personally participated in the creation, management, and
operations of the tribal lending enterprises.

Each of the Plaintiffs' loans ranged in amounts from $300 to
$3,000, and had interest rates from 118% to 448% and higher.
Each of the named Plaintiffs paid amounts on their loans ranging
from $566.82 to $15,399.04, most of which the Defendants credited
as payment for interest or other fees.  The Plaintiffs declare
that these loans are "null and void" under Virginia law because
the interest rates vastly exceeded the twelve percent APR limit
Virginia law places on contracts.

The Plaintiffs assert the following four class claims, each
against all the Defendants:

     a. Count One: Violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c) -
The Defendants collected unlawful debts from the Plaintiffs
because the Defendants collected debts on loans that included an
interest rate far in excess of twice the enforceable rate in
Virginia.  The Plaintiffs seek treble their actual damages, which
would include any interest, fees, or other sums collected by the
Defendants.

     b. Count Two: Violations of RICO, 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d)
- The Defendants entered into a series of agreements to violate
Section 1962(c).  The Plaintiffs seek actual damages, treble
damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

     c. Count Three: Violations of Virginia Usury Laws - Every
loan the Defendants made to the Plaintiffs used an interest rate
over Virginia's statutorily permissible rate of twelve percent.
The Plaintiffs seek an amount equal to the total amount of
interest paid over 12% interest, twice the amount of such
usurious interest that was paid in the two years preceding the
filing of this action, costs, and attorneys' fees.

     d. Count Four: Declaratory Judgment - The Defendants
violated Virginia's usury law, Virginia Code Section 6.2-1541(A),
and all loan agreements are therefore void and unenforceable.
The Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the loan
agreements are void and unenforceable pursuant to Section 6.2-
1541(A).  In the alternative, the Plaintiffs seek a declaratory
judgment that the loan agreements' choice-of-law, forum-
selection, and arbitration provisions are void and unenforceable
as a matter of public policy.

For Counts One and Two, the Plaintiffs seek to certify a class
that includes all Virginia residents who executed a loan with
Plain Green or Great Plains where the loan was originated and/or
any payment was made on or after May 19, 2013.

For Count Three, the Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of all
Virginia residents who executed a loan with Plain Green or Great
Plains where any interest was paid, and a subclass consisting of
all Virginia residents who executed a loan with Plain Green or
Great Plains where any interest was paid on or after May 17,
2015.

Finally, for Count Four, the Plaintiffs seek to certify a class
of all persons who executed a loan with Plain Green or Great
Plains when they resided or were located in Virginia, which
contained an interest rate greater than 12%, and a subclass
consisting of all persons who executed a loan with Plain Green or
Great Plains when they resided or were located in Virginia, which
contained a choice-of-law provision, arbitration provision, or
forum selection clause similar or identical to Plaintiffs.

On Oct. 25, 2017, the Think Finance Defendants filed a Suggestion
of Bankruptcy.  The Think Finance Defendants stated that, on Oct.
23, 2017, they had each filed voluntary petitions for relief
pursuant to chapter 11 of Title 11[7] of the United States Code
in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas.
The Think Finance Defendants stated that they had requested joint
administration of the Bankruptcy Cases in the Bankruptcy Court.
Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 362(a), the proceedings in the case
against the Think Finance Defendants were automatically stayed.

In the month of February 2018, the parties again filed numerous
motions.  Most relevant, Rees and GPL each filed a Motion to
Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1412.  On Feb. 28, 2018,
the Court held a status conference at which the parties apprised
the Court, generally, of the proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court.
At the status conference, the Court informed the parties of its
intent to rule on the motions without hearing argument.

Judge Lauck agrees with the thorough analysis of courts finding
that Section 1412 governs in situations like the case, and
understands why no federal district court in the Fourth Circuit
has found otherwise.  He finds that the language of Section 1412,
properly considered in the context of the statute as a whole,
makes clear that Section 1412 must apply to all cases "related
to" bankruptcy proceedings.

The Judge also finds that the "important considerations of"
economic and efficient administration of the bankruptcy estate,
the interest of judicial efficiency, and the home court's
presumptive suitability "decidedly favor" transferring the case
to the Northern District of Texas.  Virginia's interest in having
the controversy decided in the case, and deference to the
Plaintiffs' original choice of forum do not outweigh those three
factors, so the Judge finds that the interest of justice weighs
in favor of transferring the case to the District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Lauck granted the Rees Motion to
Transfer and the GPL Motion to Transfer.  He transferred the
action to the Northern District of Texas.  An appropriate Order
will issue.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/jv7Uk9 from Leagle.com.

Darlene Gibbs, Stephanie Edwards, Lula Williams, Patrick Inscho &
Lawrence Mwethuku, Plaintiffs, represented by Kristi Cahoon Kelly
-- kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com -- Kelly & Crandall PLC, Andrew
Joseph Guzzo -- aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com -- Kelly & Crandall
PLC, Casey Shannon Nash -- casey@kellyandcrandall.com -- Kelly &
Crandall PLC, Craig Carley Marchiando -- craig@clalegal.com --
Consumer Litigation Associates, Elizabeth W. Hanes --
elizabeth@clalegal.com -- Consumer Litigation Associates, James
Wilson Speer -- jay@vplc.org -- Virginia Proverty Law Center &
Leonard Anthony Bennett -- lenbennett@clalegal.com -- Consumer
Litigation Associates.

Kenneth Rees, Defendant, represented by David Neal Anthony --
david.anthony@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP, David Foster
Herman -- dherman@mmwr.com -- Montgomery McCracken Walker &
Rhoads LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Peter Boughrum --
jboughrum@mmwr.com -- Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP,
pro hac vice, Richard Lawrence Scheff -- rscheff@mmwr.com --
Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP, pro hac vice & Timothy
James St. George -- tim.st.george@troutman.com -- Troutman
Sanders LLP.

