CAR_Public/180524.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Thursday, May 24, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 104



                            Headlines


970365 ALBERTA: Fort McMurray Case Suspended After Settlement
AB CAR: Court Grants Prelim Approval of "Abdi" Class Settlement
ABA PROTECTION: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime, Ojo Says
ALERI INC: Averts Class Action Over Blood Coagulation Monitor
AMERICAN GENERAL: Petersen Seeks to Certify Policyholders Class

AMERICAN HONDA: Court Narrows Claims in "Aberin" Suit
AMP LTD: Chairwoman, Legal Counsel Quit Amid Class Action Threat
AMP LTD: Faces Fourth Potential Shareholder Class Action
AMP LTD: IMF Bentham Plans to Fund Shareholder Class Action
AMP LTD: Potential Fines Unlikely to Deter Future Conduct

ANTALIA TURKISH: Abarca et al. Sue over Unpaid Wages under FLSA
APPLE INC: Faces $5 Billion Class Action Lawsuit
AUSTRALIA: More Actions Needed Over PFAS Chemicals
AUSTRALIA: Queensland Settles Palm Island Riot Case for $30MM
BARNES & NOBLE: Data Breach Class Action Ongoing

BAXALTA US: Faces "Martinez" Wage-and-Hour Suit
BELL: Ontario Contract Case Could Be Grounds for Class Action
BIGLARI HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Restructuring
BIGLARI HOLDINGS: Shareholder Suit Remanded to Ind. Superior Ct.
BITGRAIL: Files Bankruptcy Petition in Italy Amid Litigation

CAESARS ENTERPRISE: Arwine-Lucas Moves to Certify Four Classes
CANADA: Sixties Scoop Survivors Object to Class Action Settlement
CANADA: Class Action May Reach Resolution in Shorter Timeline
CENTER FOR ELDERS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Musawwir Says
CHAMBER APPROVED: Morris Sues over Fax-Based Marketing Activities

CHEMOURS CO: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Girardot" DWPCA Suit
CITIGROUP INC: Market Makers Targeted in VIX Manipulation Lawsuit
CLEMENTS FLUIDS: "Laney" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
CLEVELAND AVE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Hogan" FLSA Suit
COLONIAL PARKING: Abraha's Bid for Class Certification Denied

CONVERGYS CORP: Wins Summary Judgment in "Dimery" FLSA Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Man Seeks Class Suit for Shortchanging Members
COVENTRY HEALTH: Court Denies Approval of $1.5MM Settlement
CRST VAN: Reed Wants Testimony of Expert B. J. Nadell Excluded
CYTEC INDUSTRIES: Claudet Seeks to Certify Plan Members Class

DARP INC: Fochtman Seeks Certification of Participants Class
DAVIS DEVELOPMENT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & OT, Orozco Says
DELAWARE, USA: Saunders Moves for Certification of Inmates Class
DENVER: Court Denies Summary Judgment in Homeless Sweeps Suit
DISCOUNT POWER: Faces Class Action in Conn. Over TCPA Violation

DOORDASH INC: Burger Antics' Class Certification Bid Withdrawn
DR. PEPPER: Proskauer Rose Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
EQUIFAX INC: CFPB Fails to Act Despite Consumer Complaints
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Dozens of Lawsuits Over Cambridge Analytica
FACEBOOK INC: Millionaire Suing Over Fraud Adverts

FCA US: Judge Allows Jeep Wrangler Class Action to Proceed
FEDEX GROUND: Certification of Class Sought in "Carrow" Suit
FLORIDA BC: Class of Sales Coordinators Certified in "Reese" Suit
FORD MOTOR: Ct. Excludes Plaintiff Expert Witnesses in "Johnson"
FOREMOST INSURANCE: Braden Seeks Prelim. OK of Class Settlement

FOREMOST INSURANCE: Accord in Braden-Brown Suit Has Initial OK
FRIENDLUM INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Elias Says
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Williams Sues over Stock Price Drop
GC SERVICES: Dickens Renews Class Certification Bid in Florida
GENERAL MILLS: Court OKs $97,500 Atty's Fees in "Rooker"

GEORGE WESTON: Class Action Over Rana Plaza Collapse Ongoing
GLOBAL EAGLE: Purcell Julie Investigates Fiduciary Duty Breach
GOLD STANDARD: Zollicoffer Seeks to Certify Class of Laborers
GOLDEN STATE: Court Needs Supplemental Briefing in "Palma"
GSP TRANSPORTATION: Enters Settlement in Principle with Campbell

GUADALUPE, CA: "Limon" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
GUAM: USCIS Attorney Fights Sanction for Denial of H-2B Petitions
HELIX ENERGY: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
HITACHI AUTOMOTIVE: Court Certifies Class in "Lear" FLSA Suit
HOMES OF OPPORTUNITY: Belmont Moves to Certify RS Managers Class

HOWROYD-WRIGHT EMPLOYMENT: Becerra-South Sues over Overtime Wages
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Defective Brakes Suit
INTEREXCHANGE INC: 9th Cir. Refuses to Review Au-Pair Class Cert
IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Class Certification Sought in "Hovermale" Suit
J.C. PENNEY: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Garcia Says

JPAY INC: Reyes Moves to Certify Class and Subclass of Ex-Inmates
JPMORGAN CHASE: Childresses' Bid to Certify Class Denied
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Collins et al Seek to Certify Collective Suit
LEGEND MINING: Conditional Certification in "Kaesemeyer" Denied
LEWIS GALE: "Hardy" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA

LIVE NATION: June 18 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
LYFT: Drivers File Class Action Over Undisclosed Charges
M3 FINANCIAL: Mason Seeks Final Approval of $600K Settlement
MASTRIA INCORPORATED: "De Leon" Suit Can't Proceed as Class
MAZZONE MANAGEMENT: Olvera, et al. Seek to Certify 3 Classes

MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: July 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: June 29 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
NATIONAL RAILROAD: Campbell's Bid for Class Certification Denied
NATIONAL UNION: Bid to Enjoin "Zebersky" Suit Granted
NEVADA: Court Narrows Claims in "Walden" Wage & Hour Suit

NEW ENTERPRISE: Court Narrows Claims in "Carr"
NISSAN NORTH: Judge Dismisses Some Claims in Timing Chain Suit
NOVARTIS PHARMA: Drogueria Sues over Exforge Non-Compete Deal
NYKO: Nintendo Switch Owners File Class Action Over Dock Defect
PALACIOS, TX: "Hubanek" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA

PHILIP MORRIS: Two Attorneys in Tobacco Litigation Suspended
PROPARK AMERICA: "Sadino" Remanded to Calif. State Court
QUINSTREET INC: Faces Securities Class Action in California
RELIABLE REPORTS: Court Dismisses Non-Ohio Residents' FLSA Suit
RM GALICIA: Court Approves $1.5MM TCPA Class Action Settlement

SCHNUCK MARKETS: 7th Cir. Rules on Economic Loss Rule Issue
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces DRAM Class Action in California
SAN DIEGO GAS: Faces Lawsuits Over Powerline Easements
SEMPRA ENERGY: Court Dismisses "Plumley" Securities Fraud Suit
SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC: Sued Over Bungled Fairfield Project

SQUAW VALLEY: Court Extends Time to Respond in "Pinto"
SUGAR TRANSPORT: Court Extends Discovery Deadlines in "Guinn"
SUNRISE SENIOR: Court Grants Final OK of "Johnson" Class Deal
SUNTRUST BANK: Fails to Secure Classified Info, LeRoy et al. Say
SYNGENTA: Lawyers Misled Corn Growners, Lawsuit Claims

TARGET CORP: Settles Criminal Background Check Case for $3.4MM
TEZOS SECURITIES: Securities Suit Briefing Schedule Set
TIGER BRANDS: Confirms Presence of Listeria Strain in Facilities
TIM DRAPER: Investors Bring Suit Over Sale of Digital Currency
TOTAL QUALITY: Two Plaintiffs No Longer Part of Class Action

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: 14 Women Seek Release from Arbitration
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: 103 Drivers Face Sexual Assault Complaints
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Briefing Schedule Set in "Yucesoy"
UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Needs Supplemental Briefs in "Rodriguez"
UNITED STATES: VA to Build Housing Units Following Class Action

UNIVERSAL TAX: Judge Rejects D&B's Attempt to Reopen Class Action
UNO RESTAURANT: Court Won't Certify Class of Tipped Employees
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Aspen Law Firms File Emissions Scandal Lawsuit
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Class Action Over Defective Sunroofs Dismissed
VOLVO CARS: Court Junks Suit Over Side Impact Protections Systems

WAL-MART STORES: Tye Moves to Certify Five Classes of Purchasers
WALMART STORE: Judge Rejects Attempt to Dodge Class Action
WEINSTEIN CO: Six Women Plaintiffs in Class Action Seek Court Nod
WORTHINGTON PJ: Seeks Final OK of $35,250 Deal in "O'Connor" Suit
WYNN RESORTS: Court Extends Deadlines in "Ferris"

* Australia's Mandatory NDB Legislation Takes Effect
* Carlton Fields Releases 2018 Class Action Survey
* Citizen Petition for Regulation of Sugar May Lead to Lawsuit




                            *********


970365 ALBERTA: Fort McMurray Case Suspended After Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Thurton, writing for CBC News, reports that though
settlements have been reached and the building has long-since
been torn down, the saga of the troubled Penhorwood condo complex
in Fort McMurray is far from resolved in owners' minds.

After 11 years of litigation, a Calgary Court of Queen's Bench
judge approved the final settlements in September 2017, court
documents show.

The only thing that's left is for the courts to approve a process
under which owners can deal with the banks still carrying unpaid
mortgages, said Christine Burton, president of the Penhorwood
Condo Association.

Even after that's worked out, some owners will continue to live
in financial ruin, Ms. Burton said.

"Some people went bankrupt," she said.  "A lot of people
foreclosed, stopped paying their mortgages.  We had a lot of
marriages break up over this."

Problems from roof to foundation
The seven-building, 168-unit complex was built between 2003 and
2004.

Three years later, in January 2007, condo owners filed their
first statement of claim.  In several amended claims filed later,
owners alleged numerous building deficiencies from roofs to
foundations.

"Just about every single system in the building was failing,"
Ms. Burton said.

In 2011, municipal building inspectors determined the complex was
structurally unsound, and ordered a sudden evacuation on a cold
night in March.

Condo owners filed a $60-million lawsuit that year against the
companies that built the complex -- 970365 Alberta Ltd, Prairie
Communities Corp., and Dome Britannia Properties Inc. -- the
architect and engineering firms that designed it and the
municipality that approved it.  The condemned building was torn
down in 2015.

Since then, owners have continued to pay their mortgages.

The exact amount the defendants paid to condo owners is unknown
because the 2017 settlement is sealed under a court order.

Court settlements are not an admission of guilt.

The lawsuit and a class action suit were suspended after the
settlements were reached, Ms. Burton said.

Settlement doesn't equal loss
Owner Pawel Odrzygozdz received only a fraction of the amount
needed to pay off his $250,000 mortgage.  He anticipates he'll be
paying off his debt for years.

But for him, the loss has been even greater.  He and his wife
were expecting twins, but she miscarried after the evacuation.

"I guess a lot of people could consider there was no life lost in
this entire situation.  That's not how I look at it," Odrzygozdz
said.  "The way I look at it is, I lost two potential babies that
potentially could have been born healthy.

"But because of this entire situation, they weren't able to come
into this world."

The 4.74-acre site is now up for sale, with an asking price of
$9,500,000.  Any money from the sale, Burton said, will go to
condo owners. [GN]


AB CAR: Court Grants Prelim Approval of "Abdi" Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, granted Parties' Stipulated Motion for
Certification of Settlement Class and for Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement in the case captioned SAMATAR ABDI,
Plaintiff, v. AB CAR RENTAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
C16-0421RSL (W.D. Wash.).

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c), the Court
conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only, the
following Settlement Class:

     All employees of the Defendant who were on Defendant's
payroll who are alleged to have been either Hospitality Workers
or Transportation Workers and who worked one or more hours within
the City of SeaTac at any time during the time period from
January 1, 2014 to the present, and who were paid less than the
prevailing minimum wage prescribed by the City of SeaTac
Municipal Code 7.45.050, i.e., a base rate of $15.00 per hour in
2014 and $15.24 in 2015 and 2016.

Persons in the Settlement Class will possess the right to opt out
by sending a written request to a designated address on or before
June 7, 2018. All Settlement Class Members who do not opt out in
accordance with the terms set forth herein will be bound by all
determinations and judgments in this action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 26, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc6dbj7v from Leagle.com.

Samatar Abdi, Plaintiff, represented by Cleveland Stockmeyer --
cleve@clevelandstockmeyer.co -- CLEVELAND STOCKMEYER, Daniel R.
Whitmore -- dan@whitmorelawfirm.com -- & Duncan Calvert Turner --
dturner@badgleymullins.com -- BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC.

AB Car Rental Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Breanne Sheetz Martell -- bsheetz@littler.com --
LITTLER MENDELSON & Ryan Paul Hammond -- rhammond@littler.com --
LITTLER MENDELSON.


ABA PROTECTION: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime, Ojo Says
---------------------------------------------------------
OLUFEMI DAVID OJO, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ABA PROTECTION, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. BC705970 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 16, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid wages and overtime under the California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, from at least 4 years prior to the
filing of this lawsuit and continuing to the present, the
Defendants had a consistent policy or practice of failing to pay
Employees overtime compensation at premium overtime rates for all
hours worked in excess of 8 and/or 40 hours a week, in violation
of Labor Code and the corresponding sections of the IWC Wage
Orders. The Plaintiff and other putative class members
consistently worked shifts in excess of eight hours a day or 40
hours a week but were paid only straight time for each hour
worked.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Orshansky, Esq.
          Alexandria R. Kachadoorjan, Esq.
          Justin Kachadoorjan, Esq.
          COUNSELONE, PC
          9301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 650
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 277 9945
          Facsimile: (424) 277 3727
          E-mail: anthony@counselonegroup.com
                  alexandria@counselonegroup.com
                  justin@counselonegroup.com


ALERI INC: Averts Class Action Over Blood Coagulation Monitor
-------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reports that a California federal judge
has denied class action certification of an action accusing Aleri
Inc. and its predecessor HomoSense Inc., the makers of a blood
coagulation monitor, of failing to adequately warn of possible
device malfunctions, ruling that individual inquiries will be
necessary to determine proximate cause.

On April 24, Judge Gonzalo Curiel of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California explained that a learned
intermediary doctrine analysis requires demonstrating proximate
cause, and that a proximate cause determination will ultimately
lead to individual inquiries into each doctor's experience with
the product. [GN]


AMERICAN GENERAL: Petersen Seeks to Certify Policyholders Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled EDWARDINE C. PETERSEN, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN
GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE CO., the Defendant, Case No. 3:14-cv-
00100-BJD-JBT (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:

   1. certifying a class for settlement purposes:

      "Members of the First Union Financial Institution Block as
      identified by DRIASI, American General's Third-Party
      Administrator, whose Certificate under American General
      Group Policy G-500,017 was still active as of October,
      2014"; and

   2. allowing notice to be issued to the class and specifying a
      date for the Final Approval Hearing so it may be included
      in the Notice to the Class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=anGF9dXl

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          Brian R. Warwick, Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
          P.O. Box 1870
          Lady Lake, FL 32158
          Telephone: (352) 753 8600
          E-mail: jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com
                  bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Donovan, Esq.
          DONOVAN LITIGATION
          GROUP, LLC
          15 St. Asaphs Road
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 647 6067
          E-mail: mdonovan@donovanlitigationgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christian P. George, Esq.
          Aleksas A. Barauskas, Esq.
          Gary Guzzi, Esq.
          AKERMAN LLP
          E-mail: christian.george@akerman.com
                  aleksas.barauskas@akerman.com
                  Gary.guzzi@akerman.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Grantham, Esq.
          Thomas J. Butler, Esq.
          MAYNARD COOPER & GALE
          E-mail: jgrantham@maynardcooper.com
                  tbutler@maynardcooper.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Court Narrows Claims in "Aberin" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss certain claim in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint
(SAC) in the case captioned ABERIN ET AL., Plaintiffs, v.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-
04384-JST (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs' claims arise from their purchase of Acura
vehicles which contained a Bluetooth pairing device entitled
HandsFreeLink (HFL) that allowed for hands-free cell phone calls.
Beginning in 2005, AHM issued internal Technical Service
Bulletins (TSBs) to its dealers describing the defect but
offering no solution or warranty.  In some cases, the Plaintiffs
purchased their Acura vehicles specifically because they had HFL,
and because Acuras had a reputation for reliability. The
Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging claims under
California and various other state consumer protection and
warranty laws against the Defendants.

AHM argues that New York plaintiff Matza and Washington plaintiff
Burgess, both new to the SAC (Burgess by consolidation and Matza
by amendment), have several untimely claims. AHM argues that
Matza's consumer protection claim is untimely because New York's
law has a three-year statute of limitations that accrued on the
date of purchase in September 2006.  AHM also argues that Matza's
claims for express warranty, implied warranty, and under the MMWA
have a four-year statute of limitations.

The Court holds that "AHM's recitation of the statutes of
limitations for the New York and Washington state consumer
protection and warranty statutes is correct, and under these
statutes, the claims are untimely.  But this is not the end of
the timeliness inquiry. The Plaintiffs argue that Matza and
Burgess's consumer protection and warranty claims are all timely
as fraudulent concealment and delayed discovery tolling apply.
Plaintiffs are correct that tolling applies."

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs Lou, Yeung, Matza, and
Burgess adequately plead the time and manner of their discovery.
However, that is not the end of the inquiry. To invoke the
discovery rule, each Plaintiff must also show he acted reasonably
and diligently. AHM argues that these plaintiffs were not
diligent because they knew they had problems with their
batteries, but did not investigate the source of the problems.

The Plaintiffs respond that AHM's concealment, combined with the
fact that the defect manifests by causing apparently unrelated
electrical components to fail, left the Plaintiffs unable to
discover the defect on their own.  The Plaintiffs have the better
argument.

The Plaintiffs allege that they had their cars repaired by
dealerships who purported to fix the reported problems but never
identified the underlying HFL issue causing those problems. In an
analogous situation, another court in this district held that
plaintiffs alleged fraudulent concealment when a car manufacturer
pretended to fix problems with the defect instead of admitting
that the problems could not be fixed. Courts have also recognized
that a consumer without sophisticated knowledge of automobiles
might not suspect a defect, and therefore not investigate
further, when it appeared that a repair fixed the problem.

As to the Plaintiffs' fraudulent concealment claims, defendant
must show not only that the Plaintiffs should have known about
the defect itself, but also that they know about the Defendant's
alleged fraud in concealing the defect, the Court says, citing
MyFord Touch, 46 F. Supp. 3d at 962. The Court's prior holding
that the Plaintiffs sufficiently allege a defect within Honda's
exclusive knowledge, and that Honda withheld information from
Plaintiffs, are sufficient in this regard.

In short, plaintiffs Lou, Yeung, Matza, and Burgess, adequately
allege tolling. The motion to dismiss their consumer protection
and warranty claims on statute of limitations grounds is denied.