Think Finance, Inc., Think Finance SPV, LLC, TC Decision
Sciences, LLC, TC Loan Service, LLC & Tail Wind Marketing, LLC,
Defendants, represented by David Neal Anthony, Troutman Sanders
LLP, Kymberly Kochis -- kymberlykochis@eversheds-sutherland.com -
- Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP, pro hac vice, Lewis Steven
Wiener -- lewiswiener@eversheds-sutherland.com -- Eversheds
Sutherland (US) LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew Owen Gatewood --
matthewgatewood@eversheds-sutherland.com -- Eversheds Sutherland
(US) LLP & Timothy James St. George, Troutman Sanders LLP.

GPL Servicing, Defendant, represented by Aaron Harvey Marks --
aaron.marks@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice,
Bryan Alan Fratkin -- bfratkin@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods
LLP, Daniel Peter Shapiro -- daniel.shapiro@kattenlaw.com --
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, pro hac vice, Dawn Marie Canty --
dawn.canty@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, pro hac
vice, J. Matthew Haws -- matthew.haws@kattenlaw.com -- Katten
Muchin Rosenman LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick Malley Smith --
patrick.smith@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, pro
hac vice, Ross Lee Weiner -- ross.weiner@kirkland.com -- Kirkland
& Ellis LLP, pro hac vice & Ashley Partin Peterson --
peterson@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP.


TIGER BRANDS: Listeria Class Action Team Commends Transparency
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Marler, writing for Food Poison Journal, reports that the
offices of Richard Spoor Inc., Attorneys, LHL Attorneys
Incorporated and Marler Clark commend Tiger Brands on its
transparency in releasing Listeria testing information to
shareholders. Tiger Brands released a statement to shareholders
on 25 April 2018 confirming the presence of the LST6 Listeria
outbreak strain in its facilities and, as a result, the
Enterprise facilities in Polokwane, Pretoria, and Germiston will
remain closed until the problem is fixed.

According to Tiger Brands, "the purpose of this announcement is
to update shareholders on the results of the independent
laboratory re-testing which was carried out in respect of the
presence of LST6 in the above samples."

This confirmation of what the National Institute for Communicable
Diseases (NICD) reported that this outbreak of Listeria came from
the Polokwane factory of Enterprise foods and what today's
statement amounts to is the acknowledgement by the company that
indeed this outbreak does come from their factory," said Lawyer
Richard Spoor, Esq. "We look forward to working with Tiger
Brands' lawyers and insurers to find an equitable solution for
its injured consumers," added Spoor.

Zain Lundell, Esq., of LHL Attorneys explained that Tiger Brands'
announcement regarding the results of its independent testing was
very helpful in that it further demonsrated the causal link
between Tiger Brands' processed meat products and individuals who
became ill or even died as a result of eating those processed
meat products. He also noted that he hoped the recent
announcement regarding Tiger Brands' independent testing would
result in a speedy and just settlement for individuals affected
by the tragic Listeria outbreak."

According to William Marler, Esq., of the US Food Safety Law
Firm, Marler Clark, "Tiger Brands should be commended for its
transparency with the government and the public, this will go far
to restoring consumer confidence."

Richard Spoor Inc., Attorneys and LHL Attorneys Incorporated have
agreed to consolidate the two class actions brought by the two
firms against Tiger Brands. The two firms, in partnership with
Marler Clark, the leading US Food Safety Law Firm, currently
represents 140 people affected by the outbreak. Attorneys are
currently in the process of collecting medical records and
epidemiological evidence related to the case.

As of April 20, 2018, there are 1019 laboratory confirmed
Listeria cases in South Africa and almost 200 people have died.
This is the largest Listeria outbreak in history. For more
information, visit https://listeriaclassaction.co.za/ [GN]


TRANS UNION: Mello Sues over Employee Background Check
------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MELLO individually and on behalf of persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-03354 (N.D. Ill., May 10, 2018), seeks to recover
damages caused by the Defendant's violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

According to the complaint, TransUnion has unlawfully reported
adverse information, antedating the report by more than seven
years, on Mr. Mello's consumer report, in violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, violating his legally protected privacy
rights and putting him at risk for denial of credit, housing, or
employment.

On March 2017, Mr. Mello contacted TransUnion by telephone to
request that the Faunce Corner Road address be removed from his
consumer report. Mr. Mello contacted TransUnion by telephone to
repeat this request approximately 6-8 times over approximately a
two-month time period. TransUnion nevertheless continued to
report the Bristol County Jail address as one of Mr. Mello's
previous addresses, with his prisoner ID listed as the apartment
number. As a result of TransUnion's continued reporting of this
information, Mr. Mello was denied his statutory right to have
adverse information removed from his consumer report after seven
years, violating his legally protected privacy interests and
exposing him to a risk of being denied credit, housing,
employment, or insurance.

Mr. Mello experienced mental distress as a result of seeing that
his prior jail address and prisoner ID number were being
disclosed in his consumer report. Having had his record sealed
under Massachusetts law, Mr. Mello reasonably expected this
information to remain private. On or about July 2017, Mr. Mello
again contacted TransUnion and demanded in writing that the
adverse information showing that he had been incarcerated more
than seven years previously be removed from his consumer report.
Mr. Mello noted that this adverse information violated the FCRA,
16 U.S.C. section 1681c, and placed him at risk for a negative
impact on his credit, employment, or housing rental. Mr. Mello
demanded that TransUnion remove all references to the Bristol
County Jail, including its address and his prisoner ID number,
from his consumer report.

TransUnion nevertheless continued to report the outdated adverse
information. On or about July 2017, TransUnion issued consumer
reports regarding Mr. Mello to Capital One, N.A. and Discovery
Financial Services. These reports illegally included the
information that Mr. Mello had previously resided at the Bristol
County Jail and his prisoner ID number, violating his privacy
rights and placing him at risk of being denied credit, or
receiving less favorable credit terms. Mr. Mello again contacted
TransUnion on or about August 2017 by telephone. Following Mr.
Mello's yet again repeated request, TransUnion finally agreed to
delete the Bristol County Jail's address and his prisoner ID
number from his consumer report.

TransUnion LLC operates as a credit reporting agency that
provides data/insights and information to help consumers and
businesses make informed decisions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
          Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
          Amy E. Tabor, Esq.
          CADDELL & CHAPMAN
          628 East 9th Street
          Houston TX 77007-1722
          Telephone: (713) 751 0400
          Facsimile: (713) 751 0906
          E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com
                  cbc@caddellchapman.com
                  aet@caddellchapman.com

               - and -

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Tara L. Goodwin, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com


TREK TRAVEL: Faces "King" Suit over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
ZEB KING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. TREK TRAVEL, LLC 613 Williamson St.,
Suite 207 Madison, WI 53703-3515, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-
cv-00345-slc (W.D. Wisc., May 10, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime wages and other employment benefits under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the putative class
members were paid a daily rate for each day worked while on a
bike tour. They were paid a "day rate" for other duties
performed, such as transporting bikes and supplies to the tour
site, trip research, or days spent traveling to a region for a
tour. The Plaintiff and the putative class members were paid via
direct deposit on a bi-weekly basis, according to Defendant's pay
schedule. They were required to submit all invoices for payment
via Defendant's online reporting software, and all hours had to
be approved by the Guide Manager.

In the course of performing their job duties for Defendant, the
Named Plaintiff and the putative class members worked more than
40 hours in a workweek. At no time during the applicable time
period were the Plaintiff or the putative class members paid
overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Zoeller, Esq.
          Caitlin M. Madden, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          Post Office Box 2155
          Madison, WI 53701-2155
          Telephone: (608) 257 0040
          Facsimile: (608) 256 0236
          E-mail: dzoeller@hq-law.com
                  cmadden@hq-law.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: $8.1MM Settlement Obtains Final Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge granted final approval on May 2 to an $8.1 million
settlement of a class action claiming Uber fired or refused to
hire drivers after surreptitious background checks, in violation
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act; included is $2 million in
attorneys' fees.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Lawsuits Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Pais, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
pair of class actions claim Uber is sending unsolicited text
messages to former drivers and other nationwide consumers to
advertise its lead generation services.

Uber is a multinational company that was founded in Paris in 2008
by Travis Kalanick and Garrett Camp, which provides on-demand
generation, payment processing and related services to
transportation providers for a cost.

On April 27 Michael Fridman and Danny Gesel Reznik Fridman filed
two federal class actions in Miami alleging Uber used an
automatic telephone dialing system with the capacity to store or
produce cell phone numbers and send them multiple text messages.

Messrs. Fridman and Reznik say that Uber is "sending unsolicited
text messages to former Uber drivers that, prior to sending them
texts, Uber had deactivated and terminated its agreements and
relationships with, and to other consumers that have never been
Uber drivers."

Mr. Fridman claims that on June 2014 he signed a "licensing
agreement" to become an Uber driver, in which the company
specified the fees that he had to pay to use its services and
stating that Uber could terminate the contract at any time.

On January 30, 2018, Uber unilaterally terminated the agreement,
Mr. Fridman says.

Mr. Reznik says that on July 2017 he also applied to become an
"Uber Eats driver," but Uber rejected his application, and he
never entered into any agreement with the company.

The plaintiffs, who are represented by Avi Kaufman from Kaufman
PA in Miami, Fla., claim that months later even though they did
not have any relationship with Uber, they started receiving text
messages from Uber without their consent.

Mr. Fridman says that the messages that he received were
soliciting him to become an Uber driver again, and pay the
company fees for its services.

On the other hand, Mr. Reznik alleges that the texts that he
received were directed to active Uber drivers.

According to the complaints, Uber has send multiple identical
text messages to the cell phone numbers of former Uber drivers
whose agreements have been terminated, and to other consumers
whose applications have been denied by Uber without their
consent.

"Uber's unsolicited texts were a nuisance that aggravated
plaintiffs, wasted their time, invaded their privacy, diminished
the value of the cellular services that they paid for, caused
them to temporarily lose the use and enjoyment of their phones;
and caused wear and tear to their phones' data, memory, software,
hardware and battery components," the complaints say.

Messrs. Fridman and Reznik are seeking compensatory damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief on claims of violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Uber failed to respond to an email request for comment on the
lawsuits.


UNITED STATES: Suit Targets Cuts to Teen Pregnancy Prevention
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessie Helmann, writing for The Hill, reports that  class-action
lawsuit filed on April 27 morning argues the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) illegally ended grants to 81
organizations participating in a federal teen pregnancy
prevention program.

HHS last summer sent notices to groups participating in the Teen
Pregnancy Prevention Program informing them their grants would
end two years earlier than originally planned, arguing that there
efforts to cut teen pregnancy rates were ineffective.

Federal judges have since ruled against the Trump administration
in three separate cases representing eight grantees.
The April 27 lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia by Healthy Futures of Texas on behalf of all
grantees and is being represented by the Public Citizen
Litigation Group.

Public Citizen hopes the outcome of those cases will work in its
favor as it seeks to block the terminations for the remaining
grantees.

"HHS has conceded that it made a program-wide decision to
terminate these grants, and courts have unanimously concluded
that the agency's decision was unlawful," said Sean Sherman, Esq.
-- ssherman@shulmanrogers.com -- the lead Public Citizen
Litigation Group attorney representing the plaintiff.