The Plaintiffs also argue that the warranty fails its essential
purpose if it does not cover design defects, under the UCC
Section 2-719. The Plaintiffs again cite to a number of out of
district and circuit cases for this proposition, arguing that
design defects are interchangeable with workmanship or
manufacturing defects at the pleadings stage. However, many
courts in this district and circuit have repeatedly held that
warranties covering 'materials or workmanship' do not cover
design defects.
AHM's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' express warranty claims is
granted.

Under California law, a third-party beneficiary can enforce a
contract made expressly for his benefit. A contract made
expressly for a third party's benefit does not need to
specifically name the party as the beneficiary; the only
requirement is that the party is more than incidentally
benefitted by the contract. Plaintiffs successfully invoke this
exception.

As to Florida Plaintiff Criner, however, AHM's motion has more
force. Under Florida law, the rule is simple: a plaintiff cannot
recover economic losses for breach of implied warranty in the
absence of privity.

AHM's motion to dismiss on the grounds of implied warranty for
lack of privity under California law is denied but the motion to
dismiss on the grounds of implied warranty for lack of privity
under Florida law is granted.

The Court finds that the Defendants are correct that to the
extent that this Court dismisses Plaintiffs' implied and express
warranty claims, it must also dismiss their MMWA claims. The MMWA
claims on the basis of the express warranties are dismissed but
the claims for implied warranties are granted, in part.
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the MMWA claim under Florida
law is granted, but the motion under all other laws is denied
because implied warranty claims survive.

AHM argues that the plaintiffs cannot obtain equitable relief
under the UCL because they have an adequate remedy at law.  AHM
is correct that some federal courts have so held. This Court
joins the many other courts, however, that have reached the
opposite conclusion, finding no bar to the pursuit of alternative
remedies at the pleadings stage.

For these reasons, the Court rules:

   -- AHM's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for equitable
relief under the UCL and CLRA is denied.

   -- AHM's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in
part and the motion to strike is denied in full.

   -- AHM's motion to dismiss Burgess's and Matza's consumer
protection claims on the grounds of timeliness is denied.

   -- AHM's motion to dismiss Burgess's and Matza's warranty
claims on the grounds of timeliness is denied.

   -- AHM's motion to dismiss the consumer protection and
warranty claims of the Aberin Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Lou,
Yeung, Matza, and Burgess on the grounds of failure to plead
tolling of the statute of limitations is granted as to the Aberin
Plaintiffs and denied as to Plaintiffs Lou, Yeung, Matza, and
Burgess.

   -- AHM's motion to dismiss the express warranty claims of
Plaintiffs Criner, Matza, and Burgess on the grounds of failure
to manifest during the warranty period is granted.

   -- AHM's motion to dismiss the implied warranty claims under
California law on the basis of privity is denied but the motion
to dismiss the implied warranty claims under Florida law on the
basis of privity is granted.

   -- AHM's motion to dismiss the MMWA warranty claims is denied
except as to claims under Florida law, as to which the motion is
granted.

   -- AHM's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for equitable
relief is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 26, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y73l2tra from Leagle.com.

Yun-Fei Lou, Lindsey Aberin, Don Awtrey, Daniel Criner, John
Kelly & Melissa Yeung, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Shana E. Scarlett
-- shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Catherine Gannon -- catherineg@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher A. Seeger --
cseeger@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel
R. Leathers -- DLeathers@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP, pro
hac vice, David Brian Fernandes-  dfernandes@baronbudd.com --
Baron & Budd, P.C., James E. Cecchi -- jcecchi@carellabyrne.com -
- Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James C.
Shah -- jshah@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah,
LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody &
Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip Pifko -- mpifko@baronbudd.com -- Baron
& Budd, P.C., Roland K. Tellis -- rtellis@baronbudd.com -- Baron
Budd, P.C., Scott Alan George -- sgeorge@seegerweiss.com --
Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen A. Weiss --
cseeger@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP & Steve W. Berman --
steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac
vice.

American Honda Motor Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Livia M. Kiser -- lkiser@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, Andrew
Jacob Chinsky -- achinsky@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, pro
hac vice, Eric B. Scwartz -- eschwartz@sidley.com -- Sidley
Austin LLP & Michael Christian Andolina -- mandolina@sidley.com -
- Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice.


AMP LTD: Chairwoman, Legal Counsel Quit Amid Class Action Threat
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paulina Duran and Aaron Saldanha, writing for Reuters, report
that Australia's largest-listed wealth manager AMP announced the
resignations of its chairwoman and legal counsel on April 30, and
slashed its directors' fees by a quarter as it races to stem the
fallout from damaging revelations of misconduct at the firm.

The exits follow disclosures at a judicial inquiry into the
country's financial sector that AMP misled many customers and
deceived the corporate regulator.  The scandal has already caused
the early departure of CEO Craig Meller, who was due to leave by
year end, and analysts expect more heads will roll.

Chairwoman Catherine Brenner and group General Counsel Brian
Salter will depart immediately, AMP said in a statement.

Mike Wilkins, a former independent director who has been named
both interim chairman and CEO, said the evidence given to the
government-backed Royal Commission is "being treated extremely
seriously by the board".

"Appropriate steps are being taken to address the issues raised,
and remediating our customers is being given utmost priority," he
said.

AMP, which is also staring at a possible class action, has seen
around A$2.2 billion ($1.7 billion) wiped off its market
capitalization over the past two weeks in the wake of the
revelations. It was valued at A$11.6 billion at the April 27
close.

The inquiry was told that advisers at AMP misappropriated funds
of thousands of clients over the last decade by charging them
without providing advice, and that it had repeatedly lied to the
Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).

Counsel assisting the inquiry said on April 27 that AMP had
breached provisions of the Corporations Act that carry criminal
sanctions.

Brenner, Salter and Meller were singled out by the inquiry as
part of a group of senior executives that allegedly modified a
report by law firm Clayton Utz and submitted it to the regulator
in late 2017 as "external and independent".

Their intention was to limit the report's findings about the
involvement of AMP's senior executives in misappropriating
customer fees, the inquiry heard.

AMP said in its statement that Brenner, Meller and the other
directors "did not act inappropriately in relation to the
preparation of the Clayton Utz report".

The statement did not comment on Salter's behavior.

REMUNERATION CONSEQUENCES
The company said it would make a formal submission in response to
the allegations raised at the commission by May 4.

The "employment and remuneration consequences" for individuals
who were responsible for charging fraudulent fees will be
determined once an external employment review is completed, which
is expected shortly, it said.

AMP added that it would slash fees for board directors by 25
percent for the rest of 2018 as a recognition of the "collective
governance accountability for the issues raised in the Royal
Commission and for their impact on the reputation of AMP".

AMP has already started searching for a new CEO, and will fast
track the selection of a new chair to "help ensure stability and
further strengthen governance", Wilkins said.

David Ellis, an analyst at Morningstar, said it was likely more
executives and board members would leave in coming weeks.

"All bets are off," Ellis said. "With a new CEO and a new board,
the future strategy could be completely different."

AMP is currently staring at a possible shareholder class action,
with litigation financier IMF Bentham Ltd saying it plans to fund
one against the wealth manager regarding alleged misconduct as
revealed by the commission.

An AMP spokeswoman declined to comment on the proposed class
action.

The Royal Commission is just a couple of months into what is
expected to be a year-long investigation.  The inquiry will be
able to make wide-ranging recommendations including legislative
changes and on criminal or civil prosecutions. [GN]


AMP LTD: Faces Fourth Potential Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Simone Ziaziaris, writing for Australian Financial Review reports
that AMP is facing a fourth potential shareholder class action
after law firm Phi Finney McDonald announced it is preparing
action against the wealth management giant for misleading
investors and breaching continuous disclosure obligations.

Following the resignation of AMP chairman Catherine Brenner on
April 30, Phi Finney McDonald said the class action will seek
compensation for investors after revelations at the banking royal
commission that AMP could face criminal charges for charging
customers fees for services that were not provided.

It follows law firms Shine Lawyers, Slater and Gordon and Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, which said they were each
investigating class actions against AMP.

"It is all very well for AMP to say that it 'unreservedly'
apologises to the regulator, but where does that leave investors
in AMP shares who have seen billions of dollars wiped off AMP's
market capitalisation in the last two weeks?" Mr Finney said.

He said the class action, which is backed by litigation funder
IMF Bentham limited, will be open to all shareholders "aggrieved"
by AMP's misconduct.

AMP's market value has fallen by $2.3 billion since its
executives began giving testimony to the royal commission a
fortnight ago, with its shares down a further 0.5 per cent to
$4.00 by 1250 AEST on April 30.

The 169-year-old company has admitted it charged customers fees
for financial advice that was never delivered, and repeatedly
lied to ASIC about its behaviour.

The scandals uncovered during the royal commission have forced Ms
Brenner, AMP chief executive Craig Meller, and group general
counsel and company secretary Brian Salter to step down as the
company tries to rebuild trust with customers. [GN]


AMP LTD: IMF Bentham Plans to Fund Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Saldanha, writing for Reuters, reports that litigation
financier IMF Bentham Ltd said on April 30 that it plans to fund
a class action against AMP Ltd, Australia's largest listed wealth
manager.

IMF said the investment involves a proposed class action by
certain current and former AMP shareholders regarding alleged
misconduct as revealed by Australia's Financial Services Royal
Commission.

AMP announced the resignations of its chairwoman and legal
counsel earlier on April 30, and slashed its directors' fees by a
quarter, as the firm tries to stem the fallout from damaging
revelations. [GN]


AMP LTD: Potential Fines Unlikely to Deter Future Conduct
---------------------------------------------------------
Anna Patty, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
legal experts and angry shareholders doubt criminal and civil
penalties AMP could face will be high enough to have a deterrent
effect on its future conduct.

The banking royal commission has heard AMP breached criminal
provisions for misleading the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission over its charging of clients fees for no
service.

Potential penalties for a criminal breach are $210,000 per charge
and $1 million for each civil breach.  Fines reaching tens of
millions of dollars would be a drop in the ocean compared to
AMP's $800 million profit last year.

Allan Goldin from the Australian Shareholders' Association (ASA)
said fines in Australia were very low in comparison to those
imposed for similar corporate offences in the US and Europe.
"Why should we trade the idea that corporate theft is OK?"
Mr Goldman said.

The Bank of America paid almost $US17 billion in 2014 to settle
allegations about its role in selling mortgages to investors
leading up to the global financial crisis.  A Financial Times
analysis last year showed the Bank of America had paid $US56
billion in settlements to cover its mortgage sales and those of
two companies it acquired, subprime lender Countrywide and broker
Merrill Lynch.  JPMorgan Chase, which acquired Bear Stearns and
Washington Mutual was reported to have paid $US27 billion in
settlements.

European banks paid billions of dollars in settlements in the US
last year, including $US5.5 billion from the Royal Bank of
Scotland.

Mr Goldman, ASA's NSW company monitoring committee chairman, said
Australian shareholders wanted long-term sustainable profits but
AMP, "one of the most recognised and trusted names in Australia",
had "trashed" its reputation.

"As a shareholder you are losing money but the concern is am I
going to get it back, because how long is it going to take AMP to
get their reputation back?" he said.

Jan Saddler from Shine Lawyers, who is running a class action
against AMP on behalf of shareholders, said civil and criminal
penalties were supposed to have a punitive and deterrent effect,
but those AMP potentially faced were "modest amounts" relative to
company profits.

"I'm not sure that it's having the desired outcome because we are
continuing to see conduct that falls well short of the standard
expected by the community," she said.

Louise Davidson, Australian Council of Superannuation Investors
chief executive, said penalties should be a financial deterrent.

"Whilst the financial penalties themselves may not have a
significant impact on the company's bottom line and may not
therefore act as a deterrent, I would expect that the
reputational impact of what has been revealed in the royal
commission would certainly be a deterrent," she said.

"Nevertheless there is clearly a need for the financial penalties
to be reviewed for the future."

University of Sydney Professor of Corporate Law Jennifer Hill
said ASIC has long argued the penalties for corporate misconduct
available to comparable international regulators are broader and
higher than those in Australia.  ASIC has complained it lacked
power to order disgorgement, which aims to prevent unjust
enrichment through wrongdoing. Civil penalties had also remained
static for decades.

The federal government announced in March it would significantly
increase penalties for criminal and civil liability under the
Corporations Act for corporations and individuals.

Professor Hill said criminal liability against corporations was
controversial in the US where critics claimed high fines against
corporations often punished shareholders and employees instead of
deterring the future conduct of corporations -- unless
individuals were targeted.

"Some commentators doubt that even the stratospheric $US1 billion
fine levied against Wells Fargo bank a few weeks ago will truly
act as a deterrent," Professor Hill said.  "Yet, criminal
liability may have limited effectiveness against individual
corporate managers."

Professor Hill said a benefit higher penalties may have in
Australia included providing regulators with greater leverage to
address corporate culture issues in negotiated settlements. [GN]


ANTALIA TURKISH: Abarca et al. Sue over Unpaid Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
MISAEL PEREDA ABARCA and ORLANDO XOCUA DE LA CRUZ, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
ANTALIA TURKISH CUISINE LLC (D/B/A ANTALIA), OZAN EKMEL ANDA,
DAVID D KOCAK, and SERHAT (A.K.A. SERGIO) CETINKAYA, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04380 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2018),
seeks to recover minimum wage compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were ostensibly
employed as delivery workers. However, they were required to
spend a considerable part of their work day performing non-tipped
duties, including but not limited to carrying delivery boxes into
the store, taking and carrying inventory down to the basement,
taking out the trash, and cutting cardboard boxes. At all times
relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiffs worked for Defendants
without appropriate minimum wage compensation for the hours that
they worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiffs
appropriately for any hours worked at the straight rate of pay.
Furthermore, Defendants repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiffs wages
on a timely basis. The Defendants employed and accounted for
Plaintiffs as delivery workers in their payroll, but in actuality
their duties required a significant amount of time spent
performing non-tipped duties alleged above. Regardless, at all
relevant times, Defendants paid Plaintiffs at a rate that was
lower than the minimum wage rate.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


APPLE INC: Faces $5 Billion Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------
Patenty Apple reports that The National Corporation of Consumers
and users of Chile filed a Class Action against Apple on April 27
in the afternoon for slowing iPhones in X in the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division. The plaintiff is
described as a private non-profit organization with its principal
place of business in Santiago, Chile. The plaintiff was founded
in 1996 with the purpose to inform and educate consumers and
assume their legal representation and defense. Other countries
suing Apple on this same issue include France, South Korea,
Australia, Israel and Canada to date in 2018. The plaintiff is
demanding $5 billion as noted in the graphic below from the court
docket.

Nature of the Action

The plaintiff's court filing presents a segment titled "Nature of
the Action" and it states the following verbatim: "Apple promised
that its recent iOS 10 and iOS 11 software updates for the iPhone
6 and iPhone 7 models would improve those devices' performance.
Apple also made it nearly impossible for its customers to refuse
those updates. But Apple didn't tell its customers that it
intentionally designed those software updates to slow the
devices' processing speed to correct a battery defect. Yet Apple
happily took its customers' money when the customers,
dissatisfied with their now-slower devices, purchased new and
more expensive iPhones. Apple finally came clean in December 2017
under public pressure, admitting its software updates slowed
processor speed. Consumers around the world were forced to either
purchase new phones for hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars or
continue to struggle with their slowed devices.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all Chilean consumers
who own the iPhone 6, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s Plus
(collectively, the "iPhone 6"), or the iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus
(collectively, the "iPhone 7") (together, "Affected Phones"),
whose devices were harmed by Apple's iOS software updates for
versions 10.2.1, 10.3, 10.3.1, 10.3.3 (the "iOS 10 Update") and
for versions 11.0.1, 11.02, 11.03, 11.1.1, 11.1.2, 11.2, and
11.2.1 (the "iOS 11 Update," and collectively, the "iOS 10 and
iOS 11 Updates") those updates were released between January 23,
2017 and December 13, 2017."

It's clear the plaintiff's position is that Apple purposely
slowed iPhones so as to push customers to upgrade more often.
Their formal complaint states that "Despite the iPhone's
importance, Apple has struggled with problems in its flagship
product. According to Apple's 2017 Form 10-K, 'iPhone net sales
decreased during 2016 compared to 2015. The Company believes the
sales decline was due primarily to a lower rate of iPhone
upgrades during 2016 compared to 2015 . . . .'"

The plaintiff's formal complaint further added that
"Specifically, Defendant has since admitted that the iOS 10 and
iOS 11 Updates deteriorated the performance of the Affect Phones
by causing:

a. Longer app launch-times;

b. Lower frame rates while scrolling;

c. Backlight dimming;

d. Lower speaker volume;

e. Gradual frame rate reductions in some apps;

f. Disabling the camera flash; and

g. Apps refreshing in background may require reloading upon
launch.

The Concealed Facts were material because the decrease in
processing speed significantly impacted the functionality of
Plaintiff's members' iPhones.

By its misrepresentations and omissions, Defendant, upon
information and belief, intended to induce Plaintiff's members to
purchase newer iPhone models to increase profits and improve
Defendant's business as a whole."

Causes for Action

Below are the four causes of action listed in the plaintiff's
formal complaint:

Count 1: Injunctive Relief

Count 2: Trespass to Chattels

Count 3: Unjust Enrichment

Count 4: Fraudulent Misrepresentation/Omission [GN]


AUSTRALIA: More Actions Needed Over PFAS Chemicals
--------------------------------------------------
Laurel Stowell of Wanganui Chronicle, writing for NZHerald,
reports that Ohakea residents affected by chemical contamination
from the Air Force base need more and better testing and more
open information from the Defence Force, lawyer Tim Gunn, Esq.,
says.

But a Defence Force spokesperson says it has been completely open
and is using the right test for this stage.

Gunn works for Shine Lawyers in Auckland, which deals in civil
and insurance litigation. The law firm's Australian parent
company is working on a class action lawsuit against the
Australian Defence Force concerning exposure to chemicals in
Oakey, Queensland.

In December the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) told councils
and residents that PFAS chemicals used in firefighting foams were
present in groundwater around its Ohakea air base. Gunn said NZDF
knew about the contamination as early as mid-2015.

"This is a dangerous case of the perpetrators also being the
gatekeepers to vital information that holds life-altering weight
to the community."

The NZDF told Horizons Regional Council about possible
contamination in October 2015, the spokesperson said, and it
carried on investigating "carefully and methodically" after that.

New Zealand didn't have a drinking water guideline for PFAS until
2017, and the NZDF discovered PFAS had moved outside the Air
Force base only in September last year.

It has since commissioned two rounds of testing, by AsureQuality.

The latest results increased the number of Ohakea households that
have drunk bore water with unacceptably high levels of the
chemical from five to eight.

Gunn has seen people harvesting watercress from ponds near the
base. He said residents should ask for tests of surface water,
soil, plants and their own blood as well as the groundwater
tests.

Residents have been advised not to eat a lot of food from their
land, as a precaution, because small amounts of the chemical can
accumulate in their bodies.

Gunn also said New Zealand tests for PFAS compounds are not as
effective as the TOP Assay test used in Australia. But the NZDF
spokesperson said current tests were to assess the risk to
households and the TOP Assay test would be used if long-term
remediation was done.

The PFAS scare is older in Australia, with New Zealand about
three years behind. The chemicals are toxic, soluble and very
long lasting.

Small amounts build up in the body and Queensland's Department of
Environment and Science says they can cause health problems
including liver damage, benign tumours and thyroid disease.

In Australia test results were put up online, with a map of the
area affected, Gunn said.

In New Zealand the Ministry for the Environment is the lead
agency dealing with PFAS contamination near several NZDF sites.
Its website has published NZDF test results, and results from the
latest round of testing near Ohakea.

The website says there are no acute health risks for people or
stock from ingesting small amounts of the chemical, and it's okay
to sell stock, milk and food grown on the land commercially.

Mr Gunn believes the contamination will eventually affect land
values near NZDF sites. He's looking for owners interested in
being part of a class action, but said better information about
the extent of the problem is needed first.

Horizons Regional Council is investigating the contamination, and
may prosecute the NZDF. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Queensland Settles Palm Island Riot Case for $30MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Chen, writing for ABC, reports that the Queensland
Government has agreed to pay $30 million to settle a class action
in the Federal Court over the 2004 Palm Island riots.

As part of the settlement reached with Palm Island residents in
late April, the State Government has also agreed to offer an
apology.

The settlement includes payments for 447 claimants as well as
interest, legal and administrative costs.

Indigenous activist Lex Wotton, who was convicted of inciting the
riots following the death of Cameron Doomadgee, launched the
legal action in 2015.

Mr Doomadgee, 36, died of massive internal injuries after he was
arrested for being drunk and locked in a police cell, with no
visible injuries at the time.

Hours later he was dead from massive internal injuries including
broken ribs and a ruptured spleen, and his liver was so badly
damaged it was almost cleaved in two across his spine.

The pathologist who conducted a post-mortem compared Mr
Doomadgee's injuries with those of plane crash victims.

Residents accused arresting officer Senior Sergeant Chris Hurley
of murder, but he was acquitted of manslaughter in 2007.

On the day Mr Doomadgee's autopsy results were read out, about a
week after his death, Mr Wotton led angry residents on a riot
through the town.

Mr Wotton was later convicted of inciting a riot and served 19
months in jail before being released on parole in 2014.

Mr Wotton and his family was awarded $220,000 in damages for
racial discrimination in December 2016.

Police response was racist, court found
Island residents marched from the town square and burnt down the
police station, court house and police houses.

Officers tried to barricade themselves as they were attacked with
sticks and rocks, and told to leave the island.

Queensland's then-premier Peter Beattie declared a state of
emergency and dozens of riot squad members were flown in to
control the crowd.

The Federal Court found in November 2016 that police were racist
in their response, and ordered compensation for one family,
prompting momentum around a class action.

In her 2016 ruling, Federal Court Justice Debbie Mortimer found
police had acted "with impunity".

She also found the Queensland Police Service's failure to suspend
Senior Sergeant Hurley after Mr Doomadgee's death was unlawful
discrimination.

"I am satisfied the QPS . . . would not have had that attitude if
this tragedy occurred in a remote, close-knit, but overwhelmingly
non-Aboriginal community -- for example, a pastoralist community
in rural Queensland," she said.

Mr Wotton said he is glad the case has come to an end almost 14
years later.

"It did take a toll on me . . . and I'm probably still suffering
in some sense from it all now but I can move on," he said.

"I can concentrate more on myself now than be worried about this.

"The wider community didn't have to go through what I had to, to
get the outcome," he said.

Lawyer Stewart Levitt said he was pleased with the outcome after
working with Mr Wotton for nearly a decade.

"This is an opportunity for a celebration, but the other thing
that does concern me is that people will be receiving substantial
sums of money for the first time in their life. I just hope
carpet baggers don't prey on them and lighten their pockets
rapidly," Mr Levitt said.

"I'd like to see [the Australian Securities and Investment
Commission] keeping a close watch to see what happens to the
Indigenous [people] to ensure they're not preyed upon by people
with poor motives in respect to the sudden floods of funds that
they're going to be receiving in Palm Island, where there's not
even a bank branch."

Apology would also help community 'move on'
Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Partnerships Jackie Trad said the Government would work with the
community on a way to recognise the apology.

"I look forward to continuing to work closely with the community
as we move forward together."

Palm Island Mayor Alf Lacey said he hoped the settlement would
allow the community to move on.

"Hopefully that part of history will fade -- I think it's really
important there's an apology statement from the State
Government," Councillor Lacey said.

"I think it's really important a line is drawn in the sand and
people move on."

Law firm Levitt Robinson will hold two public meetings in May in
north Queensland to explain the settlement to residents.

The Federal Court will sit in Townsville in June to decide
whether to approve the settlement. [GN]


BARNES & NOBLE: Data Breach Class Action Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
Ellen Duffer, writing for Forbes.com, reports that back in
September of 2012, Barnes & Noble discovered that credit card
information had been stolen from sixty-three stores across the
country.  Six years later, a class action lawsuit attempting to
procure damages resulting from the expenses related to the hack -
-bank fees and credit monitoring services, for example -- is
still ongoing.

The case was dismissed (three times), but in March the 7th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago reversed the latest
dismissal, giving plaintiffs the opportunity to pursue the case
known as Dieffenbach et al v Barnes & Noble Inc.

Barnes & Noble, which announced revenue decreases in March, and
layoffs in February, cannot catch a break. [GN]


BAXALTA US: Faces "Martinez" Wage-and-Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------
ELVIA MARTINEZ, individually, on a representative basis, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
BAXALTA US INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC705969 (Cal. Super. Ct., May
16, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the California
Labor Code.

According to the complaint, during their employment with the
Defendants, the Plaintiff and the Represented Employees were
compensated on an hourly basis but also received additional
compensation including, but not limited to, shift differentials.
At all relevant times, the Defendant provided Plaintiff and the
Represented Employees with inaccurate and incomplete wage
statements that (1) failed to state the rates of pay for
additional hourly compensation, such as shift differentials, and
(2) failed to state the corresponding number of hours worked at
each additional hourly rate. For example, the wage statement
issued to Plaintiff with a check date of September 1, 2017,
states that Plaintiff earned $44.79 for a shift differential but
fails to state the proper rate or the number of hours worked at
this shift differential rate. Accordingly, the wage statements
that Defendants provided to Plaintiff and the Represented
Employees fail to accurately state all applicable rates and hours
worked, and Plaintiff and the Represented Employees were left
with no way to determine if they were being paid properly for all
hours worked, including additional compensation such as shift
differentials.

Baxalta US Inc. develops therapies in hematology, immunology, and
oncology. The company is based in Deerfield, Illinois. Baxalta US
Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Baxalta Incorporated.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Elvia Martinez, individually, on a
representative basis, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated:

          Brian J. Mankin, Esq.
          Peter J. Carlson, Esq.
          FERNANDEZ & LAUBY LLP
          4590 Allstate Drive
          Riverside, CA 92501
          Telephone: (951) 320 1444
          Facsimile: (951) 320 1445
          E-mail: bjm@femandezlauby.com
                  pjc@femandezlauby.com


BELL: Ontario Contract Case Could Be Grounds for Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erica Johnson, writing for CBC News, reports that a Toronto man
is elated after a deputy judge ruled that a verbal contract he
made with a Bell customer service agent trumps the contract the
telecom later emailed him, noting prices could increase.

In a judgment issued in March in a Toronto small claims court,
Deputy Judge William C. De Lucia said that Bell's attempt to
impose new terms after a verbal contract guaranteeing a monthly
price for 24 months had been struck was "high-handed, arbitrary
and unacceptable."

It all started in November 2016, when David Ramsay called a Bell
customer service representative to inquire about TV and internet
services.

The sales agent told Mr. Ramsay he could get Bell's Fibe TV and
internet services "for $112.90 a month for 24 months" and then
said he'd get an "email confirmation of everything that was just
discussed."

But when the email arrived, it said prices were actually "subject
to change" and that Bell was planning to increase its price for
internet service by $5, two months later.

"I was stunned and appalled to find these buried terms in an
email," says Mr. Ramsay.  "I had a contract, and this ain't that
contract."

Mr. Ramsay called Bell to say the emailed contract was different
from the verbal contract he'd made on the phone.

In a move that was pivotal to his legal case, he requested a
transcript of the call in which the customer service rep promised
him a fixed price for two years.

To request phone call transcript with Bell: email privacy@Bell.ca
"They kept saying, 'Everyone has to pay those price increases,'"
says Mr. Ramsay.  "'Everyone has to pay.'"

Undeterred, Mr. Ramsay filed a complaint with the Commission for
Complaints for Telecom-television Services (the CCTS), a
moderator between customers and telecom providers.

In a lengthy email exchange, a spokesperson for the CCTS insisted
that Bell had the right to increase prices and since the telecom
had notified Mr. Ramsay of this fact -- as well as an upcoming
price increase -- it ruled that the telecom provider met its
obligations and no further investigation was warranted.

The CCTS closed Mr. Ramsay's file.

"I couldn't believe it," says Mr. Ramsay.  "They just refused to
consider my argument that I had a verbal contract.  I even sent
them a link to that section of the law, which they ignored."

'There's a principle at stake here'
Mr. Ramsay had consulted a couple of lawyer friends, who told him
they thought he was on the right track, that a verbal agreement
was binding.

"Even though the dollar amount was small," says Mr. Ramsay, "I
got on my white horse and thought, 'There's a principle at stake
here.  Let's take them to small claims court and see what
happens.'"

Industry-wide problem
Mr. Ramsay also figured he wasn't the only one who had the same
concerns about Bell's pricing, in part because of stories he'd
seen by Go Public and other media reports.

Go Public has received over 100 similar complaints from customers
who say Bell sales agents promised them a guaranteed monthly
price, only to receive an emailed contract where it said prices
could go up.

In a joint Go Public/Marketplace investigation earlier this year,
sales agents for Bell were repeatedly caught on hidden camera
falsely promising customers that prices for TV, internet and home
phone deals would not change for 24 months.

Customers from other telecoms -- such as Rogers and Telus -- have
written to say they, too, were promised a price by a sales rep
only to receive an email mentioning that prices could change.

According to a recent report from the CCTS, between August 2017
and January 2018 the number 1 complaint it received -- from
almost 2,000 customers -- was that telecom providers gave
misleading information or did not disclose all contract terms.

Bell sought confidentiality agreement
Before they got to court, Bell offered Mr. Ramsay money to drop
the case -- $300, roughly the amount Ramsay estimated the telecom
would be over-billing him for two years. He declined.

"I wanted a judge to rule on the merits of this case," he says.
"And if I happened to win, I thought it'd be a useful case for
others to know about."

Three weeks before the court date, Bell contacted Mr. Ramsay
again. He was offered $1,000 to settle, but was required to sign
a confidentiality agreement. Again, Ramsay declined.

"I thought the merits of the case were good," he says.  "Not to
get too self-righteous, but I thought it was a battle worth
having.  So I said, 'Onward, ho!'"

Off to small claims court
Representing himself, Mr. Ramsay appeared in a Toronto small
claims court on March 19, armed with what he calls his "smoking
gun" -- the transcript of his conversation with the Bell sales
rep.

He highlighted two specific comments by that agent -- one in
which she told him "Your total cost for the 24 months will be
$112.90 per month" and "You're going to get an email confirmation
of everything that was just discussed."

Bell stuck to its argument that it had emailed contract details
shortly after Mr. Ramsay's call, so the contents of that email
were what should be binding.  It also said the customer service
agent Mr. Ramsay spoke to did not know about a planned price
increase, which is why that wasn't mentioned, and claimed that,
because Mr. Ramsay had continued with Bell's service, he was
essentially agreeing to the telecom's contract terms.

Judge De Lucia was not swayed by those arguments, saying in his
reasons for judgment, "I find that Bell cannot unilaterally
insert or impose new terms.  Any imposition of new terms . . . is
unenforceable."

Judge De Lucia said Bell has the right to impose price changes,
but not during a contract when a monthly price has been agreed
upon.

"To alter or change the terms, as Bell has requested," said
Judge De Lucia, "would be grossly unfair, grossly prejudicial to
the plaintiff and unconscionable."

The deputy judge ordered Bell to pay Mr. Ramsay $1,110 to cover
the cost of damages, his time, inconvenience and miscellaneous
costs.

Bell won't comment on judgment
Go Public asked Bell for an on-camera interview, but the request
was declined.

It also refused to comment on the deputy judge's findings, and
would not address complaints by other customers who say they were
not [verbally] told prices were subject to change when they
purchased services.

In an email, Bell's senior manager of media relations admitted
the call centre rep did not tell Ramsay that prices were subject
to change and said Bell had "informed the customer service team
involved and they are using it as a coaching opportunity."

The Bell spokesperson also said the company had offered to cancel
Ramsay's contract without penalty.

Mr. Ramsay told Go Public that he didn't cancel, because he
wanted the services at the price he had [verbally] negotiated.

CCTS changes tune
In an apparent turnaround, when Go Public contacted the CCTS to
discuss Mr. Ramsay's victory, commissioner Howard Maker said the
organization believes an oral contract is binding.

"If a customer calls a service provider on the phone and they
make a deal for a package of services for a fixed price, that's a
deal," said Maker.

It's also the opposite of what the CCTS employee handling
Mr. Ramsay's case determined.

"We are human," said Mr. Maker.  "So did we make an error? Maybe
. . . we'll do our analysis . . . and we'll take appropriate
steps."

Mr. Ramsay wants the CCTS to re-open similar cases where staff
erroneously told customers they had to pay price increases when a
telecom sales rep didn't inform them of those changes before
locking them into a contract.

"I'm sure they have hundreds of cases just like mine," says
Mr. Ramsay.  "So I think it's incumbent on the CCTS to take
notice of this and review a bunch of those cases."

Grounds for class action
Meanwhile, an expert on contract law says he foresees a lot of
consumer interest in this "David vs. Goliath" case.

"It should really make consumers feel very confident," says
Anthony Daimsis, a contract law professor at the University of
Ottawa.

"Should they choose to all get together, instead of having to
deal with these claims one at a time, they could probably make a
very good case for one big class action."

Even though the case was heard in small claims court, Mr. Daimsis
says the judgment was "persuasive" and likely how a higher court
would rule.

Mr. Daimsis considers the judgment a warning to all telecom
providers.

"What it should signal to other outfits that are operating this
way, is that this is not the way Canadian courts will accept how
larger parties act with consumers." [GN]


BIGLARI HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Restructuring
-------------------------------------------------------
Greg Andrews, writing for Shares of Steak n Shake's parent
company plunged 20 percent on April 27 after shareholders
approved a controversial plan to create two classes of stock--a
move that strengthens CEO Sardar Biglari's grip on the company.

The outcome of the April 26 Biglari Holdings Inc. vote was a
foregone conclusion because the 40-year-old entrepreneur controls
55 percent of the shares.

Hours after the vote, Standard & Poor's disclosed that because of
the dual-class structure, Biglari Holdings shares were "were no
longer appropriate for continued inclusion" in the SmallCap 600
index and would be removed.  The change will spur fund managers
whose holdings are tied to the index to unload their Biglari
Holdings shares.

On April 27, shares tumbled $84.88 to close at $338.40, wiping
out $178 million in market value.

The restructuring arms Sardar Biglari with a new class of shares
with no voting power that he can use as currency in acquisitions
without diluting his voting power.  Shareholders would receive
one non-voting share and one-tenth of a voting share for each
existing share.

Sardar Biglari's critics have sharply criticized the
restructuring, and shareholders have filed two suits in Hamilton
County charging unjust enrichment and breaches of fiduciary duty.

A lawsuit filed in late January by a client of the Indianapolis
law firm Price Waicukauski Joven & Catlin LLC put it bluntly:
"This class action challenges a self-interested scheme to
reorganize Biglari Holdings' corporate structure for the express
purpose of ensuring S. Biglari's control over the company . . .
in perpetuity."

The suits initially sought an injunction blocking the shareholder
vote.  Attorneys for the plaintiffs dropped that motion after the
company said the restructuring could be unwound if the court
ultimately sides with the plaintiffs, according to the San
Antonio Express-News.

In addition to owning Indianapolis-based Steak n Shake,
San Antonio-based Biglari Holdings owns an insurance company, the
men's magazine Maxim, Western Sizzlin, and a 20-percent stake in
Cracker Barrel.

Sardar Biglari gained control of Steak n Shake a decade ago,
turning around the struggling chain by implementing a
value-pricing strategy that translated into 29 straight quarters
of same-store sales increases before hitting a rough stretch in
2016 that continues today.

Along the way, he has stirred up plenty of controversy. Several
investor lawsuits bashed a 2013 deal under which Sardar Biglari
licensed the "Biglari" name to the company for 20 years.  Biglari
won't receive royalties if he remains atop the company, but if it
were sold, or if he were forced out for anything but malfeasance,
he'd receive 2.5 percent of sales for five years--a sum that
could surpass $100 million.

Since May 2009, Biglari Holdings shares have performed roughly in
line with the S&P 500, according to Jonathan Heller, president of
Pennsylvania-based KEJ Financial Advisors and a columnist on
TheStreet.com.

But he noted in a column that the stock rocketed 175 percent
higher in 2009.  Since 2010, Biglari Holdings shares have risen
by about 50 percent, well below the S&P 500's 139 percent
increase.

"While the company has grown assets and book value significantly
over the years, the share price has not followed, at least in
recent years," Mr. Heller wrote.  "Part of that, in my view is
due to a complicated structure [and] distrust of management."
[GN]


BIGLARI HOLDINGS: Shareholder Suit Remanded to Ind. Superior Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division,
issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the District
Court grant Plaintiff's Motion to Remand the Action in the case
captioned JOSEPH HIPPS, Plaintiff, v. BIGLARI HOLDINGS, INC.,
SARDAR BIGLARI, PHILIP L. COOLEY, KENNETH R. COOPER, JAMES P.
MASTRIAN, RUTH J. PERSON, Defendants, No. 1:18-cv-00349-TWP-TAB
(S.D. Ind.), to the Hamilton Superior Court.

Hipps filed a shareholder class action in Hamilton Superior Court
alleging the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties as members of Biglari Holdings' board of directors in
connection with a pending reclassification of Biglari Holdings'
capital structure. Hipps alleges that if the vote is allowed to
take place, the reclassification will be approved because Sardar
Biglari is the controlling shareholder.

The removal is based on the Court's diversity jurisdiction, and
there is no dispute that there is complete diversity.

The Court finds that the Defendants' argument that Biglari
Holdings is a nominal defendant is unconvincing. Though the forum
defendant rule is not triggered by the citizenship of a nominal
party, Biglari Holdings is not a nominal defendant and its
citizenship cannot be ignored. A defendant is nominal when his
relation to the suit is merely incidental and it is of no moment
to him whether the one or the other side in the controversy
succeeds.

If Hipps prevails in this action, Biglari Holdings could be
enjoined from taking an action that it otherwise would have
taken. Thus, which side wins in this dispute clearly matters to
Biglari Holdings, and it is not a mere nominal party.

Contrary to the Defendants' position, these cases show that the
inquiry does not stop at whether the defendant faces liability,
but continues on to what interest the defendant has in the
litigation.  Biglari Holdings has an interest in continuing to
operate as it sees fit, and if Hipps were to succeed in this
litigation, that ability would be enjoined. Therefore, Biglari
Holdings is not a nominal defendant, and remand is appropriate.
Hipps's motion to remand should be granted to the extent that it
seeks to remand this case to Hamilton Superior Court.