"Because HHS is not willing to reinstate the remaining grants
based on the unanimous view of three federal courts, we are
seeking an order requiring it to do so."

The program has been criticized by some Republicans and
conservative groups for its heavy focus on comprehensive sex
education, which can include lessons on both contraception and
abstinence.

The cuts were led by Valerie Huber, an HHS official and Trump
appointee who led a national abstinence-only education advocacy
group before joining the administration last year.

A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia ruled on April 25 in favor of Baltimore City Health
Department in its case against the administration, and another
federal judge ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood on April 24.

Another federal judge in D.C. ruled against the administration in
a separate case involving four grantees. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Bid to Review "Campbell" Dismissal Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CALLAN CAMPBELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED
STATES, Defendant, Case No. 15-717C (Fed. Cl.), Judge Patricia
Campbell-Smith of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims denied the
Plaintiffs' combined motion for reconsideration, motion to amend
the judgment, and motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint.

The Plaintiffs now rely on a proposed Second Amended Class Action
Complaint to clarify their claims and to add additional factual
allegations which, in their view, justify reconsideration of the
dismissal of their claims by the Court.

Judge Campbell-Smith observes that not only does the proposed
Second Amended Complaint supply additional allegations of fact,
it also reshapes the description of the Plaintiffs' takings
claims and the facts already alleged.  The overall issue
presented in the three complaints proffered by the Plaintiffs in
the suit is whether the government's specific conditions placed
on its financial bail-out of General Motors Corp. constituted a
taking of these Plaintiffs' personal injury claims.  The
Plaintiffs' personal injury suits filed against Old GM were
greatly affected by the General Motors bankruptcy in 2009.
Further, in the GM bankruptcy proceedings, the Plaintiffs'
opportunity to bring successor liability suits against New GM
were extinguished.

The case was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
because the original complaint was not filed within six years of
claim accrual.  The Court found that the "coercive" government
action that was alleged to have caused the taking of the
Plaintiffs' successor liability claims could not have extended
past the date when the bankruptcy court issued its Sale Order on
July 5, 2009.  Because the Plaintiffs' suit was filed on July 9,
2015, more than six years later, it was untimely filed under 28
U.S.C. Section 2501 (2012).

In the alternative, the Court held that plaintiffs' claims would
necessarily have been dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.  The only property right asserted by
the Plaintiffs to have been taken was a highly contingent right
to bring successor liability claims that was not a cognizable
property interest under the Takings Clause.  Thus, even if the
Plaintiffs' claims had been timely filed, the complaint would
have been dismissed, in any event, for failure to state a
plausible takings claim.

Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' combined motion for
reconsideration, motion to amend the judgment, and motion for
leave to file a second amended complaint, which is brought
pursuant to Rules 59 and 15(a) of the Rules of the United States
Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC").  The motion has been fully
briefed.

Judge Campbell-Smith has carefully considered the new allegations
of fact in the proposed Second Amended Complaint, as well as the
Plaintiffs' arguments based on those factual allegations and
takings jurisprudence, and finds no reason to conclude that their
takings claims accrued on July 9 or July 10, 2009, rather than on
July 5, 2009.  Once the bankruptcy court entered the Sale Order
on July 5, 2009, any alleged government coercion of third
parties, as "coercion" is defined in this context by A & D Auto,
748 F.3d at 1153-56, ceased.

The Judge has reviewed all of the Plaintiffs' arguments
challenging the Court's dismissal of their takings claims on
timeliness grounds.  The alternative accrual dates set forth in
the proposed Second Amended Complaint and the Plaintiffs' briefs
are not well-founded.  Nor have they shown any legal error in the
analytical framework employed by the Court in Campbell v. United
State.  Because the Court's claim accrual ruling in Campbell does
not evince legal error, any mistake of fact, or a manifest
injustice, the Plaintiffs' motion for the reconsideration of the
Court's RCFC 12(b)(1) dismissal of their claims must be denied.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' property interests were too
contingent to support plausible takings claims.  She has
considered all of the Plaintiffs' arguments to the contrary, and
finds no reason to reconsider its property interest holding in
Campbell or to amend its judgment.  Because the Court's property
interest ruling in Campbell does not evince legal error, any
mistake of fact, or a manifest injustice, the Plaintiffs' motion
for the reconsideration of the Court's RCFC 12(b)(6) dismissal of
their claims must be denied.

In this analysis of the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration,
Judge Campbell-Smith considered the Plaintiffs' proposed Second
Amended Complaint as if it were filed and as if it superseded the
First Amended Complaint.  Dismissal of the case under RCFC
12(b)(1) was still warranted on timeliness grounds, and dismissal
of the case, in the alternative under RCFC 12(b)(6), was still
warranted because the Plaintiffs' takings claims were not
plausible.  She thus finds that amendment of the complaint would
be futile.  The Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint must
therefore be denied.

For these reasons, Judge Campbell-Smith denied the Plaintiffs'
combined motion for reconsideration, motion to amend the
judgment, and motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/RzJTKD from Leagle.com.

CALLAN CAMPBELL, JAMES H. CHADWICK, JUDITH STRODE CHADWICK, KEVIN
C. CHADWICK, individually and through his court-appointed
administrators, James H. Chadwick and Judith Strode Chadwick,
KEVIN JUNSO, NIKI JUNSO & TYLER JUNSO ESTATE, through Kevin
Junso, its personal representative, Plaintiffs, represented by
Steven R. Jakubowski -- SJakubowski@rsplaw.com -- Robbins,
Salomon & Patt, Ltd.

USA, Defendant, represented by John Jacob Todor, U. S. Department
of Justice -- Civil Division.