A full-text copy of the Magistrate Judge's March 26, 2018 Report
and Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/y77e747l
from Leagle.com.

JOSEPH HIPPS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brad A. Catlin --
bcatlin@price-law.com -- PRICE WAICUKAUSKI JOVEN & CAITLIN, LLC,
Christopher M. Windover -- mwindover@ktmc.com -- KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTER & CHECK, LLP, pro hac vice, David F.E. Tejtel --
jfriedman@fotpllc.com -- FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC, pro hac
vice, Eric L. Zagar -- ezagar@sbtklaw.com -- SCHIFFRIN &
BARROWAY, LLP, pro hac vice, J. Daniel Albert -- dalbert@ktmc.com
-- KESSLER TOPAZ MELTER & CHECK, LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy
Friedman -- jfriedman@fotpllc.com -- FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL
PLLC, pro hac vice, Justin O. Reliford -- jreliford@ktmc.com --
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTER & CHECK, LLP, pro hac vice & Spencer Oster,
FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC, pro hac vice.

BIGLARI HOLDINGS, INC., SARDAR BIGLARI, PHILIP L. COOLEY, KENNETH
R. COOPER, JAMES P. MASTRIAN & RUTH J. PERSON, Defendants,
represented by Christopher J. Clark -- chris.clark@lw.com --
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, pro hac vice, J. Christian Word --
christian.word@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP, pro hac vice,
Michael E. Bern -- michael.bern@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP,
pro hac vice, Scott Stuart Morrisson -- smorrisson@kdlegal.com --
KRIEG DEVAULT LLP & William J. Barkimer --
wbarkimer@kdlegal.com,-  KRIEG DEVAULT LLP.


BITGRAIL: Files Bankruptcy Petition in Italy Amid Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Oladapo Olagoke, writing for Cryptona, reports that a
representative of BonelliErede, a law firm based in Italy, made
an announcement on reddit on April 27 that the law firm, which is
presently representing victims of the BitGrail hack, has filed a
petition with an Italian court to pronounce BitGrail bankrupt
under article 6 of Italian Bankruptcy Law.

The move by the law firm is the latest development in a war of
words and lawyers that took place between Nano Foundation and the
founder of BitGrail, Francesco Firano ever since the
cryptocurrency exchange reported losing 17 million Nano (XRB)
tokens -- which worth about $187 million as at that time, but
$124 million currently.  During an interview, Francesco said the
theft took place on 19th January, though the news was first
reported on the 8th February.

BitGrailVictimsGroup published a post on Medium stating that
BonelliErede is filing the bankruptcy petition on behalf of a
BitGrail creditor, Espen Enger, who is representing more than
3000 victims presently.  Majority of the victims reported to
Espen that they "prefer an immediate accounting of BitGrail's
assets in bankruptcy," having the fear that their assets may be
further depleted:

"In filing for a declaration of bankruptcy, a decision has been
made to trust the Italian legal system to resolve the conflict.
We are confident that the Italian authorities are best equipped
to require Mr. Firano to disclose the facts of what occurred [. .
.]  [We] seek an equitable distribution of the assets rather than
to permit private resolutions in which some victims might profit
over others."

Nano developing team, last February, posted an accusation that
Francesco had asked for the modification of Nano's ledger "in
order to cover his losses," as well as purportedly "misleading"
the crypto community as regards Nano's solvency.

Francesco replied that the fault does not originate from
BitGrail, but from Nano's "totally unreliable" software, pointing
to timestamp irregularities on the Nanode block explorer.

In March, BitGrail made a promise to reimburse its victims,
offering to cover 80% of the losses by issuing its own newly
created token, BitGrail Shares (BGS), with the remaining 20% in
Nano.  However, the qualification was that the victims of the
hack would have to sign an agreement to decline any legal action
taken against BitGrail.

Nonetheless, the legal story exploded in April, when a Unites
States class action litigation demanded that the Nano Core Team
hard-fork the Nano's protocol so as to reimburse victims.
However, Nano, since then, has chosen to sponsor a legal fund to
provide all victims of the BitGrail hack with legal
representation, in collaboration with BonelliErede and Enger.

According to a Twitter poll taken by Francesco himself on the
28th February, about 79% of the 7,610 respondents on Twitter
would rather see BitGrail file bankruptcy than reopened. [GN]


CAESARS ENTERPRISE: Arwine-Lucas Moves to Certify Four Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled JENNIFER M. ARWINE-LUCAS,
and KEVIN L. LUCAS, both individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CAESARS ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC, et
al., Case No. 4:17-cv-00451-HFS (W.D. Mo.), ask the Court to
certify four classes:

   (1) Miscalculated Regular Rate of Pay for Tipped Employees
       FLSA Collective:

       All tipped employees who were paid a direct hourly wage
       less than $7.25 per hour and for whom a tip credit was
       claimed and who held any of the following positions at the
       following casinos from three years prior to the filing of
       the Complaint until June 30, 2017:

       * Harrah's Joliet - Beverage Server, Waitperson, Poker
         Dealer, Slot, Attendant/Host, Valet, Server;

       * Harrah's Ak-Chin - Beverage, Server, Bingo Staff,
         Dealer, Stocker, Waitperson, Poker, Dealer, Cleaner;

       * Horseshoe Council Bluffs - Bartender, Beverage Server,
         Dealer, Valet, Valet Lead, Waitperson, Poker Dealer,
         Food Server, Server Assistant, Dealer, Tournament;

       * Harrah's Council Bluffs - Bartender, Beverage Server,
         Dealer, Valet, Valet Lead, Waitperson;

       * Harrah's North Kansas City - Bartender, Beverage,
         Server, Dealer, Valet, Waitperson, Poker Dealer;

       * Harrah's Gulf Coast - Dealer, Food Server Tip,
         Compliance, Valet Runner;

       * Tunica Roadhouse - Dealer;

       * Horseshoe Tunica - Dealer, Poker Dealer, Bell Person;
         and

       * Harrah's Philadelphia - Poker Dealer;

   (2) Failure to Provide Adequate Tip Credit Notice FLSA
       Collective:

       All hourly, non-exempt tipped employees who were paid a
       direct hourly wage that was less than $7.25 per hour and
       for whom a tip credit was claimed and who worked at any of
       the following casinos from three years prior to the filing
       of the Complaint until September 30, 2017:

       * Harrah's Arizona Corporation, Bally's Atlantic City,
         Bluegrass Downs, Biloxi Hammond LLC, Caesars Atlantic
         City, Horseshoe Council Bluffs/MAC, Chester Casino &
         Racetrack, Harrah's Council Bluffs, Harrah's Gulf Coast,
         Harrah's Atlantic City, Harrah's New Orleans, Harrah's
         Joliet Casino, Harrah's Metropolis Casino, Harrah's
         North Kansas City, Tunica Roadhouse Hotel & Casino,
         Louisiana Downs, Horseshoe Baltimore, Horseshoe Bossier
         City, Horseshoe Indiana, Horseshoe Hammond, and/or
         Horseshoe Tunica;

   (3) Nationwide Timeclock Rounding Policy FLSA Collective:

       All hourly non-exempt employees who clocked-in and
       clocked-out using the TimeWorks timekeeping system at any
       casino property to which Caesars Enterprise Services, LLC
       provided timekeeping services from three years prior to
       the filing of the Complaint to the present; and

   (4) Harrah's North Kansas City Unjust Enrichment/Breach of
       Contract Class:

       All hourly non-exempt employees who worked at Harrah's
       North Kansas City at any time from five years prior to the
       filing of the Complaint to the present who clocked-in and
       clocked-out using the TimeWorks timekeeping system.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives and to appoint their counsel as class counsel.
They further ask the Court to order the Defendants to produce
necessary information for each member of each class, and to set a
deadline by which the Plaintiffs shall file a motion to approve
Class Notice.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Wt29B8Np

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George A. Hanson, Esq.
          Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
                  ricke@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
          MCCLELLAND LAW FIRM, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          The Flagship Building
          200 Westwoods Drive
          Liberty, MO 64068-1170
          Telephone: (816) 781-0002
          Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
          E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com


CANADA: Sixties Scoop Survivors Object to Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David P. Ball, writing for Toronto Star, reports that B.C.
survivors of the Sixties Scoop, Canada's mass removal of
Indigenous children from their homes into white families over
several decades, say a proposed lawsuit settlement is far too
little to bring justice -- and leaves out too many of those
ripped from their cultures.

The class action payout to First Nations and Inuit people who
lost their culture through the wave of child seizures is up for
approval, with hearings on May 10 and 29.

But April 30 saw some survivors scrambling to meet the deadline
to legally object on the record to the payout, saying the $750
million Canada offered is miniscule when divided up among a
still-unknown number of survivors and legal firms involved.

"It's unfair," said Vancouver radio producer Gunargie, 52, of
Kwakwaka'wakw nation.  She told StarMetro she was adopted out of
her family at age 7, which she said was the result of her and her
mother's time in residential school.

And although she was placed on a beautiful farm in Mission, B.C.
with a non-Indigenous family "who loved and smothered" her in
hopes of giving her a "better life," she said the experience was
also isolating and led to times to "self-destruction" and
violence as a teen.

"I as a victim -- a class action member -- am expected to settle
for $50,000 at the most," she said.  "But I don't even know what
the final compensation figure will be until they've counted all
of the claimants.

"I could end up with $25,000 or only $5 for the loss of my
culture and language and traditions, my connection to the history
of my people and ancestors, and therefore to my daughters'
lineage too."

According to a website by the lawyers representing the class, any
First Nations or Inuit person removed from their home between
1951 and 1991 is eligible to become a claimant if they "suffered
the loss of . . .  cultural identity as a result."

But the lawyers said that although the final payout "depends on
how many claimants actually come forward," they predicted up to
$50,000 per claimant, and "nothing less than $25,000."

The case was allowed to proceed by an Ontario judge in 2013,
against the objections of government.

Hearings to approve the settlement are planned for May 10 in
Saskatoon and May 29 in Toronto, according to the legal hotline
for survivors of the Sixties Scoop, which also provided
information on how to opt out of the claim.

Ernie Crey, Chief of Cheam First Nation, is another survivor of
the period in Canadian history.  In 1963, he was arrested for
stealing candy and food and placed in a delinquent boys school he
described as a "prison for children," then spent until age 20 in
foster homes.

"Let's not forget some of these children also spent time in jails
for children like I did," Mr. Crey told StarMetro. "The Sixties
Scoop wasn't just foster care and adoptive homes.

"On the whole, my time in care probably was a lot less traumatic
than many, many other children.  Many of those much younger than
I was were actually exploited . . . It's doubtful they knew
anything about being an Indigenous child -- they just knew they
grew up in a world that looked with scorn upon them."

Mr. Crey is marking 20 years since he co-authored a book on the
Sixties Scoop, Stolen from Our Embrace.

He said although he is not part of the class action lawsuit, he
sympathizes with survivors "eager to get it resolved," the
government's settlement offer is "incredibly disappointing" in
excluding MÇtis and non-status Indians taken from their homes as
kids.

"There's a large group of people who say, 'This isn't enough for
what we endured,' and even more than that who have been excluded.
That's the major shortcoming of the 'resolution' as it now stands
. . . This is only going to rebound back on the government."

Collectiva, the legal coalition behind the class action, said it
understands some claimants' anger at the amount offered.

"We know that justice is imperfect and that $50,000 does not make
up for the harm and suffering you have experienced," the firms'
website told survivors.  "No amount of money ever could.
According to our legal experts, it is very likely more than could
have been won in court."

But the website touted a $50-million charitable foundation to
help "ensure this never happens again," and that nothing in the
agreement would stop a victim from suing their province for
"psychological or physical abuse experienced as a result" of the
Sixties Scoop, nor for MÇtis to launch their own lawsuit.

In announcing the settlement deal last October, federal Crown-
Indigenous Relations Minister Carolyn Bennett tearfully told
reporters the Sixties Scoop was a "dark and painful chapter" of
Canada's history, and that "language and culture, apology,
healing . . . are essential elements to begin to right the
wrong."

According to lawyer Jai Singh -- jsingh@watsongoepel.com -- with
Watson Goepel law firm representing some claimants, the
settlement amount is one area he's heard many concerns.

"A lot of people do want that compensation because right now,
right or wrong, it's the option given," he told StarMetro.
"You're dealing with underprivileged people . . .  and you give
them the option of a payment, how fair is that payment That's a
big question."

Although he was not permitted to comment further on the details
of the settlement, he's preparing his submission for the May 10
hearing before a judge and expects the criticisms will emerge in
the courtroom then, both from lawyers and claimants invited to
weigh in.

Because the settlement has been agreed upon by both claimants and
government, in the absence of an adversarial court process, he
said, at this point objections are the only way for claimants to
voice their concerns on the legal record.  But he warned that
"ultimately there have been very few cases where settlements have
been set aside" at this stage.

Perhaps most importantly, he argued, the ongoing apprehensions of
Indigenous children -- long after the decades covered by the
class action -- are one of the Sixties Scoop's worst legacies.

"From what I've heard, for a lot of the people, it's never been
about money but the fact that they've lost a family," Mr. Singh
said. "Then they're losing their children to the system today
because of the fact they're Sixties Scoop victims.

"Their history is being used against them." [GN]


CANADA: Class Action May Reach Resolution in Shorter Timeline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marg. Bruineman, writing for Law Times, reports that a $1.8-
billion class action application launched in January accuses the
federal government of segregating portions of Canada's Indigenous
population in "Indian hospitals" across the country between 1945
and 1981, where people were allegedly abused, confined and
mistreated.

With a new class action developing, lawyers say they expect the
hospitals case may reach resolution in a shorter timeline than
previous cases involving Indigenous Canadians.

"It's a case . . . I think is of great importance, not only that
it be brought forward for the sake of the class but also for the
sake of Canada becoming aware of this chapter in history," says
Jonathan Ptak -- jptak@kmlaw.ca -- a partner at Koskie Minsky LLP
in Toronto, who is acting for the plaintiffs.

The hospitals class action follows a settlement with survivors of
the Sixties Scoop, which was announced in October and is worth
about $800 million.

That case relates to an estimated 20,000 First Nations and Inuit
children who were removed from their homes, losing their cultural
identities.

Earlier, the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement
brought to an end a class action involving about 86,000
Indigenous children enrolled in the Canadian residential schools
system.

It went into effect in 2007 and was the largest class action
settlement in Canadian history to that point.

In this latest case, the representative plaintiff, Anne Cecile
Hardy, accuses the Attorney General of Canada of establishing 29
"Indian hospitals" across the country, including segregating
segments of the country's Indigenous population and keeping them
in substandard facilities where they were severely mistreated.

The statement of claim, which was filed with the Federal Court of
Canada in January, alleges that the Indigenous patients were
separated from their families, friends and communities and taken
to "dilapidated" facilities that were converted into hospitals.

The claim alleges that, at the "overcrowded, poorly staffed and
unsanitary facilities," they were physically and sexually
assaulted, restrained in their beds and force-fed their vomit.
The proposed class action accuses the government of being
negligent and breaching its fiduciary duties owed to Indigenous
people, resulting in enormous harm. The court must first certify
the claim as a class action before it can proceed.

In an emailed statement, James Fitz-Morris, a spokesman for
Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, said Canada is committed
to righting historical wrongs committed against Indigenous people
and that the federal government is working to resolve the matter
out of court, as it did with the Sixties Scoop survivors' class
action.

Ottawa-based Michel Nolet -- michel.nolet@nelligan.ca -- an
associate with Nelligan O'Brien Payne LLP, a member of its
Indigenous Law practice group and a Montreal-area Kahnawake
Mohawk, says it's quite possible that this latest case will
follow a path to resolution, as have the previous class actions.

Given the federal government's stated desire to resolve the case
out of court and its experience with the previous cases, he
believes it may be resolved more quickly.

"There's an opportunity here to avoid going all the way through
with a class action and settling it," says Mr. Nolet.

"I definitely think the governments are more open to engage in
settlement."

Mr. Nolet says that, in this case, he does not anticipate the
case proceeding for "years and years and years."

In the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, the
government acknowledged the abuse suffered by formal residential
schools students. Carolyn Bennett, minister of Crown-Indigenous
Relations and Northern Affairs, recently referred to it as
"tragic and unacceptable."

The residential schools case signifies a change in government
approach and may have set the tone for future class actions,
including the Sixties Scoop class action, Nolet says.

He says the purpose of tort law is to recognize when people are
harmed and ought to be compensated, as well as to hold wrongdoers
accountable for their actions.

Without the push of class actions, there would be little
incentive for the government to negotiate, says Tom McMahon, who
served as general legal counsel for the Truth and Reconciliation
Commission and now spends his time in retirement writing research
papers related to residential schools at his home in Winnipeg.

The successes of the previous class actions involving Indigenous
people provide more incentive for the government to negotiate
successive cases, Mr. McMahon says.

Society's delay in reconciliation might well be reflected in tort
law, he says.

"The fact that we have class action, the fact that Indigenous
people are capable of winning class action matters in court, the
fact that the government is willing to negotiate settlement --
these are all tremendously positive things for our society," he
says.

McMahon credits the legal system for ushering in so many changes
related to Indigenous people.

More than 4,000 court cases related to residential schools,
including the class actions, were filed representing thousands of
plaintiffs. That has resulted in $5 billion in payments to
residential schools survivors, he says. [GN]


CENTER FOR ELDERS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Musawwir Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
MAHASIN MUSAWWIR, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CENTER FOR
ELDERS' INDEPENDENCE, a Domestic non-profit; and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG18905207 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
May 16, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a full-time, non-
exempt, hourly employee from approximately August 21, 2017
through February 2018. The Plaintiff was a Bus Driver and made
around $18.05 an hour. The Plaintiff alleges that all current and
former CENTER employees subject to the same illegal wage and hour
practices are class members.

The Plaintiff alleges that the CENTER has had a consistent policy
and/or practice of, among other things:

     (i) regularly staffing shifts in a way that did not allow
         Plaintiff and members of the putative class to take or
         timely take adequate off-duty meal periods and/or rest
         periods mandated by law;

    (ii) failing to pay Plaintiff and the members of the putative
         class the premium compensation mandated by California
         Labor, take untimely meal periods and/or rest periods;

   (iii) failing to pay Plaintiff and the members of the putative
         class overtime when they worked more than eight hours in
         a day and instead would only pay overtime when an
         employee worked more than 40 hours in a workweek;

    (iv) failing to provide Plaintiff and the members of the
         putative class with accurate wage statements based upon
         the meal/rest break and overtime violations; and

     (v) failing to pay Plaintiff and the members of the
         putative class with all wages owed at the time of
         compensation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          Taylor L. Emerson, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
          2815 Townsgate Rd Suite 130
          Westlake Village, CA 91361


CHAMBER APPROVED: Morris Sues over Fax-Based Marketing Activities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN S. MORRIS, P.A. and BROWARD PSYCHOLOGY, P.A.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. CHAMBER APPROVED, INC., BROWARD COUNTY CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE, INC., MIAMI-DADE COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INC., and
SOUTH FLORIDA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INC., Florida corporations,
the Defendants Case No. 0:18-cv-61105-DPG (S.D. Fla., May 16,
2018), seeks to require the Defendants to cease all unauthorized
fax-based marketing activities.  This case challenges Defendants'
practice of collectively sending unsolicited faxes to Florida
businesses. The faxes advertise business conferences and
expositions hosted by Defendants that include business trade
shows, motivational seminars, educational workshops, VIP
networking, and government workshops. Among other things,
recipients of the faxes are solicited to purchase exhibitor space
at or admission to the business trade shows, marketing services,
and memberships to Defendants' organizations.

The Defendants collectively sent the faxes at issue to Plaintiffs
and the Class despite: (i) having no established business
relationship with them; (ii) never receiving the recipients'
consent to send them such faxes; and (iii) that none of the faxes
sent contained requisite opt-out notices. As such, Defendants'
fax advertisements violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, 47 U.S.C., and caused Plaintiffs and putative members of the
Class to suffer actual harm, including the aggravation and
nuisance of receiving such faxes, the loss of use of their fax
machines during the receipt of such faxes, and increased labor
expenses.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class:

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


CHEMOURS CO: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Girardot" DWPCA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Delaware denied Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss the case captioned MARK GIRARDOT, GERHARD R. WITTREICH,
and PETER BUTLER, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, Defendant, C.A.
No. N17C-10-148 MMJ (Del. Super.).

Chemours seeks dismissal only of the alleged Delaware Wage
Payment and Collection Act (DWPCA) violation.

The Plaintiffs claim that Chemours induced them to accept a
severance package, which prevented them from accepting a superior
severance package Chemours offered later. The Plaintiffs allege
five counts: fraud, breach of covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and a violation
of the (DWPCA).

Separation Benefits Are Recoverable Under the DWPCA

The civil enforcement section of the DWPCA, Section 1113, allows
employees to recover unpaid wages and liquidated damages. Section
1101 defines wages as compensation for labor or services rendered
by an employee, whether the amount is fixed or determined on a
time, task, piece, commission or other basis of calculation.
Chemours argues that the severance Plaintiffs seek does not fit
this definition because the severance was not compensation for
services rendered, but only a benefit offered as a result of
termination.

In this case, Chemours mistakenly relies only on Green Giant's
preliminary conclusion that Section 1101's definition of wages
does not include severance pay, but ignores the primary holding
in the case that Section 1113 allows for recovery of severance
pay.

Section 8111 of Title 10 of the Delaware Code states that any
claim for wages for work or any other benefits arising from such
work expires 1 year from the accruing of the cause of action on
which such action is based. This one-year statute of limitations
applies to DWPCA claims. The Plaintiffs filed this action on
October 11, 2017. Whether the Plaintiffs' claim is barred depends
on when the DWPCA claim accrued.

The Plaintiffs are seeking compensation for a severance package
announced on December 1, 2015 that would have paid out over a 12-
month period. Had the Plaintiffs been selected to participate in
the package the same day it was announced, payments would have
been required to be made as late as December 1, 2016. By the
plain language of Section 1109, each claim accrued 30 days after
each payment was required to be made. Some of these payments
accrued as late as December 31, 2016. The Plaintiffs brought
their claim on October 11, 2017, within one year of the day that
some of the payments were due.

The Court holds that the DWPCA claims are not barred by the
statute of limitations.

A full-text copy of the Superior Court's March 26, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycaqvsg8 from Leagle.com.

Robert K. Beste, Esq. -- rbeste@cohenseglias.com -- Jonathan
Landesman -- jlandesman@cohenseglias.com -- (Argued), Cohen
Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman, P.C., Attorneys for
Plaintiffs.

Stephanie E. O'Byrne, Esq. -- sobyrne@potteranderson.com --
(Argued), Kathleen Furey McDonough, Esq. --
kmcdonough@potteranderson.com -- Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP,
Attorneys for Defendant The Chemours Company.


CITIGROUP INC: Market Makers Targeted in VIX Manipulation Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a trader has
filed an antitrust lawsuit accusing seven market makers,
including Citigroup Inc and Citadel Securities LLC, of conspiring
to manipulate Wall Street's main gauge of future stock market
volatility, the VIX, at investors' expense.

The complaint filed on April 27 also accused Cboe Exchange Inc ,
which administers the VIX, of taking a "laissez faire" approach
that allowed the manipulation to flourish, out of "greed" for
higher transaction fees and revenue.

William Siegel, a trader in VIX futures and options, filed his
proposed class-action lawsuit in Chicago on behalf of investors
in VIX derivatives since Jan. 1, 2008.

Cboe and Citadel did not immediately respond to requests for
comment. Citigroup declined to comment.

The VIX derives its price from S&P 500 options, and some
investors have complained about suspected rigging to make
positions more profitable when settled.

In February, an anonymous whistleblower sent a letter to the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission alleging VIX manipulation.

Cboe called the letter "replete with inaccurate statements,
misconceptions and factual errors," but Siegel said others like
former SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt and former CFTC Commissioner Bart
Chilton have suggested that rigging was possible.

The lawsuit said manipulation has caused "billions of dollars in
losses" for investors in VIX instruments, and Cboe has taken "no
effective action" to stop it.

After trading between 10 and 20 for several months, the VIX
soared above 50 on Feb. 6 amid a slump in U.S. stock prices.

Traders betting on a stable or falling VIX suffered losses, and
some investments indirectly linked to the gauge lost more than 80
percent of their value in one day.

On April 23, Cboe told customers it is assessing possible steps
to improve the VIX settlement process.

Siegel is represented by the Hausfeld law firm, whose specialties
include lawsuits over rigging in financial markets.

The case is Siegel v Cboe Exchange Inc et al, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of Illinois, No. 18-03021).  [GN]


CLEMENTS FLUIDS: "Laney" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
DOUG LANEY, GARY MCANALLY AND CHRIS MORGAN Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CLEMENTS FLUIDS, INC., CLEMENTS FLUIDS MANAGEMENT, LLC., CLEMENTS
FLUIDS SOUTH TEXAS, LTD., AND CLEMENTS FLUIDS HENDERSON, LTD.,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00207-JRG (E.D. Tex., May 16,
2018), seeks to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the Potential Day
Rate Class Members were (and are) paid on a day rate system.
Specifically, Clements Fluids paid its Day Rate Workers a flat
amount for each day worked without the proper overtime premium
for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Also,
Clements Fluids paid (and continue to pay) the Potential Salaried
Fluid Technician Class Members a salary without any payment of
the proper overtime premium for all hours worked in excess of 40
in a workweek. Finally, Clements Fluids paid (and continues to
pay) the Potential Hourly Fluid Technician/Operator Class Members
a 'trip charge' which is not included in the calculation of the
regular rate for purposes of paying overtime pay, which results
in improperly calculated overtime wages.

The Defendants provide drilling, completion and workover in
Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Arkansas.[BN]

Attorneys In Charge For Plaintiffs And Potential Class Members:

          William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq.
          HOMMEL LAW FIRM
          1404 Rice Road, Suite 200
          Tyler, TX 75703
          Telephone: (903) 596 7100
          Facsimile: (469) 533 1618
          E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com


CLEVELAND AVE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Hogan" FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Southern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division, denied Defendants Buckeye Association of Club
Executives and The Owners' Coalition's (Sirens Defendants) Motion
to Dismiss the case captioned JESSICA HOGAN, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. CLEVELAND AVE RESTAURANT INC. d/b/a SIRENS, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:15-CV-2883 (S.D. Ohio).

The Sirens Defendants employed Plaintiff Jessica Hogan in various
roles at different times, including as an exotic dancer, a
bartender, a waitress, and a friction monitor, which is a
security/monitoring function. Ms. Hogan alleges that the Sirens
Defendants employed a number of unlawful pay practices, including
charging her fees when she performed exotic dances for customers,
charging her 10% on all customer tips left on credit cards, and
requiring her to pay tips to non-tipped employees.

BACE and OC's primary argument in their Motion to Dismiss is that
the Plaintiffs cannot establish that BACE and OC are employers
under the Fair Labor Standards Act or Ohio wage and hour laws.

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have set forth sufficient
allegations that, if taken as true, show an agreement among BACE
and OC and BACE-member clubs to employ the Lease Agreement and/or
Tenant System.  Indeed, they allege an actual agreement to use
the Lease Agreement, that Sirens itself characterized as an
industry agreement under oath.  The Plaintiffs allege that there
is an industry agreement among BACE-member clubs to employ and
not deviate from the Lease Agreement and the Tenant System.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants anti-competitive conduct
has restrained or eliminated price competition resulting in the
Plaintiffs being paid less than they would have been in the
absence of the agreement.

The Defendants contend that BACE and OC cannot be liable because
the very authorities the Plaintiff relies on to show the 'dancer
lease agreement' business model has been around for decades
nullifies the argument that BACE and/or OC created the 'dancer
lease agreement' business model. In other words, the Defendants
argue that they cannot be liable because they were not the first
group to ever conceive of the leasor/lessee model. But the
Plaintiffs' allegations do not depend on whether or not BACE and
OC created the model they need only show that they conspired with
the clubs to come to an agreement to use the leases to fix-price
and restrain competition.

The Plaintiffs sufficiently allege so in the Amended Complaint,
the Court said.

The civil conspiracy claims are based on the wage and hour
violations, which the Defendants do not argue did not occur.
Instead, the Defendants argue that the civil conspiracy claim is
clearly a cause of action under the FLSA, which involves the
'employer, and not the associations any employer' may be
associated with. But the Plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claim is
not brought under the FLSA, it is brought under Ohio tort law.
The Defendants contend that FLSA claims and conspiracy claims
whether civil conspiracy or antitrust or otherwise cannot coexist
in a single complaint.

The Defendants point to no legal authority for the proposition
that trade associations cannot be liable in conspiracy claims
premised on FLSA violations or antitrust violations, and the
Supreme Court has held trade associations can be liable for
antitrust violations, so their argument is not well taken.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 26, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y99vdlnp from
Leagle.com.

Jessica Hogan, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Biller --
abiller@msdlegal.com -- Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC, Andrew
P. Kimble -- akimble@msdlegal.com -- Markovits, Stock & DeMarco,
LLC, Jennifer J. Morales -- jmorales@msdlegal.com -- Markovits,
Stock & DeMarco, LLC, Paul M. De Marco -- pdemarco@msdlegal.com -
- Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC & Rachel S. Bloomekatz --
rachel@guptawessler.com -- Gupta Wessler PLLC.

Dejha Valentine, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Biller,
Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC &Andrew P. Kimble, Markovits,
Stock & DeMarco, LLC.

Cleveland Ave Restaurant, Inc., doing business as, Chad Sullivan,
Francis Sharrak, Michael Sharrak, Dominick Alkammo & Jay Nelson,
Defendants, represented by Edward W. Hastie, III, Hastie Law
Office LLC. 1258 Grandview Ave. Suite B, Columbus, OH 43212.

Buckeye Association of Club Executives, Defendant, represented by
Anthony R. Cicero & Luke Lirot, Law Office of Luke Lirot, P.A.,
2240 Belleair Rd Ste 190. Clearwater, FL 33764-1703, pro hac
vice.


COLONIAL PARKING: Abraha's Bid for Class Certification Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly denied without prejudice the
motion for class certification filed by the Plaintiffs in the
lawsuit captioned Berthe Benyam Abraha, et al. v. Colonial
Parking, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00680-CKK (D.D.C.).

Judge Kollar-Kotelly also denied as moot Defendant FCE Benefit
Administrators, Inc.'s Motion to Strike Evidence Submitted by
Plaintiffs in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.

The parties were ordered to file a Joint Status Report by May 14,
2018, indicating whether the Plaintiffs shall take the
opportunity to file a motion for leave to amend the Complaint,
whether the Defendants intend to oppose that motion, and what
briefing timeline the parties would propose.  The parties' Joint
Status Report also shall make any alternative proposal to
amending the Complaint that would more efficiently resolve this
action.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UcQA7vAN


CONVERGYS CORP: Wins Summary Judgment in "Dimery" FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina, Florence Division, granted Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment as to both Plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standard Act
(FLSA) collective action and Rule 23 class claims in the case
captioned TERRY DIMERY, individually, and on behalf of other
similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. CONVERGYS
CORPORATION, and CONVERGYS CUSTOMER MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.,
jointly and severally as, Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:17-CV-
00701-RBH (D.S.C.).

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to pay them, and
all similarly situated employees, for their pre-shift time spent
booting up their computers, logging into required computer
networks and software applications, and reviewing work-related e-
mails and other information at the start of their shift.
Furthermore, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to
compensate them and other similarly situated employees for all
mid-shift technical downtime incurred due to computer and other
technical problems. The Plaintiffs further allege that the
Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated employees for post-shift time spent doing similar tasks.

The Defendants first argue that, as a matter of law, the
Plaintiffs waived their right to pursue a collective or class
action against the Defendants, based upon the language in the
employment application between the Defendants and the Plaintiffs,
which constitutes an enforceable contract.

The Court found that the Defendants have met their initial burden
of establishing the existence of a contract in that they have
provided the affidavits of Convergys employees who have attested
that these documents relate to the respective employees. Once the
Defendants provided the requisite evidentiary support to
establish these agreements, it was incumbent upon the Plaintiff
to provide something beyond mere allegations to refute this fact.
The Plaintiffs have not filed anything in the record to suggest
these documents contain false signatures, nor have the Plaintiffs
supplemented their response to the motion or requested additional
time to supplement the record.

The Plaintiffs have not otherwise come forward with evidence,
affidavit or otherwise, suggesting that the Plaintiffs did not
sign the agreements in question. While the Plaintiffs make
mention of the fact that they need additional time to investigate
these documents, the Plaintiffs have not filed an affidavit or
otherwise provided any evidence to refute the testimony on Ms.
Castillo and Mr. Preston regarding the timing and veracity of the
execution of these documents. Therefore, the Court believes it is
appropriate to consider the merits of the summary judgment motion
at this stage.

The Defendants argue that as a matter of law, an individual may
waive his or her right to bring or join a class action lawsuit.
The Defendants have provided the affidavit of Greg Preston who
avers that Plaintiff Dimery electronically signed his employment
application with a unique electronic signature ID on November 7,
2015.

The Plaintiffs assert that the right to participate in a
collective action under Section 216(b) is a substantive right
provided for by the FLSA that cannot normally be waived. The
Plaintiffs further argue that the right to bring a collective
action under the FLSA may only be waived in very narrow
circumstances: either through an approved settlement or within
the context of binding arbitration agreements.

In reviewing the applicable case law, the Court finds that based
on the current case law, including cases within the Fourth
Circuit, the FLSA does not provide a substantive right to bring a
collective action based upon a certain class, despite the fact
that it permits employees to bring such actions.

The Defendants also seek summary judgment as to the Plaintiffs'
Rule 23 class action claims. In response, the Plaintiffs have not
provided a response as to the invalidity of the waiver as it
relates to class actions brought under Rule 23. Rule 23(a) states
that, one or more members of a class may sue or be sued as
representative parties provided certain requirements are met.

The Plaintiffs have not indicated any reason for the Court not to
find that, much like the applicability of the waiver as to the
FLSA collective action, the waiver applies to its Rule 23 cause
of action, as well. The Plaintiffs do not make an argument
regarding the validity of the Rule 23 class waiver. They do not
argue it violates any South Carolina law, or is otherwise
unconscionable under South Carolina law. Clearly, the right to
employ Rule 23 is a procedural right only. As such, it can be
waived, the Court said.

Accordingly, the Court granted the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment to the extent the Plaintiffs' seek to pursue their
claims in a representative capacity as collective and/or class
action claims, and those claims are dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 26, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yabrcreu from Leagle.com.

Terry Dimery, individually and on behalf of other similarly-
situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin A.
Baroody BBaroody@Bellamylaw.com, Bellamy Rutenburg Copeland Epps
Gravely and Bowers, Charles R. Ash, IV -- cash@sommerspc.com --
Sommers Schwartz PC, pro hac vice, Jason J. Thompson --
jthompson@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz PC, pro hac vice &
Kevin J. Stoops -- kstoops@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz PC,
pro hac vice.

Convergys Corporation, jointly and severally & Convergys Customer
Management Group Inc, jointly and severally, Defendants,
represented by William L. Duda -- william.duda@ogletree.com --
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart PC, Lynda M. Hill --
lhill@fbtlaw.com -- Frost Brown Todd LLC, pro hac vice & Mekesha
H. Montgomery, Frost Brown Todd LLC, The Pinnacle at Symphony
Place, 150 3rd Avenue South, Suite 1900, Nashville, Tennessee
37201, pro hac vice.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Man Seeks Class Suit for Shortchanging Members
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Alt, writing for St. Louis Record, reports that a man
has filed a class action lawsuit against Costco Wholesale
alleging that the mega-warehouse retailer illegally reimburses
part of store memberships instead of the entire price as stated
in company policy.

The lawsuit filed on April 19 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri requests a jury trial and claims
unjust enrichment, violations of the Missouri Merchandising
Practicing Act, and breach of contract against Costco, the second
largest retailer in the world.

"Defendant's actions are oppressive, unethical, and unscrupulous,
and have caused substantial injury to plaintiff," according to
lawyers for Scott Pearlstone, who claims in the lawsuit that
after purchasing the more expensive of two membership options
offered at Costco, he decided to cancel. Pearlstone states in the
complaint that he reviewed Costco's "100 percent Risk-Free
Guarantee" and was also told by an employee that he could cancel
at any time and receive a full refund.

Pearlstone says he purchased the "Executive" membership at the
Costco location in Manchester. He alleges Costco instead refunded
him the amount he paid reduced by the amount he had earned in the
Costco rewards, amounting to less than what he originally paid
for the membership, stating in the complaint that Costco is
"unlawfully shortchanging consumers by withholding a portion of
the money refunded on cancelled store memberships."

Pearlstone claims there are hundreds if not thousands of people
who have also experienced this deception by Costco, and requests
to be certified as a class action. The complaint also states
Costco is being unjustly enriched by retaining the money owed to
customers.

According to the complaint, "Defendant promised plaintiff and the
other members of the class and subclass that they could cancel
their executive memberships "at any time," after which they would
receive a refund "in full" of the membership fees paid to
defendant . . . defendant instead reduces the amount of a cancelling
member's refund by the amount of Costco store credit earned as
part of the executive membership's 2 percent reward program."

The lawsuit seeks punitive damages, injunctive relief and other
related costs. [GN]


COVENTRY HEALTH: Court Denies Approval of $1.5MM Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Orlando Division, denied the Joint Motion for Final
Approval of Settlement in the case captioned MIA WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff, v. COVENTRY HEALTH CARE OF FLORIDA, INC., COVENTRY
HEALTH CARE, INC., AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, AETNA INC. and
AETNA MEDICAID ADMINISTRATORS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-
731-Orl-41TBS (M.D. Fla.).

The Amended Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), by failing to pay certain
employees required overtime pay. This case was conditionally
certified as a collective action under the FLSA and the class was
defined as "All Social Workers employed by Defendant in the State
of Florida within the three-year period immediately preceding the
filing of this case."

The Revised Settlement Agreement provides that the Defendant will
pay a total of $1,500,000.00. That amount is to be distributed as
follows: $6,500.00 paid to five of the Plaintiffs for their
services in participating in the litigation on behalf of the
other Plaintiffs, $976,000.00 to Plaintiffs as payment for back
wages and liquidated damages, $500,000.00 in attorneys' fees, and
$17,500.00 for costs.