UTAH: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Remick" Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Judge David Nuffer of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Utah, Central Division, granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
the case, COLTON GUY REMICK, an individual; SKYLAR W. GARNER, an
individual; BRYCE TUCKER LLOYD, an individual; ANTHONY MURDZAK,
an individual; DEFENDANTS' COLTER RICKS, an individual; BRANDON
TIMMS, an individual; and JOHN DOES 1-100; Plaintiffs, v. STATE
OF UTAH; and SEAN D. REYES, in his capacity as Attorney General
of the State of Utah, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00789-DN-DBP
(D. Utah).

The Plaintiffs are indigent adults who have been charged with
crimes in the State of Utah's district courts for which
incarceration is a possible consequence of a conviction.  As
indigent persons, the Plaintiffs are dependent on legal counsel
and other associated services necessary for their defense being
provided to them.  They maintain that they have been, and are
continuing to be, harmed by the Defendants' failure to fund,
administer, and supervise the State's indigent defense system.

The Plaintiffs initiated the proposed class action on June 26,
2016, in Utah's Third Judicial District Court for Salt Lake
County.  They amended their complaint on July 1, 2016.  And on
July 13, 2016, he Defendants removed the case to the Court.  The
Plaintiffs subsequently moved for certification of their proposed
classes and the Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint.  They argue that they lack standing, have not
named the proper Defendants, and fail to state a cognizable claim
upon which relief may be granted.  Movant Roger Bryner has also
filed a motion to intervene and participate in the case as a
representative Plaintiff.

The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint alleges claims for violation of
the Plaintiffs' rights to counsel and due process under the Sixth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and
Article 1, Sections 7 and 12 of the Utah Constitution; and for
violation of the minimum standards for indigent defense under
Section 301 of Utah's Indigent Defense Act.  The Amended
Complaint requests relief in the form of declaratory judgment,
injunctive relief, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, and
other appropriate supplemental and equitable relief.

However, in response to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the
Plaintiffs limited their requested relief to present a single
issue for declaratory judgment: whether the Defendants are
complying with the U.S. and Utah Constitutions in the way they
ensure (or fail to ensure) the provision of indigent defense
services statewide.  The Plaintiffs affirmatively represent that
they are not seeking injunctive relief.  They assert that because
the ongoing crisis is a state problem, permanently solving it
requires a state remedy.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs maintain that
if the Defendants are failing in their obligations under the
Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and
Article 1, Sec. 12 of the Utah Constitution, then the methods by
which that system is brought into constitutional compliance will
be left to the Defendants -- not the Court.

Judge Nuffer finds that (i) the Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently
allege an injury in fact; (ii) the Amended Complaint fails to
sufficiently allege that the Plaintiffs suffered an actual or
complete denial of appointed counsel at critical stages of their
judicial proceedings; (iii) the Amended Complaint fails to
sufficiently allege that the Plaintiffs were denied access to the
counsel, or that they have not had, or will not have, a
meaningful opportunity to understand the judicial process and
charges against them or to assist their public defenders in
preparing a defense; (iv) the Amended Complaint fails to
sufficiently allege a concrete and particularized denial of the
Plaintiffs' ability to engage in confidential attorney-client
communications; (v) the Amended Complaint fails to allege
sufficient facts that the Plaintiffs have suffered, are
suffering, or will suffer an injury in fact through an actual or
complete denial of the counsel; (vi) the Amended Complaint fails
to allege sufficient facts that the Plaintiffs have suffered, are
suffering, or will suffer an injury in fact through their public
defenders entirely failing to subject the prosecution's cases to
meaningful adversarial testing; (vii) the Amended Complaints
fails to allege sufficient circumstances to constitute an actual
or constructive denial of the Plaintiffs' right to counsel under
Cronic, where prejudice to the Plaintiffs is presumed; (viii) the
Amended Complaint fails to sufficiently demonstrate causation for
purpose of establishing the Plaintiffs' standing to sue; and (ix)
the declaratory relief the Plaintiffs seek does not meet the
standard for redressability.

For these reasons, Judge Nuffer denied the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss; mooted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification;
mooted Bryner's Motion to Intervene; and mooted the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Lift Stay and for Entry of Scheduling Order Regarding
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2018 Memorandum
Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/boQKEf from
Leagle.com.

Colton Guy Remick, an individual, Skylar W. Garner, an
individual, Bryce Tucker Lloyd, an individual, Anthony Murdzak,
an individual, Colter Ricks, an individual & Brandon Timms, an
individual, Plaintiffs, represented by John P. Harrington --
jharrington@hollandhart.com -- HOLLAND & HART, Jennifer S. Horne
, HOLLAND & HART, John M. Mejia -- jmejia@acluutah.org -- ACLU OF
UTAH, Leah M. Farrell -- lfarrell@acluutah.org -- ACLU OF UTAH &
Steven G. Jones -- sgjones@hollandhart.com -- HOLLAND & HART.

State of Utah & Sean D. Reyes, in his capacity as Attorney
General of the State of Utah, Defendants, represented by Andrew
Dymek, UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE LITIGATION UNIT & David N.
Wolf, UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE LITIGATION UNIT.


VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Pangelinan Sues over Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------
TANYA PANGELINAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. VALENTINE & KEBARTAS, LLC,
LVNV FUNDING, LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendant, Case No.
6:18-cv-00132-RP-JCM (W.D. Tex., May 10, 2018), seeks to recover
damages and declaratory relief under the Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, some time prior to June 13, 2017, an
obligation was allegedly incurred by Plaintiff. The alleged
obligation arose out of a transaction involving a Credit One Bank
debt incurred by Plaintiff in which money, property, insurance or
services were the subject of the transaction. Specifically,
Plaintiff used the funds of the Credit One Bank debt to purchase
goods that were primarily for personal, family or household
purposes. The Credit One Bank debt was subsequently sold to
Defendant LVNV, current owner of the debt. Defendant LVNV
contracted with Defendant Valentine to collect the alleged debt.
The Defendant collects and attempts to collect debts incurred or
alleged to have been incurred for personal, family or household
purposes on behalf of creditors using the United States Postal
Services, telephone and internet.