The first issue raised by Judge Smith is whether the amount of
attorneys' fees is reasonable.

Judge Smith concluded that, despite the parties' argument to the
contrary, the attorneys' fees were not separately negotiated. He
concluded that the very fact that the amount of the attorneys'
fee was contingent on the amount Plaintiffs recovered meant that
the fees could not have been separately negotiated. This Court
agrees with Judge Smith.

Per the parties' own representation, the amount of attorneys'
fees was directly dependent on the amount of Plaintiffs'
recovery. This cannot be reconciled with the concept of
separately negotiated. Plaintiffs appear to argue that because
the percentage thirty percent was negotiated at the beginning of
the litigation without Plaintiffs' counsel knowing what the
ultimate recovery was going to be, it was separately negotiated.

The attorneys' fee cannot be separately negotiated if it is
derived from the amount of Plaintiffs' recovery.

Because the fee was not separately negotiated, the Court must
conduct a reasonableness analysis. Judge Smith concluded that he
could not do so because Plaintiffs' counsel did not provide
information upon which he could conduct a lodestar analysis. The
parties argue that a lodestar analysis is not necessary and
indeed inappropriate because this is a common fund case.

This same logic, however, cannot be applied in the FLSA
collective action context. Unlike most other types of claims,
FLSA rights cannot be abridged by contract or otherwise waived
because this would nullify the purposes of the statute and thwart
the legislative policies it was designed to effectuate. So, if a
plaintiff is owed back wages under the FLSA, he or she is
entitled to be paid those wages without reduction. And when a
plaintiff is awarded back wages under the FLSA, he or she is also
entitled to recoup reasonable attorneys' fees and costs from the
defendant in addition to damages. When these provisions are
viewed together, it is clear that the percentage of the common
fund analysis is not proper in FLSA cases.

Because the percentage of the common fund analysis is
inappropriate here, the Court must determine what is necessary to
conduct a reasonableness analysis of the attorneys' fee award.
In these circumstances, the lodestar method combined with the
Court's common sense and expertise must be employed. Indeed, in
this case, the information provided by the parties supports the
necessity of a lodestar analysis. As noted by Judge Smith,
without additional information, it appears that the hourly fee
here would be almost double that normally awarded in FLSA cases.
This is likely not accurate given that the Plaintiffs' counsel
has not provided the Court with even an estimate of the paralegal
time expended on this matter. Further, it is likely that a higher
than average fee would be appropriate in this case, but again,
the parties have not provided the Court with any such
justification.
Accordingly, if the parties choose to submit an amended
settlement agreement for approval, the Plaintiffs' counsel will
be directed to file adequate information for a lodestar analysis
to be conducted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 26, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7g9778d from Leagle.com.

Mia Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremiah Joseph Talbott,
Jeremiah J. Talbott, PA, 900 East Moreno Street, Pensacola, FL,
32503, John Clark Davis, Law Office of John C. Davis, 623 Beard
Street, Tallahassee, FL, 32303 & Sean Parnell Culliton, Sean
Culliton, Esq., LLC, 150 John Knox Road, Tallahassee, Florida,
United States.

Coventry Health Care of Florida, Inc., Coventry Health Care,
Inc., Aetna Life Insurance Company, Aetna Inc. & Aetna Medicaid
Administrators, LLC, Defendants, represented by Amanda Simpson --
Amanda.Simpson@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, PC & Stephanie
Leigh Adler-Paindiris --
Stephanie.Adler.Paindiris@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, PC


CRST VAN: Reed Wants Testimony of Expert B. J. Nadell Excluded
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled WALTER REED, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CRST
VAN EXPEDITED, INC., a foreign for profit company, Case No. 8:17-
CV-00199-JDW-CPT (M.D. Fla.), asks the Court to exclude any
testimony by the Defendant's expert, Barry J. Nadell, on topics
included in Exhibit I (Rule 26(a)(2) Disclosures), served by the
Defendant, on January 24, 2018, for purposes of its consideration
of the motion for summary judgment filed by the Defendant.

Mr. Reed argues that the Defendant did not submit an affidavit by
Mr. Nadell stating that the report was made under penalty of
perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1746.  He contends that it
is well known that, "Only 'pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with
affidavits' can be considered by the district court in reviewing
a summary judgment motion," citing Carr v. Tatangelo, 338 F.3d
1259, 1273 (11th Cir. 2003), as amended (Sept. 29, 2003) (quoting
former Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)).

Therefore, the Plaintiff asserts, Mr. Nadell's expert report has
no probative value and cannot be used in consideration of the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=87ep67O4

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          One Tampa City Center
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          E-mail: medelman@forthepeople.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          E. Holland Howanitz, Esq.
          WICKER, SMITH, O'HARA, MCCOY & FORD, P.A.
          50 North Laura Street, Suite 2700
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 598-3207
          E-mail: Ehowanitz@wickersmith.com

               - and -

          Molly A. Arranz, Esq.
          SMITHAMUNDSEN, LLC
          150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 894-3307
          Facsimile: (312) 997-1707
          E-mail: Marranz@salawus.com


CYTEC INDUSTRIES: Claudet Seeks to Certify Plan Members Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled AMAN JOSEPH CLAUDET JR. individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CYTEC
RETIREMENT PLAN, CYTEC INDUSTRIES INC., and SOLVAY USA, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-10027-EEF-JVM (E.D. La.), the Hon.
Eldon E. Fallon entered an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all vested participants in the Cytec Retirement Plan who
      from January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2013 elected a joint
      and survivor benefit option pursuant to the 1994 or 1997
      Cytec Retirement Plan and were subject to a reduction of
      monthly benefits as a result of the actuarial charges of
      the "pop-up" feature, as described in the Cytec Retirement
      Plan 2015 Voluntary Correction Program (and their
      beneficiaries, if they are deceased or incompetent)."

   2. appointing class counsel Charles J. Stiegler of Stiegler
      Law Firm, LLC, and Christopher L. Williams of Williams
      Litigation, LLC; and

   3. directing parties to effectuate notice to the members of
      the class as follows: within 45 days of entry of this
      order, and Defendants shall provide to Plaintiff's counsel,
      in the manner that such information is maintained by
      Defendants, the names and last known addresses of all
      members of the class.

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


DARP INC: Fochtman Seeks Certification of Participants Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled MARK FOCHTMAN, CORBY
SHUMATE, MICHAEL SPEARS, ANDREW DANIEL, FABIAN AGUILAR, and SLOAN
SIMMS individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. DARP, INC., HENDREN PLASTICS, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-29, Case
No. 5:18-cv-05047-TLB (W.D. Ark.), move the Court to certify a
class of:

     All individuals who were DARP participants at any time from
     October 23, 2014 until the present, who worked for Hendren
     Plastics, Inc. in the State of Arkansas during their time at
     DARP.

The lawsuit is a class action for violations of the Arkansas
Constitution's prohibition on slavery, unpaid minimum wage and
overtime under the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, and for violations
of the Arkansas Human Trafficking Act of 2013, the Plaintiffs
allege.  The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant claims to
operate counseling and rehabilitation services; instead of
providing these services, DARP force its charges to toil long
hours in dirty and dangerous jobs for no pay at local
manufacturing businesses, including Hendren Plastics.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives, and Holleman & Associates, P.A., as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CVTrQJJ0

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Holleman, Esq.
          Timothy A. Steadman, Esq.
          Jerry Garner, Esq.
          HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          1008 West Second Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 975-5040
          Facsimile: (501) 975-5043
          E-mail: jholleman@johnholleman.net
                  tim@johnholleman.net
                  jerry@johnholleman.net


DAVIS DEVELOPMENT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & OT, Orozco Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE OROZCO, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DAVIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,
INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the
Defendant, Case No. BC705967 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 16, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime wages under the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has worked for
Defendants as a laborer since 2015, but has been on a medical
leave of absence since approximately August 24, 2017. During his
employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff typically worked
six days per week and worked approximately 45-50 hours per week.

In the summer months, the Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of
50 hours per week. Throughout his employment with Defendants,
Plaintiff was paid on a piece-rate basis, whereby he was paid a
pre-determined rate per square foot based on the framing projects
he completed. The Plaintiff was compensated exclusively on a
piece-rate basis, and Defendants did not maintain any record of
the hours worked by Plaintiff. During his employment with
Defendants, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other non-
exempt employees who were compensated on a piece-rate basis for
so-called "nonproductive" time (i.e., hours that they were
working but were not actually performing piece-rate work). For
example, Plaintiff was required to travel between jobsites,
unload tools, wait for materials to arrive at jobsites, and
sometimes had to wait for a forklift operator to become available
before he could begin his work. Under Defendants' piece-rate
compensation system, Plaintiff was not compensated for time spent
performing such tasks. As a result of these practices, the
Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees
for all hours worked at the minimum wage when they were being
compensated on a piece-rate basis, as Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff for non-productive hours.

Davis Development is a multi-family housing developer based in
Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
          Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq.
          Matthew K. Moen, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
                  arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com
                  mmoen@haineslawgroup.com


DELAWARE, USA: Saunders Moves for Certification of Inmates Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled ROBERT SAUNDERS v. GOVERNOR
JACK MARKELL, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01184-GMS (D. Del.), seeks
certification of class and subclass of inmates.

Mr. Saunders brings the action on his own behalf and on behalf of
a class of inmates, who are now, or will in the future be, under
the custody of the Delaware Department of Corrections.  The
subclass consists of all inmates with disabilities, including
inmates with mobility, hearing, sight, learning and developmental
disabilities.

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


DENVER: Court Denies Summary Judgment in Homeless Sweeps Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment in the case
captioned RAYMOND LYALL, GARRY ANDERSON, THOMAS PETERSON,
FREDRICK JACKSON, BRIAN COOKS, and WILLIAM PEPPER, Plaintiffs, v.
CITY OF DENVER, a municipal corporation, Defendant, Civil Action
No. 16-cv-2155-WJM-CBS (D. Colo.).

The Plaintiffs are homeless persons living on Denver's streets.
Proceeding via 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, they bring a class action
lawsuit against Defendant City of Denver (the City and County of
Denver; hereinafter, Denver), arguing that Denver clears homeless
encampments through unconstitutional means.

At the outset, the Court must resolve a disagreement between the
parties over what this lawsuit is actually about.

The Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit to challenge the alleged
method by which Denver enforces its urban camping ban.  The
Plaintiffs say that under that ordinance and sundry others,
Denver began in 2015 to systematically seize and destroy their
property in what has sadly come to be known as "The Homeless
Sweeps."  The Plaintiffs specifically focused on mass sweeps
"where the Plaintiffs' and the Plaintiff Class's rights civil
rights have been eviscerated."

The Fourth Amendment protects persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. This
prohibition against unreasonable seizures extends both to civil
and criminal seizures. A seizure of property occurs when there is
some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory
interests in that property.

The Fourteenth Amendment also protects property, holding, "No
state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law."

The Court pointed out that to hold Denver liable for a Fourth
Amendment violation or a procedural due process violation, the
Plaintiffs must work through the municipal liability framework
established by the Supreme Court in Monell v. Department of
Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).  Monell held that a
municipality can be liable in 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for damages
only when the entity's policy or custom, whether made by its
lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to
represent official policy, inflicts the constitutional injury.

The Court holds that three alleged incidents or series of
incidents do not qualify as the mass sweeps the Plaintiffs
challenge in this lawsuit, nor are they remotely probative of
whether mass sweeps take place.  Those are: the December 15, 2015
incident at the Denver Rescue Mission; regular park ranger
activities along Cherry Creek and the South Platte River; and
regular sidewalk cleanings at Samaritan House in late 2016.

There are also three alleged incidents that clearly qualify as
mass sweeps, taking the facts in the light most favorable to
Plaintiffs: the March 8-9, 2016 operation in and around Triangle
Park; the July 13, 2016 Riverdance 3/Arkins Court cleanup; and
the November 15, 2016 operation at the Denver Rescue Mission.

There are two incidents whose evidentiary value is ambiguous. The
first is the March 25, 2016 incident where Thomas Peterson's
property went missing and he soon tracked down four police
officers and four garbage workers who allegedly told him that
they had taken his property.  This does not meet the ten-employee
threshold the Plaintiffs established as part of their definition
of a mass sweep. However, drawing all reasonable inferences in
the Plaintiffs' favor, the Court finds that an alleged eight-
employee operation has at least some tendency to prove that
larger-scale operations with ten persons or more are occurring.

The second ambiguous incident is the clearing of the encampment
at Arapahoe & 27th Street on November 28, 2016.  The number of
Denver employees or agents involved in this operation is not
clear. On the other hand, it also appears this was a large-scale
operation. Again, drawing all reasonable inferences in the
Plaintiffs' favor, the Court will assume that ten or more Denver
employees or agents participated.

A reasonable trier of fact could accept the Plaintiffs' evidence
and the inferences they draw from it, and if so, could find
Denver municipally liable for deliberate indifference to a
pattern of unconstitutional conduct. Consequently, with respect
to the Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment and procedural due process
claims, the Plaintiffs have established a genuine issue of fact
which cannot be resolved through summary judgment. On the other
hand, the Plaintiffs have failed to eliminate any dispute of
material fact over their view of the evidence or in other words,
a reasonable trier of fact could also accept Denver's story.
Thus, neither the Plaintiffs nor Denver are entitled to summary
judgment on Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment or procedural due
process claims.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 26, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yckheboy from Leagle.com.

Raymond Lyall, Garry Anderson, Thomas Peterson, Fredrick Jackson,
Brian Cooks & William Pepper, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew
Joseph McNulty -- AMcNulty@KLN-law.com -- Killmer, Lane & Newman,
LLP, David Arthur Lane -- dlane@kln-law.com -- Killmer, Lane &
Newman, LLP & Jason Flores Williams -- JFW@JFWLAW.NET -- Law
Office of Jason Flores-Williams.

City of Denver, municipal corporation, Defendant, represented by
Conor Daniel Farley, Denver City and County Attorney's Office,
Geoffrey Charles Klingsporn, Denver City Attorney's Office &
Wendy J. Shea, Denver City and County Attorney's Office.


DISCOUNT POWER: Faces Class Action in Conn. Over TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Storace, writing for Connecticut Law Tribune, reports that
tired of robocalls and telemarketing calls interrupting his
meals, Pennsylvania resident Stewart Abramson filed a federal
class action lawsuit on April 27 in Connecticut against Discount
Power Inc.  The lawsuit seeks up to $1,500 for every call in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

While almost everyone can relate to getting nuisance calls,
experts in creditors' rights law say the suit faces an uphill
battle.

"It's a tough case to win," said attorney Myles Alderman Jr.,
managing member of Alderman and Alderman, which has several
offices in Connecticut.  "Some courts believe TCPA was not meant
for class actions, and that it was intended to protect
individuals from abusive phone calls."  Mr. Alderman is not
involved in the litigation.

The claim says potential class members could include anyone with
records of unwanted calls from Discount Power beginning April 27,
2014.

Creditors' and debtors' rights attorney Marc Miller, of counsel
for Cohen & Wolf, said on April 30 many potential lawsuits
regarding TCPA are settled before they make their way to the
courts.

"The amount of money involved is relatively small and, in many
cases, it's an opportunity for some lawyers to collect a quick
buck," said Mr. Miller, who represented a defendant in a similar
case related to unwanted faxes, but is not involved in the
Abramson case.

Each TCPA violation can cost a defendant $500, while each willful
violation costs $1,500, so most cases settle.

"If it's $1,500 we are talking about, the plaintiff will get
$1,000 and the attorney $500 and no lawsuit is filed," Mr. Miller
said.  "It's not worth it for the defendants to fight it."

Attorneys for Mr. Abramson filed the lawsuit on April 27 in U.S.
District Court in the District of Connecticut in Bridgeport.

But proving those violations are not as easy as it might seem,
Miller said.

"You must show it was done willfully to get the $1,500 per call,"
Mr. Miller said.  "There is some way the defendants got that
phone number. You have to prove they did not get that number by
some actions you have undertaken.  That is not always easy to
do."

The April 27 lawsuit alleges Discount Power called Abramson
several times without first getting consent, as required under
the TCPA.  Abramson wrote Discount Power, which offers low-cost
electricity options, asking if it had any evidence he consented
to receive the unwanted calls at home, according to the suit.
Discount Power never responded, the complaint states.

The lawsuit also states Discount Power violated TCPA because the
company making the call never identified itself.

"In order to find out who has called him, Mr. Abramson pressed
'five' in response to the prerecorded message that he received on
March 16," the complaint states. "Mr. Abramson spoke with a
telemarketing agent who said that he was with Discount Power."

The lawsuit cites one count: violation of the TCPA's prerecorded
call provisions. The suit seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the
use of prerecorded messages by Discount Power and up to $1,500
for each violation, or phone call.

No one from Discount Power's legal department responded to a
request for comment on April 30.  The company's attorney,
Nancy Hancock -- nhancock@pullcom.com -- of Pullman & Comley in
Bridgeport, did not respond to a request for comment.

The plaintiff has three attorneys: Todd Michaelis of Carmody
Torrance Sandak & Hennessey in Waterbury, Anthony Paronich of
Broderick & Paronich in Boston, and Matthew McCue of The Law
Office of Matthew McCue in Natick, Massachusetts.  Mr. McCue
referred all comments to Paronich, who declined to comment.
Mr. Michaelis did not respond to a request for comment.

The case will be heard by Judge Stefan Underhill. [GN]


DOORDASH INC: Burger Antics' Class Certification Bid Withdrawn
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on April 26, 2018, in the case
styled Burger Antics, Inc. v. Doordash, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-
00133 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Jorge L. Alonso.

The minute entry states that pursuant to the parties'
stipulation, the Plaintiff's motion for certification of a class
action is withdrawn.

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


DR. PEPPER: Proskauer Rose Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence I Weinstein, Esq. -- lweinstein@proskauer.com -- Jeffrey
H Warshafsky, Esq. -- jwarshafsky@proskauer.com --
Russell Kostelak, Esq. -- rkostelak@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer
Rose LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report that
recently, a plaintiff's purported class action against Diet Dr.
Pepper went flat when a California federal judge held that the
term "Diet" alone on a soft drink label does not constitute a
claim that the soft drink will assist in weight loss.

In Becerra v. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., Plaintiff Shana Becerra
brought a putative class action in the Northern District of
California against Dr. Pepper, claiming the prominent display of
the term "diet" on the Diet Dr. Pepper label falsely indicated
that the product would contribute to healthy weight management
and would not cause her to gain weight. 2018 WL 1569697 (N.D.
Cal. Mar. 30, 2018).  Instead, Becerra alleged that the use of
artificial sweeteners in Diet Dr. Pepper actually caused her to
gain weight.

Judge William H. Orrick dismissed Becerra's claim, holding that
nothing on the label, packaging, or advertising of Diet Dr.
Pepper would suggest to a reasonable consumer that Diet Dr.
Pepper will help a consumer with weight loss or healthy weight
management.  Rather, the court held, a reasonable consumer would
know that the term "diet" on the Diet Dr. Pepper label is simply
used to denote a lower calorie version of the standard Dr. Pepper
soft drink.  From the term "diet," a reasonable consumer has no
basis to infer anything more than the fact that the soft drink is
calorie-free; that term, standing alone, does not imply that the
soft drink has any benefit for weight loss or weight management.

Judge Orrick dismissed Becerra's complaint without prejudice,
granting her leave to amend.  The court warned Becerra, however,
that the scientific studies she cited in her complaint to support
her allegation that the aspartame in Diet Dr. Pepper caused
weight gain were insufficient to state a claim.  The studies did
not establish any causation between aspartame and weight gain.
At best, these studies merely evidenced a correlation between
weight gain and the consumption of artificial sweeteners like
aspartame.  Because Becerra failed to cite a single study that
found a causative link between aspartame and weight gain, this
provided a separate basis to dismiss her claim.

A materially identical suit was also brought against the maker of
Dr. Pepper by two New York consumers in the Southern District of
New York.  Relying on Judge Orrick's decision and another
California decision involving another brand of soft drink, Judge
Daniels of the Southern District of New York dismissed this suit
without prejudice in an April 18, 2018 summary order.  Although
both dismissals were without prejudice, it is difficult to
conceive how either case can plausibly be revived.  Watch this
space for further developments. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: CFPB Fails to Act Despite Consumer Complaints
----------------------------------------------------------
Emily Stewart, writing for Vox, reports that's since Equifax
announced that a data breach had left the personal information of
tens of millions of people exposed last September, the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau -- the US government's top consumer
watchdog -- has received more than 20,000 complaints about the
company, which is about double the number it received in the six
months before.

Equifax has said the CFPB is investigating, but thus far the
agency hasn't taken any action.  Acting Director Mick Mulvaney is
instead trying to make the bureau's complaint portal private so
the public won't even be able to see what's happening. Sen.
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), however, would like to know what's up.

Along with Sens. Brian Schatz (D-HI) and Bob Menendez (D-NJ),
Sen. Warren released a new report on the Equifax data breach on
April 30.  The findings: In the six months after Equifax
announced the breach on September 7, 2017, consumers have filed
upward of 20,000 complaints regarding the company on the CFPB's
website related to the improper use of a credit report, incorrect
information on a report, Equifax's inadequate resolution to
problems after the breach, and the identity theft solutions
Equifax put out post-breach.

Despite the number and frequency of the complaints, the CFPB has
yet to take any punitive action. In fact, it has taken just one
enforcement action total since Mulvaney took over.

"The bottom-line is simple: Consumers are reaching out to the
CFPB to help them deal with Equifax-related problems at nearly
twice the rate they did before the recent data breach," the
report reads.  "As part of its duty to consumers, the CFPB must
continue a full-throated investigation into the Equifax breach,
including the company's response and its effort to work with
consumers to mitigate the harm and repair any damage."

The report includes some details of complaints filed by
consumers, including one who claimed to have a job opportunity
denied because of an Equifax credit report with false accounts
and another who said they were directed to call six different
phone numbers after the breach.  "I have been a victim of
identity theft and I have suffered from the credit breach,"
another consumer wrote.

It's been hard to get a read on exactly what the CFPB is up to,
and whether Mr. Mulvaney, who took over for the Obama-appointed
Richard Cordray in November, is taking the matter seriously.
Reuters reported in February that the CFPB was scaling back its
probe of Equifax, but the agency has denied the report. "The
bureau is looking into Equifax's data breach and response," an
agency spokesperson said in an email to Vox at the time.
"Reports to the contrary are incorrect."

The CFPB typically does not publicly confirm or deny confidential
enforcement activities, but Equifax itself revealed the probe in
its regulatory filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

While speaking with bankers and lending industry professionals at
the American Bankers Association conference, Mr. Mulvaney said he
wants to make the complaints portal -- where consumers can file
complaints about financial products and services -- private,
meaning nobody would know what harm Equifax and other companies
might be causing customers and how the CFPB is responding.  "I
don't see anything in here that says I have to run a Yelp for
financial services sponsored by the federal government," he said,
holding up a copy of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law,
according to the Wall Street Journal.

(That's the same conference where Mr. Mulvaney said that as a
member of Congress, he only met with lobbyists who donated to his
campaign.)

On April 30, Sens. Warren, Schatz, and Menendez sent a letter to
Mr. Mulvaney raising concerns about the 20,000 Equifax complaints
and his proposal to make the bureau's entire complaint portal
private.  "Without this information, researchers and advocates
would lose the ability to track in real time the difficulties
consumers are facing," they wrote.

Interestingly, the letter is also addressed to Leandra English,
the CFPB's deputy director who is currently fighting Mr. Mulvaney
for the acting director title in court. When former director
Richard Cordray resigned in November, he designated English as
his successor, and for a while there was a confusion as to who
was in charge.  A judge upheld Trump's naming of Mulvaney as
acting director, but the legal battle over it continues.  The
letter from Sens. Warren, Schatz, and Menendez actually names
English as acting director of the CFPB and Mr. Mulvaney as
director of the Office of Management and Budget.

The Equifax breach was really bad, and the government has yet to
offer a real response to it.

In the US, 143 million Equifax users -- about half of the
country's population -- had their personal information
compromised in a data breach that spanned several weeks in the
spring and summer. (Equifax has subsequently revised up that
number twice; it now says the breach affected 148 million
people.)

The company waited about six weeks between discovering the data
breach in late July and publicly announcing it in early
September.  In the meantime, three of its executives sold around
$2 million worth of their shares in the company.

After it announced the data breach, Equifax offered customers
affected free credit monitoring and identity protection services
-- as long as they agreed to a forced arbitration clause that
barred them from joining forces with other wronged customers to
sue the company.  After a backlash, the company dropped the
clause.

Equifax CEO Richard Smith stepped down in late September.  In
October, he testified before the Senate Banking Committee and
faced questions about Equifax's handling of consumer data and the
breach, executive stock sales, and broader issues pertaining to
credit bureaus such as Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian, which
handle the personal information of millions of consumers. (Credit
bureaus are partly regulated by multiple agencies.)

Equifax is potentially facing a number of potential legal
consequences, although thus far, the outcomes remain largely
unclear -- it has confirmed that more than 240 class-action suits
have already been filed against it and that it is cooperating
with multiple investigations and probes, including by all 50
state attorneys general, the Federal Trade Commission, the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority (FINRA), and various congressional
committees, among others.

So far, just one person tied to the breach has been punished. In
March, the SEC charged Equifax's former chief information
officer, Jun Ying, with insider trading.

Mr. Smith, the former CEO, stepped down with a payday of an
estimated $90 million and is still getting a pension worth
millions. Equifax's new CEO's target compensation is $20 million.
Equifax in 2017 made $3.4 billion in revenue, up 7 percent from
what it made the year before.

The company has been awarded hundreds of federal contracts worth
millions of dollars over the past decade, including one
especially eyebrow-raising one after the breach was revealed.
The IRS awarded Equifax a $7.2 million no-bid contract to verify
taxpayer identities, Politico first reported, but suspended the
contract after public backlash.

Mr. Mulvaney just took action against Wells Fargo.  Shouldn't it
be Equifax's turn?

Mr. Mulvaney, who once described the CFPB as a "sick, sad" joke,
has had a slow start taking over as the agency's acting director.
But that changed in April when the CFPB and another bank
regulator hit the megabank Wells Fargo with a $1 billion fine for
improperly charging thousands of customers for auto insurance
they didn't need and to lock in low mortgage rates -- one of the
most severe fines the CPFB has levied in its history.

Now, onlookers say, it's time to do something about Equifax.
"Equifax makes it clear that if they get the chance, they're
going to wiggle off the hook for having put more than half of all
adult Americans at risk for fraud for years to come because of
the data that were stolen," Sen. Warren told Vox's Stewart in
February when she released a separate report about Equifax.

A handful of bills have been drafted in Congress to address the
Equifax situation, though they haven't gotten very far.  In
September, Sens. Warren and Schatz put forth a bill that would
force Equifax and its competitors to provide free credit freezing
and unfreezing services and offer overall better fraud alert
protections; Warren and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) have also
introduced legislation that would give the FTC more supervisory
authority over credit reporting agencies.

At the moment, and given Congress's broad inaction on a range of
issues, the impetus is likely on federal agencies, state
attorneys general, class-action suits, and, yes, the CFPB to act.
It's unclear how Mr. Mulvaney will choose to approach the
situation, but the fact that he's focused on making consumer
complaints private instead of acting on them is not a good sign.
[GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Dozens of Lawsuits Over Cambridge Analytica
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff John Roberts, writing for Fortune, reports that Facebook has
cleared two big hurdles as it tries to quell a controversy over
user data: First, CEO Mark Zuckerberg came out of a Congressional
grilling with flying colors, and then the company soothed
shareholders by blowing its latest earnings report out of the
water.

Despite this good news, Facebook still faces a third ordeal in
the form of legal fallout from the Cambridge Analytica affair--
which saw a rogue polling agency siphon and sell data from at
least 87 million users.  And that ordeal has barely begun.

A review of federal court documents shows that Facebook is facing
more than three dozen class action lawsuits over Cambridge
Analytica.  The complaints seek damages on behalf of millions of
consumers for alleged misuse of their data, or for investors who
allegedly suffered losses when Facebook's stock plummeted on news
of the scandal.

While lawsuits are a matter of course for big companies, Facebook
is treating the Cambridge Analytica cases as significant enough
to make a special note of them in the company's quarterly SEC
report.  A section titled "Legal Proceedings" had previously only
cited ongoing litigation over Facebook's botched 2012 IPO, but
now includes the following paragraph (emphasis mine):

"Beginning on March 20, 2018, multiple putative class actions and
derivative actions were filed in state and federal courts in the
United States and elsewhere against us and certain of our
directors and officers alleging violations of securities laws,
breach of fiduciary duties, and other causes of action in
connection with the misuse of certain data by a developer that
shared such data with third parties [. . .] the events
surrounding this misuse of data became the subject of U.S.
Federal Trade Commission and other government inquiries in the
United States, Europe, and other jurisdictions.  Any such
inquiries could subject us to substantial fines and costs, divert
resources and the attention of management from our business, or
adversely affect our business."

The lawsuits reviewed by Fortune (here's a sample one) do not
list specific dollar amounts, but rather cite damages under
grounds like negligence, invasion of privacy, and violation of
state consumer protection laws and the federal Stored
Communications Act.  Others seek recovery for investors, while
further ones involve claims from state attorneys general.

Facebook has faced mass consumer lawsuits over privacy violations
in the past, and has typically been able to settle them
relatively cheaply by paying a few million dollars to nonprofit
organizations.  Such a quick resolution is unlikely in the case
of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, however, given that judges
have grown skeptical of settlements that do not deliver direct
benefits to consumers, and because of growing scrutiny by
government and media of tech companies' privacy practices.

The worse news for Facebook is that this batch of lawsuits could
be just the tip of the iceberg.  As tech site The Register
reported, Facebook's SEC filing says it anticipates the discovery
of "additional incidents of misuse of user data or other
undesirable activity by third parties." In other words, more
Cambridge Analytica-style scandals (in which Facebook provided
customer data to firms that then misused it) are likely on the
way -- and could trigger more privacy lawsuits naming Facebook.

"We believe these lawsuits are without merit, and we are
vigorously defending them," Facebook states in its SEC filing
describing the Cambridge Analytica lawsuits.  In reply to a
request for further comment, a company spokesperson pointed to a
blog post by Facebook's Deputy General Counsel stating the
incident is not a data breach.

Despite its confident pronouncement, it's far from clear how
easily Facebook can weather the legal fallout from Cambridge
Analytica.  While the company is a profits machine, and is
sitting on more than $40 billion in cash, potential payouts to
hundreds of millions of users could put a big crimp in its future
earnings. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Millionaire Suing Over Fraud Adverts
--------------------------------------------------
Jake Kanter, writing for Business Insider, reports that a
millionaire British consumer rights champion disclosed that he is
suing Facebook over fraudulent adverts -- and he has been shocked
with how the company has responded to the legal action.

Martin Lewis said scammers are using his reputation to ensnare
people into bitcoin "get-rich-quick schemes" through fake adverts
on Facebook.

The Money Saving Expert founder has counted 50 such adverts, but
Facebook revealed in evidence to a British parliamentary
committee that the number is actually more like thousands.

Lewis decided to sue after becoming frustrated with Facebook's
sluggish response to his takedown requests. His attorney, Mark
Lewis, Esq. -- mark.lewis@seddons.co.uk -- said Facebook took up
to three weeks to reply to his requests, by which time the damage
was already done.

Mark Lewis, Esq., a media lawyer at Seddons who was at the
forefront of efforts to expose the News of the World phone-
hacking scandal, said Facebook's response to being taken to court
has not been much better.

Facebook's law firm White & Case has insisted he serves legal
notice on the company in Ireland, which makes the process more
drawn-out and bureaucratic.

"It's deliberately obtuse and unhelpful. You would expect that
from a scam artist, but you wouldn't expect that from one of the
biggest companies in the world," Mark Lewis told Business
Insider.

Facebook said it has been in contact with Lewis' representatives
"for some time" and has removed the offending ads and thousands
of others that break its advertising policies.

A spokeswoman told Business Insider: "We have also offered to
meet Martin Lewis in person to discuss the issues he's
experienced, explain the actions we have taken already and
discuss how we could help stop more bad ads from being placed."

Martin Lewis is pursuing exemplary damages against Facebook,
which is extremely rare in UK defamation law. If successful, the
High Court could take punitive action against Facebook, which
means it not only has to compensate Lewis, but also cough up the
profit from any of the fake adverts in his name.

The millionaire consumer rights champion does not intend to
profit from the case. Instead, he will donate any of the damages
he is awarded to anti-scam charities.

Facebook could be hit with a class action lawsuit
Winning his case will also set a precedent that will make it
easier for others to take action if their reputation is damaged
by fake Facebook adverts. This, Mark Lewis said, makes it less
likely that he will settle.

The attorney, who is working on a no-win-no-fee basis, said he
has had interest from another high-profile individual in joining
Lewis to take joint action against Facebook. He would be keen to
hear from others.

Lewis, who has a net worth of ú125 million ($175 million)
according to The Sunday Times, is not the only millionaire
entrepreneur to raise concerns about fake Facebook ads. Deborah
Meaden, the star of BBC show "Dragons' Den," has campaigned
against the problem, as has her former co-star Duncan Bannatyne.

"Martin Lewis is very courageous taking on Facebook. Perhaps we
should join together to bring a class action against them to try
and halt this type of scam once and for all to stop ordinary
people being duped," Bannatyne said in a statement.

Indeed, scammers have even traded off the "Dragons' Den" brand --
the UK equivalent of "Shark Tank" -- to try and entrap people.
The BBC is aware of the issue and the broadcaster's lawyers have
been in touch with Sony Pictures Television, which owns the
intellectual property to the show. Asked if it is in touch with
Facebook, Sony declined to comment. The BBC also declined to
comment.

Facebook: Fake ads are "not welcome"

In evidence to British lawmakers on the Digital, Culture, Media
and Sport Committee, Facebook Chief Technology Officer Mike
Schroepfer said fake adverts are "not welcome on our platform."

He said the fraudsters have invented ways of getting around the
Facebook machine that takes down fraud ads, such as intentionally
misspelling names of the individuals they are using to front
their scams. This being the case, Schroepfer said it is vital
Facebook roots out and removes the "bad actors" completely.

"In the case of Mr Lewis, he reported on the order of 50 ads to
us. As a result of that, we did a more extensive investigation
using our technical tools, found thousands of other ads, and took
all of those down proactively," Schroepfer said.

"More importantly, we found the dozens of actors, the people who
are fraudulently advertising on the platform, and took them off.
It prevents them from advertising in the future."

He added that the company is hoping to use facial recognition,
which it is currently rolling out in Europe, to assist with its
efforts in removing fake ads. "It is challenging to do
technically at scale and it is one of the things I am hopeful for
in the future that would catch more of these things
automatically," Schroepfer said.[GN]


FCA US: Judge Allows Jeep Wrangler Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Jeep Wrangler class-action lawsuit filed over radiator sludge and
heating and cooling issues is moving forward after a federal
judge found two of five claims against Chrysler viable.

According to the proposed class-action lawsuit, Chrysler uses a
sand-casting method when manufacturing 2012-2017 Wrangler
engines, but excess sand, sodium and other contaminants are left
behind because the automaker fails to purge the sand from the
cylinder heads.

The plaintiffs claim the sand and other particles seep from the
engines into the radiators, heater cores, oil coolers and water
pumps, forming a sludge-like material that accumulates in the
radiators and reservoirs.  This finally causes the heating and
cooling systems to fail, not even allowing fog to be removed from
windshields.

The Wranglers allegedly can't be fixed by flushing the radiator
systems, so owners are forced to replace the radiators and
engines to permanently fix the defects.

Chrysler filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit and the judge
ruled three of five plaintiff's claims don't stand up. However,
FCA first sought to have the lawsuit dismissed due to a lack of
standing.

The judge said the plaintiffs adequately plead they have the
legal right to bring the lawsuit.  In short, the radiator sludge
problem the plaintiffs claim they suffer from are directly tied
to alleged actions by Chrysler.

The judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs concerning an express
warranty claim and a Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim, starting
with the express warranty claim.

The plaintiffs' claims are based in part on two express
warranties that cover 2012-2017 Jeep Wranglers: The 3-Year/36,000
mile "basic limited warranty" and the 5-Year/100,000 mile
"powertrain limited warranty."

The basic warranty "covers the cost of all parts and labor needed
to repair any item" in the vehicle, with the exception of "tires
and [u]nwired headphones."

The powertrain limited warranty is more limited in scope and
"covers the cost of all parts and labor needed to repair" a list
of particular vehicle components, including "cylinder head
assemblies" and other parts of the engine.

The judge says everyone basically admits that none of the named
plaintiffs sought repairs within the time and mileage limits as
stated in the basic limited warranty, but owners did meet the
time requirements concerning the powertrain limited warranty.
Chrysler argues the repairs that were made did not involve any of
the components covered by the powertrain warranty.

However, the judge found the allegations set forth by the
plaintiffs are not that the heating and cooling systems are
defective, but the owners instead claim the heating and cooling
problems are caused by underlying manufacturing defects in the
engine cylinder heads.

Those parts are expressly covered by the powertrain warranty,
causing the judge to decline to dismiss the express warranty
claim.

The other claim the judge let go through is the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act (MMWA) claim.  The judge ruled that because the
plaintiffs stated a claim for breach of express warranty,
Chrysler's motion to dismiss the MMWA claim is also denied.

The remaining claims didn't work out as well for the plaintiffs,
as the judge dismissed a breach of implied warranty claim.
Chrysler told the judge the implied warranty claim is time-barred
by the statute of limitations, something the plaintiffs didn't
even oppose.

Because they failed to oppose Chrysler's grounds for dismissal,
the judge ruled the plaintiffs had abandoned their implied
warranty claim.

The judge also dismissed counts four and five of the lawsuit that
allege unfair and deceptive trade practices and false
advertising.

Chrysler argues that both claims are barred by the statute of
limitations because the allegedly deceptive acts occurred more
than three years prior to the filing of the lawsuit, and the
judge fully agreed.

The Jeep Wrangler class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York - Malizia
et. al. v. FCA US, LLC.

The plaintiffs are represented Greg Coleman Law PC, Simmons Hanly
Conroy LLC, and Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP.