On June 13, 2017, the Defendant sent Plaintiff a collection
letter seeking to collect an alleged debt owed to Defendant LVNV.
The Letter offered Plaintiff multiple options for settling the
alleged debt. The Notice in the Letter stating that a discharge
of debt may be reported to the IRS is deceptive and misleading to
the Plaintiff as there is no way that the amount of debt
forgiveness here could reach $600.00. The invocation of the IRS
in the Letter only served to scare Plaintiff for fear of tax
repercussions and served to overshadow the settlement offer. A
statement that serves to confuse a consumer, and can never apply
during this collection is clearly deceptive and harmful. The
Plaintiff incurred a financial risk of harm as she was afraid to
take advantage of the settlement amount for fear of tax
consequences which were falsely threatened to her. As a result of
Defendants' deceptive, misleading and false debt collection
practices, Plaintiff has been damaged.

LVNV Funding purchases portfolios of both domestic (U.S.) and
international consumer debt owned by credit grantors including
banks.[BN]

Attorneys for Tanya Pangelinan:

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


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Can Compel Arbitration in "Sidney" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Raymond J. Dearie of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, granted the Defendants' motion to
compel arbitration and stay the case, LOWELL J. SIDNEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS AND CELLCO, PARTNERSHIP
d/b/a/ VERIZON WIRELESS SERVICES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 17 CV
1850 (RJD) (RLM) (E.D. N.Y.).

The putative class action arises out of fraudulent purchase of a
cell phone and service on the Plaintiff's cell phone account with
the Defendants.  The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of
individuals who he alleges were willfully and fraudulently over-
charged by Verizon for services they did not agree to, receive,
purchase, or use, and which were not part of their contracts for
services with Verizon.

The Plaintiff activated a cell phone service account with Verizon
on Feb. 28, 2012.  Verizon's account activation process includes
the new customer's acceptance of the terms and conditions of
Verizon's service agreement.  A copy of the Verizon Wireless
Customer Agreement would typically be provided to the new
customer during the activation process along with a Welcome
Package.  On March 2, 2012, Verizon provided the Plaintiff a
letter confirming service activation and enclosed a copy of the
Agreement.

The Agreement explicitly provides that disputes be resolved
through arbitration.  It also requires that the Plaintiff pursues
any disputes on an individual basis and includes a waiver of his
right to class action law suits.

Upon upgrading his service over a year later, on May 16, 2013,
the Plaintiff once again accepted Verizon's Agreement through the
Defendants' telephonic service upgrade process.  In a letter
dated March 19, 2013, Verizon confirmed the Plaintiff's upgrade.
The Plaintiff's Verizon service continued without incident until
October 2016.

In October 2016, an unknown individual entered a Verizon Wireless
store in Florida, and, impersonating the Plaintiff, fraudulently
added a second phone line to his account.  The Plaintiff alleges
that Verizon was aware of the fraud at that time and deliberately
did not notify him.  He became aware of fraudulent activity in
February 2017, when he contacted Verizon to inquire about his
bill, which included the added phone line and associated costs.

Verizon eventually confirmed that the charges were indeed
fraudulent.  On March 3, 2017, Verizon refunded the Plaintiff for
payments related to the fraudulent phone line.  The Plaintiff
filed the instant case on April 3, 2017.  The Defendants move to
stay the case and compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration
agreement between the parties.

Judge Dearie holds that the arbitration agreement between the
Plaintiff and the Defendant is valid and enforceable.  The
Plaintiff accepted the terms of the agreement on two separate
occasions over his six years of service with Verizon.  He first
accepted the Agreement when initiating service and opening his
Verizon account, and a second time when upgrading his account
over a year later.  There is no dispute that the Plaintiff
accepted the contract's terms on each of those occasions.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiff presents no argument attacking
the validity of the arbitration agreement.  Though the Plaintiff
does complain that the arbitration agreement and Verizon's
alleged failure to notify its customers of fraudulent activity is
unconscionable, he falls far short of succeeding on any legal
argument of that kind.  Indeed, there is nothing in the record,
beyond his allegations, to suggest that Verizon deliberately
withheld information about fraud.  More importantly, there is no
evidence to suggest the Agreement was improper; the terms of
Verizon service, especially the arbitration section, are
conspicuous in the Agreement.  Further, courts in the Circuit
have enforced identical arbitration agreements.  Verizon's
specific arbitration agreement has been upheld numerous times as
valid and enforceable.

Where the arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable, the
class action waivers in arbitration provisions are also
enforceable.  Other courts, including the Supreme Court, have
held that class action waivers such as Verizon's are permitted
and enforceable, and that a finding to the contrary would
undermine the efficient dispute resolution goals underlying the
FAA.  The Judge finds that there is no basis for the Plaintiff's
contention that the class action waiver should not apply.

For these reasons, Judge Dearie granted the Defendants' motion to
compel arbitration and stay the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2018 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://is.gd/kijZUp from Leagle.com.

Lowell J. Sidney, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Athas Constantine
Ioannou -- athas@acilawfirm.com -- Law Office of Athas C.
Ioannou.

Verizon Communications & Cellco Partnership, doing business as
Verizon Wireless Services LLC, Defendants, represented by Joseph
F. Falgiani -- jfalgiani@becker.legal -- Becker LLC.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Prosecutors Unseal Conspiracy Charges v. Ex-CEO
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that federal prosecutors on
May 3 unsealed conspiracy and wire fraud charges against former
Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn in connection with the German
automaker's scheme to cheat U.S. emissions standards.


WALMART: Faces Class Action Over E. Coli-Tainted Lettuce
--------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that consumers slapped Walmart, Sam's Club and Taylor Farms, one
of nation's largest producers of salad greens, with a class
action on May 14 for selling E. coli-tainted lettuce that has
sickened people in 25 states and killed one person in California.

Lead plaintiff Rick Musgrave, of Martinez, California, claims
Taylor Farms and Walmart exposed tens of thousands of consumers
to tainted romaine lettuce and refused to recall all of the
potentially contaminated produce.

Taylor Farms, based in Salinas, California, produces dozens of
fresh produce products, including ready-made salad packs that
feature romaine lettuce.  It sells those salad packs and fresh
greens at Walmart and Sam's Club stores across the country,
according to the complaint.

Mr. Musgrave says he and his wife became violently ill after
eating romaine lettuce they purchased at a Walmart in Martinez.
Co-plaintiff Margaret Grey says she also fell ill after eating
romaine lettuce she bought at a Sam's Club in Oxnard, California.

Exposure to E. coli bacteria can cause stomach pain, vomiting,
diarrhea, and in some cases lead to kidney failure and death.

Sam's Club recalled seven Taylor Farms romaine lettuce products
on April 15.  All of those products were "ready to eat" pre-
packaged salads, according to the lawsuit.

Walmart posted a notice about the E. coli contamination on its
website but failed to offer refunds or post any notices about the
contamination in its stores, according to the complaint.

"As a result of defendants processing, manufacturing,
distributing and selling Taylor Farms' products with romaine
lettuce without taking proper precautions, defendants placed in
the stream of commerce products that are unusable, unsafe, and
have caused purchasers and consumers of those products to suffer
or potentially suffer illness, as well as the loss of monies,"
the 26-page complaint states.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention traced the
recent E. Coli outbreak to Yuma, Arizona, where Taylor Farms
grows its crops during the winter months.

While the lawsuit claims the tainted lettuce has sickened people
in 25 states, the CDC says the outbreak has sickened 149 people
in 29 states, with 64 hospitalizations and one death in
California.

The CDC identified another Yuma-based lettuce grower, Harrison
Farms, as the sole source of lettuce that sickened several people
at a correctional facility in Alaska.  The center is still
investigating where in the supply chain -- growing, harvesting,
packaging, or distribution -- the outbreak occurred.

The complaint accuses Walmart and Taylor Farms of breaching the
implied warranty for its products, false advertising, negligence
and violating California's consumer protection laws.

The plaintiffs seek nationwide class certification, punitive
damages, restitution, and legal costs.

They are represented by L. Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com
-- of Bursor & Fisher in Walnut Creek, California.

Taylor Farms and Walmart did not immediately return emails and
phone calls seeking comment on May 15.


WCA WASTE: "Rios" Suit Seeks Unpaid Compensation under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
SANTIAGO RIOS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. WCA WASTE CORPORATION, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:18-cv-01503 (S.D. Tex., May 9, 2018), seeks to recover
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs,
pursuant to the provisions of Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of
all current and former waste disposal drivers who worked for WCA
Waste Corporation, at any time from three years preceding the
filing of the Original Complaint through the final disposition of
this matter.

According to the complaint, WCA violated (and continues to
violate) the FLSA and applicable state laws by automatically
deducting 30-minute meal periods from Plaintiff and the Putative
Class Members' daily hours worked, despite knowing that Plaintiff
and the Putative Class Members routinely worked (and continue to
work) throughout their designated 30-minute meal periods each
day. WCA violated (and continues to violate) the FLSA and
applicable state laws by permitting and encouraging its waste
disposal drivers, including Plaintiff and the Putative Class
Members, to perform pre-trip and post-trip work duties "off-the-
clock" and without pay.

Accordingly, WCA violated (and continues to violate) the FLSA and
applicable state laws by failing to pay their waste disposal
drivers across the United States, including Plaintiff and the
Putative Class Members, time and one-half for each hour worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek as is required by the FLSA. WCA
knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the
Putative Class Members overtime of at least one and one-half
their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per workweek.[BN]

Attorneys in Charge for Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
          Carter T. Hastingsv
          George Schimmel, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452 1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452 1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com
                  cgordon@a2xlaw.com
                  carter@a2xlaw.com
                  geordie@a2xlaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Customer Must Amend Mortgage-Fraud Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
Wells Fargo customer must amend his mortgage-fraud claims against
the bank, a federal judge ruled.

The case is VICTOR MUNIZ, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-04995-MMC (N.D. Cal.).


WILLIAMS COS: 10th Cir. Affirms Securities Class Action Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the 10th Circuit on May 11
upheld the dismissal of a securities class action filed by the
Employees Retirement System of Rhode Island based on two energy
companies' failure to share details of an abandoned merger,
finding the complaint insufficiently argued the companies' duty
to disclose.

The defendants of the case are The Williams Companies, Inc.,
Williams Partners L.P., Williams Partners GP, LLC, Alan S.
Armstrong, Donald R. Chappel.


WN 1380: Class Action Mulled Over Emergency Landing
---------------------------------------------------
Law.com reports that less than 24 hours after a Dallas-bound
Southwest Airlines jet made an emergency landing in Philadelphia
on April 17, attorney Ladd Sanger had already fielded two calls
from passengers on that flight.

By midafternoon on April 18, former passengers on Southwest
Flight 1380 were making inquiries with Mr. Sanger's Texas-based
aviation law firm, a sign of litigation brewing over the
airline's engine failure.  The callers had witnessed a woman,
Jennifer Riordan, almost sucked out of a shattered window of a
plane traveling about 30,000 feet above the ground.  Ms. Riordan
died, despite efforts from other passengers to pull her back into
the plane and resuscitate her.  "They're looking to see what
their rights are," said Mr. Sanger, managing partner of Slack
Davis Sanger's Dallas office.  "We suspect there are going to be
claims by passengers against the airline and engine
manufacturer." The attorney wouldn't say whether Slack Davis
agreed to represent any of the callers, but one thing was clear:
Lawyers are mulling what sort of litigation might be in the
works.  A class action could be in play, but there would be
several hurdles.

"The trouble is there has to be some kind of commonality of
damages," said Cozen O'Connor New York member Christopher Kende
-- ckende@cozen.com -- who focuses on international insurance,
reinsurance, aviation and marine litigation.

Potential claims over the Southwest Airlines flight could include
wrongful death and trauma.  Any plaintiffs would have to overcome
the "numerosity" requirement, and show that a collective suit
would be more efficient than multiple proceedings.  Attorneys say
it's also still too early to determine how litigation could shape
up in a situation potentially involving residents of multiple
states, who might be bound by varying rules in their home
jurisdiction.  Also still in play: breach-of-contract claims.

"Anybody that flies on any airline has a contract of passage,"
said airline attorney Mark A. Dombroff, outside general counsel
to the Aviation Emergency Response Organization and former
director of the Department of Justice's aviation and admiralty
section.  "When you purchase a ticket on an airline, the contract
is they will deliver you safely from Point A to Point B."

Attorneys agree the airline would likely move to avoid litigation
over the event that has grabbed international headlines.  "They
will aggressively seek to resolve any claim," Mr. Dombroff said.
"Southwest is an incredibly good airline in terms of not only
customer service, but in terms of operation and maintenance."

Southwest did not immediately respond to a request for comment,
but posted updates to its social media accounts.

"Safety is always our top priority at Southwest Airlines, and we
are working diligently to support our customers and crews at this
time," the company tweeted on April 17.

Federal regulations also limit the scope of the airline's public
comments as the National Transportation Safety Board
investigates.  Instead, the NTSB provides daily public briefings
to release its latest finding.  In the meantime, passengers have
been posting their accounts on social media, describing the event
in harrowing detail.

Attorneys say this could weigh against potential defendants if a
case reached a jury.  With no chance of assigning blame to the
passengers, defendants would have to shoulder all the
responsibility.  Mr. Dombroff suggests Southwest's counsel could
rely on the agency to help fact-check other reports emerging in
the frenzy following the event.

The former Dentons attorney has represented Southwest, Virgin
America, Spirit Airlines, US Airways and others.  "Social media
has made everybody a reporter," said Mr. Dombroff, of LeClairRyan
in Alexandria, Virginia.  "If I was representing the airline, I
would want to make sure that the speculation machine doesn't get
out of hand. . . . We don't need to speculate here.  All we have
to do is just be a little be patient."


ZUFFA LLC: UFC Fans Settle Suit Over Mayweather vs. McGregor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Bissell, writing for Bloody Elbow, reports that a settlement
between fans and the UFC has been preliminary approved by a
Nevada court to begin refunding fans for stream disruptions
during Mayweather vs. McGregor.

On August 26, 2017, the worlds of boxing and mixed martial arts
collided with a super fight between Floyd Mayweather Jr. and
Conor McGregor, the then UFC lightweight champion. The fight,
which resulted in a 10th round TKO victory for Mayweather, sold
an estimated 4.3 million pay-per-view buys, making it one of the
most watched boxing matches in history.

However, some of those millions of fans who bought the pay-per-
view weren't able to see all of what they paid for. As the action
was getting underway UFC Fight Pass, one of many services that
was selling the PPV, experienced difficulties; much to the
chagrin of Bloody Elbow managing editor Anton Tabuena.

The feed disruptions cleared up for most viewers, but many fans
were left perturbed at the inconvenience (especially due to the
event's hefty $100 price tag). The fans most annoyed by the
situation teamed up with Arizona based litigator Hart Robinovitch
on a class-action lawsuit to seek damages from the UFC and their
streaming partner NeuLion.

One of the claims in the lawsuit was that the UFC "engaged in
deceptive and misleading acts of marketing" by offering the PPV
on UFC.TV/Fight Pass. The lawsuit states that the UFC "knew or
should have known" that these platforms would not have been able
to handle the increase in traffic without causing outages.

Via a press release from Zimmerman Reed LLP, it was revealed that
Robinovitch's clients had reached a settlement with the UFC and
its partners and that the settlement had been granted preliminary
approval by a federal court in Nevada.

The law firm said that settlement notices and claim forms had
been sent out to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit so they can begin
to apply for their agreed upon refunds. Additional claim forms
are provided on the official settlement website
www.UFCPPVSettlement.com. Class members have until August 20th,
2018 to file claims for their refunds.

The agreed settlement features a tiered system of refunds based
on the level of streaming disruption experienced. The full
breakdown for refunds is presented below, via Zimmerman Reed
LLP's press release:

Fans who missed over five minutes of the main bout between
Mayweather and McGregor will receive a full refund of $99.99
after filling out a valid claim form. Fans who missed some but
less than five minutes of the main bout will receive $50 if they
timely submit a claim form. Fans who only missed part of the
preliminary bouts but were able to view the main bout in its
entirety, will receive $25. The settlement also includes an
additional component for fans who incurred out-of-pocket expenses
in relation to planned viewing parties (e.g., food and
beverages), that provides from one to three months of free access
to UFC Fight Pass or a $5.00 cash payment.

This settlement was approved on February 22nd, 2018 by U.S
District Court Judge for the District of Nevada, Andrew Gordon
who determined that the official claim period could begin on
April 9th. Even though the process for getting refunds has
started the court still needs to give final approval to the
settlement. The court will do this after a comment period and a
fairness hearing scheduled for July 20th.

The entire lawsuit -- Park, et al. v. Zuffa LLC, d/b/a Ultimate
Fighting Championship and UFC, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-02282-
APG-VCF (D. Nev.). [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  * * *