CarComplaints.com has complaints about the Jeeps named in the
class-action lawsuit:

Jeep Wrangler - 2012 / 2013 / 2014 / 2015 / 2016 / 2017  [GN]


FEDEX GROUND: Certification of Class Sought in "Carrow" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled MICHAEL CARROW, MICHAEL
FENNEL, AND NICHOLAS STEFANOU, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEMS, INC.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-03026-RBK-JS (D.N.J.), move for class
certification of a class consisting of:

     All persons who: 1) entered into a FedEx Ground or Home
     Delivery Operating Agreement, either personally or through a
     corporate entity; 2) drove a vehicle on a full-time basis to
     provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to
     the Operating Agreement in any week from April 13, 2010 to
     June 1, 2017 (the "Class Period"); 3) were dispatched out of
     a terminal in the state of New Jersey; and 4) who first
     signed an Operating Agreement after October 15, 2007, or
     excluded themselves from the certified class in Tofaute v.
     FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., No. 05-595 (N.D. Ind.).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dUCxG7QT

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony L. Marchetti, Jr., Esq.
          MARCHETTI LAW, P.C.
          900 N. Kings Hwy., Suite 306
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 824-1001
          Facsimile: (267) 219-4838
          E-mail: amarchetti@marchettilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Harold Lichten, Esq.
          Matthew W. Thomson, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston St., #2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  mthomson@llrlaw.com


FLORIDA BC: Class of Sales Coordinators Certified in "Reese" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Carlos E. Mendoza granted in part the Plaintiff's Motion
for Conditional Class Certification in the lawsuit styled JAY E.
REESE v. FLORIDA BC HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 6:17-cv-01574-CEM-GJK
(M.D. Fla.).

United States Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly submitted a
Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grant in
part the Plaintiff's Motion.  Specifically, Judge Kelly concluded
that the class should be narrowed to encompass only those
employees located at Defendant's Orlando and Daytona Beach
locations.  Judge Kelly also determined that the proposed notice
should be amended and that sending a reminder is unnecessary.

After a de novo review of the record, and noting no objections
were timely filed, the Court agrees with the analysis in the
Report and Recommendation.  Therefore, the Report and
Recommendation is adopted and confirmed and made a part of this
Order.

This class is conditionally certified pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b):

     All employees of Defendant who worked at the Orlando or
     Daytona Beach locations and (1) are or were employed by
     Defendant as "Sales Coordinators" during the preceding three
     years; (2) were classified as exempt from the FLSA; and (3)
     worked more than forty hours in a work week without being
     paid proper overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff's counsel is appointed as class counsel.  On or
before May 11, 2018, the Defendant shall provide to the
Plaintiff's counsel the full names, job titles, dates of
employment, last known addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail
addresses for each individual in the class.

Judge Kelly also ruled that on or before May 15, 2018, the
Plaintiff shall distribute the notice and consent to-join forms,
via first class mail, to all putative class members, with these
revisions:

   a. Replace the word "misclassified" in the class definition
      with "classified";

   b. Delete "unlawfully" and "proper" from the penultimate
      sentence before the chart regarding "YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND
      OPTIONS";

   c. Delete the following sentence from the chart: "By opting in
      you also conserve judicial resources"; and

   d. Delete footnote one from the notice.

On or before May 22, 2018, the Plaintiff shall notify the Court
of the date that the notices were mailed.

The Motion is denied in all other respects.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1qdqDW1U


FORD MOTOR: Ct. Excludes Plaintiff Expert Witnesses in "Johnson"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
West Virginia, Huntington Division, granted Defendant's Motion to
Exclude Plaintiffs' Designated Expert Witnesses Hubing, van
Schoor, and Koopman in the case captioned CHARLES JOHNSON, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action
No. 3:13-6529 (S.D.W.V.).

The Plaintiffs consist of nineteen individuals from seventeen
states seeking economic loss damages for allegedly defective Ford
vehicles manufactured between 2004 and 2010.  The Plaintiffs'
theory is that the electronic throttle control (ETC) system
contains a defect in its ability to identify and mitigate
unintended acceleration.

Todd H. Hubing, Ph.D.

Ford first challenges the testimony of Dr. Hubing, an electrical
engineer who has studied the field of electromagnetic
compatibility in automobiles for many years, principally as a
professor at Clemson University. His credentials are not
challenged by Ford. As part of his work related to the automotive
industry, he has published a number of peer-reviewed articles
through the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers
(IEEE). One of those articles published in June 2015 focused on
his examination of five vehicles equipped with ETC systems,
including two Ford models.

The Court also is troubled by Dr. Hubing's opinion that Ford's
Gen II ETC system allows unintended acceleration at a rate above
industry standards. First, his testing of non-Ford vehicles
revealed some vulnerability to unintended acceleration in all the
models tested. Thus, some risk of unintended acceleration seems
unavoidable, at least with respect to those model years in his
study. Second, the article alludes to the recent NASA
investigation and the NHTSA database of unintended acceleration
complaints.

However, Dr. Hubing does not explain in his article, or his
report, the basis for relying on this data to make the claimed
comparison of rates of unintended acceleration. The NHTSA
database consists of voluntary complaints, not specific incidents
that were verified or even examined. Additionally, neither source
presents any definitive survey by which an expert could compare
anything more than general complaints. For instance, Toyota's
extreme high rate of unintended acceleration was attributed
somewhat to Toyota's increased adverse publicity at the time.

Also, these complaint rates were selected for models with new or
modified ETC systems, and though Plaintiffs repeatedly assert
that the Gen II system is identical in all the models within
their proposed class, the complaint rate for 2005 Mustangs was
twice the rate for 2006 Explorers. The fact that complaints
increased may trigger a study or investigation, but it does not
serve as proof of the defect asserted by Plaintiffs.

Marthinus van Schoor, Ph.D.

Next, Ford challenges the opinions of Dr. Marthinus van Schoor,
who holds a M.S. and a Ph.D. in aeronautics and astronautics. Dr.
van Schoor performed what Plaintiffs' counsel characterized as
measurements and inspection of Ford class vehicle pedals. He
offers opinions on technical performance and safety issues
related to the Accelerator Pedal Assembly. In addition to his
criticism of Ford's ETC system, he explains an alternative design
employing Brake Over Accelerator (BOA) technology and related
safety features.

The Court finds Dr. van Schoor's measurements of pedal-angle
return from lateral force to be irrelevant. He simply has no
explanation of how such lateral forces on a gas pedal may be
expected in the normal operation of a vehicle. Consequently, his
finding that lateral force on the pedal may result in faulty
sensor output is irrelevant to the Plaintiffs' theory of defect.
Furthermore, Dr. van Schoor's criticism of Ford's use of
contacting sensors is confusing. As the Plaintiffs apparently do
not expect to elicit his opinion that these sensors are a defect
in this system, his criticism also is irrelevant.

In addition to these subjects, Dr. van Schoor offers evidence of
an alternative design: the use of BOA to provide a last stand
against any unintended acceleration caused by the alleged
inadequate failsafes in Ford's Gen II ETC system. In a design
defect case like this, evidence of the availability of a safer
alternative may be relevant. However, the Plaintiffs' evidence of
the design defect must be adduced first. Merely demonstrating a
safer alternative exists does not render the chosen design
defective.

Philip Koopman, Ph.D.

Finally, Ford challenges the opinions of Dr. Koopman. Ford
focuses on whether his testing provides a reliable basis for his
opinions. In his lengthy reports, consisting of his primary
report and his supplemental reports concerning testing and
software analysis, Dr. Koopman concludes that Ford's Gen II ETC
system is prone to allowing unintended acceleration due to the
design defect alleged by the Plaintiffs. His qualifications are
extensive and unchallenged, but Ford vigorously disputes the
support for his conclusions.

Though Dr. Koopman reports that contacting sensors like those
used by Ford in the class vehicles should be replaced with
noncontacting sensors, he has done no analysis of unintended
acceleration complaint rates between the two designs or examined
vehicles using non-contacting sensors. This gap amounts to a
failure to validate his theory.

Dr. Koopman's testimony, that the Plaintiffs' complaints are
consistent with his design defect opinion, is inadequate to tie
his opinions to this case. First, he relies on nothing more
specific than the Consolidated Complaint to understand the
Plaintiffs' unintended acceleration events. Second, there are
profound inconsistencies between the general complaints and his
opinions. Nearly every Plaintiff described a failure of their
brakes to counteract the unintended acceleration, yet in Dr.
Koopman's own testing procedure, the brakes restrained the
acceleration.

Further, some Plaintiffs reported that their gas pedals were
moving up and down without a foot-on-pedal, a circumstance not
replicated in any of the tests done by the Plaintiffs' experts.
If these Plaintiffs were right, this pedal problem likely would
be mechanical, perhaps caused by the return spring. Ultimately,
Dr. Koopman's testing fails to serve as a reliable basis for his
opinions regarding the design defects alleged by the Plaintiffs
in this case.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 26, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ybdbj5mz from Leagle.com.

Charles Johnson, Michael Antramgarza, Quintin Williams, ACA Legal
Investigations, Inc., John McGee, David H. Patton & Inez A.
Patton, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam J. Levitt --
alevitt@dlcfirm.com -- DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY, pro hac vice,
Alison K. Hurley -- ahurley@bremerandwhyte.com -- BREMER WHYTE
BROWN & O'MEARA, pro hac vice, Amy E. Keller --
akeller@dlcfirm.com -- DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY, Anne M. Tarvin,
BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON RADER, 11150 Overbrook Road, #200,
Leawood, KS 66211,  Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN &
O'MEARA, 20320 S.W. Birch Street Second Floor, Newport Beach CA
92660, pro hac vice, Bradley D. Honnold, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON
ROBERTSON & GOZA, 11150 Overbrook Road, #200, Leawood, KS 66211,
C. Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART &
SHIPLEY, 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, FL 33409-
6601, pro hac vice, Donald H. Slavik -- dslavik@slavik.us --
SLAVICK LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW
FIRM, 3300 Two Commerce Square. 2001 Market Street. Philadelphia,
PA 19103, pro hac vice.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Trask --
atrask@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIRE WOODS, pro hac vice, Bradley
J. Schmalzer, FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH & BONASSO, P.O. Box 3843.
Charleston, WV 25338-3843, Brian D. Schmalzbach --
BSCHMALZBACH@MCGUIREWOODS.COM -- MCGUIRE WOODS, pro hac vice,
Harold C. Zuckerman -- harold.zuckerman@mcafeetaft.com -- MCAFEE
& TAFT, Jeffrey A. Holmstrand, GROVE & DELK. 44 1/2 Fifteenth
Street Wheeling, WV 26003, Jill Crawley Griset --
jgriset@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIRE WOODS, Jodi Munn Schebel --
Jodi_schebel@bowmanandbrooke.com -- BOWMAN & BROOKE, pro hac
vice, John Tracy Walker, IV -- twalker@mcguirewoods.com --
MCGUIRE WOODS, pro hac vice, Michael Bonasso, FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH
& BONASSO, P.O. Box 3843. Charleston, WV 25338-3843, Perry Watson
Miles, IV, MCGUIRE WOODS, pro hac vice, Peter J. Fazio, AARONSON
RAPPAPORT FEINSTEIN & DEUTSCH, pro hac vice, Sarah Virginia
Bondurant Price -- vbondurantprice@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIRE
WOODS, pro hac vice, Susan W. Romaine, FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH &
BONASSO & William J. Hanna, FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH & BONASSO, P.O.
Box 3843. Charleston, WV 25338-3843.

Ford Motor Company, Counter Claimant, represented by Andrew J.
Trask, MCGUIRE WOODS, Bradley J. Schmalzer, FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH &
BONASSO, Brian D. Schmalzbach, MCGUIRE WOODS, pro hac vice,
Harold C. Zuckerman, MCAFEE & TAFT, Jason H. Dang, BREMER WHYTE
BROWN & O'MEARA, Jeffrey A. Holmstrand, GROVE & DELK, Jodi Munn
Schebel, BOWMAN & BROOKE, pro hac vice, John Tracy Walker, IV,
MCGUIRE WOODS, pro hac vice, Michael Bonasso, FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH
& BONASSO, Perry Watson Miles, IV, MCGUIRE WOODS, pro hac vice,
Peter J. Fazio, AARONSON RAPPAPORT FEINSTEIN & DEUTSCH, Sarah
Virginia Bondurant Price, MCGUIRE WOODS, pro hac vice, Susan W.
Romaine, FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH & BONASSO & William J. Hanna,
FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH & BONASSO.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Interested Party,
represented by Michael M. Stevens, MARTIN & SEIBERT.


FOREMOST INSURANCE: Braden Seeks Prelim. OK of Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled DAVID BRADEN and DALE BROWN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN, Case No. 4:15-
cv-04114-SOH (W.D. Ark.), filed with the Court their Agreed
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Class
Certification for Settlement Purposes, Appointment of Class
Representatives and Appointment of Class Counsel.

On April 27, 2018, the parties executed a Stipulation of
Settlement.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

     (i) granting preliminary approval of the proposed
         Settlement;

    (ii) appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives;

   (iii) appointing Class Counsel;

    (iv) directing that notice of the proposed Settlement be
         given to members of the Class in the proposed form and
         manner; and

     (v) scheduling a hearing before the Court to determine
         whether the proposed Settlement should be finally
         approved.

A copy of the Agreed Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eYd4i22E

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matt Keil, Esq.
          John C. Goodson, Esq.
          KEIL & GOODSON P.A.
          406 Walnut Street
          Texarkana, AR 71854
          Telephone: (870) 772-4113
          Facsimile: (870) 773-2967
          E-mail: mkeil@kglawfirm.com
                  jcgoodson@kglawfirm.com

               - and -

          A.F. "Tom" Thompson, III, Esq.
          Kenneth P. "Casey" Castleberry, Esq.
          MURPHY, THOMPSON, ARNOLD, SKINNER & CASTLEBERRY
          555 East Main St., Suite 200
          Batesville, AR 72501
          Telephone: (870) 793-3821
          Facsimile: (870) 793-3815

               - and -

          James M. Pratt, Jr., Esq.
          JAMES M. PRATT, JR., P.A.
          144 Washington NW
          Post Office Box 938
          Camden, AR 71701
          Telephone: (870) 836-7328
          Facsimile: (870) 837-2405

               - and -

          Richard E. Norman, Esq.
          R. Martin Weber, Jr., Esq.
          CROWLEY NORMAN LLP
          Three Riverway, Suite 1775
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 651-1771
          Facsimile: (713) 651-1775
          E-mail: rnorman@crowleynorman.com
                  mweber@crowleynorman.com

               - and -

          W.H. Taylor, Esq.
          Stevan E. Vowell, Esq.
          TAYLOR LAW PARTNERS
          303 E. Millsap Road
          P.O. Box 8310
          Fayetteville, AR 72703
          Telephone: (479) 443-5222
          E-mail: whtaylor@taylorlawpartners.com
                  svowell@taylorlawpartners.com


FOREMOST INSURANCE: Accord in Braden-Brown Suit Has Initial OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DAVID BRADEN and DALE BROWN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:15-cv-04114-SOH (W.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge
Susan O. Hickey entered an order on May 21, 2018:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of
      proposed settlement, subject to further consideration at
      the final approval hearing;

   2. conditionally certifying Settlement Class for settlement
      purposes only:

      "Persons who had a Covered Loss and who, during the Class
      Period, received a Qualifying ACV Payment"

      Excluded from the Class are: (1) Persons that received
      payment in the full amount of insurance shown on the
      declarations page of the Homeowners Insurance Policy; (2)
      Foremost and its affiliates, officers, and directors; (3)
      members of the judiciary and their staff to whom this
      Action is assigned; (4) Persons who have a pending
      bankruptcy or whose claims were discharged in a bankruptcy
      proceeding; (5) Persons who executed a release of the
      claims set forth herein; and (6) Plaintiffs' counsel.; and

   3. preliminarily appointing David Braden and Dale Brown as
      representatives of the Settlement Class, and preliminarily
      finding that the following attorneys for Plaintiffs satisfy
      the adequacy requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
      23, and appointing such counsel as counsel for the
      Settlement Class:

         D. Matt Keil, Esq.
         John C. Goodson, Esq.
         KEIL & GOODSON P.A.
         406 Walnut St.
         Texarkana, AR 71854

              - and -

         A.F. "Tom" Thompson, III, Esq.
         Kenneth P. "Casey" Castleberry, Esq.
         MURPHY, THOMPSON, ARNOLD,
            SKINNER & CASTLEBERRY
         555 E. Main St., Suite 200
         Batesville, AR 72501

              - and -

         R. Martin Weber, Jr., Esq.
         Richard E. Norman, Esq.
         CROWLEY NORMAN LLP
         Three Riverway, Suite 1775
         Houston, TX 77056

              - and -

         Stevan E. Vowell, Esq.
         W.H. Taylor, Esq.
         TAYLOR LAW FIRM
         303 E. Millsap Rd.
         P.O. Box 8310
         Fayetteville, AR 72703

Rust Consulting, Inc. is preliminarily appointed as third-party
administrator.

According to the Court ruling, "If final approval of the Proposed
Settlement is not granted, this Order, including the above
description of the Settlement Class and the preliminary
appointment of the Representative Plaintiffs and Class Counsel,
shall be automatically vacated. If the Stipulation is terminated
or is disapproved in whole or in part by this Court, any
appellate court or any other court of review, or if the agreement
to settle is terminated as provided in Paragraph 71 of the
Stipulation, the Stipulation and the fact that it was entered
into shall not be offered, received or construed as an admission
or as evidence for any purpose including, but not limited to, the
"certifiability" of any litigation class, as discussed in
Paragraph 73 of the Stipulation."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ytUGW4hL


FRIENDLUM INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Elias Says
------------------------------------------------------
JOHN ELIAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FRIENDLUM INC dba DIRECT HOME
ENERGY SOLUTIONS, GDFRIEND INC dba EVERLAST HOME ENERGY
SOLUTIONS, SMITHLUM & FRIEND INC dba POWERSTAR HOME ENERGY
SOLUTIONS, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. 37-2018-00024215-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., May 16, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime Wages under the California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively employed
Plaintiff, as well as employ and have employed others similarly
situated, as canvassers. As canvassers, Plaintiff and those
similarly situated, travel to various neighborhoods and promote
Defendants' business on behalf of Defendants. The promoted
services include Defendants' various contracting services.
Defendants' direct Plaintiff and others similarly situated to
promote their services by having them contact prospective buyers
for the exclusive purpose of scheduling appointments for
registered home improvement salespersons for Defendants. In
addition, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon
alleges, that Defendants have increased their profits by
violating state wage and hour laws and exploiting their
employees, by, among other things: (1) failing to pay their
employees all wages for time worked; and (2) requiring the
employees to use their personal cell phones in order to perform
their required job duties for Defendants. Defendants did not
reimburse employees for the costs of this cellular phone
usage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Devon K. Roepcke, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DEVON K. ROEPCKE, PC
          170 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 940 5357
          Facsimile: (619) 354 4157
          E-mail: droepcke@lawdkr.com

               - and -

          Eric A. Laguardia, Esq.
          LAGUARDIA LAW
          402 West Broadway, Suite 800
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 655 4322
          Facsimile: (619) 655 4344
          E-mail: eal@laguardialaw.com


FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Williams Sues over Stock Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------
SHARON WILLIAMS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. DANIEL J. McCARTHY, RALPH
PERLEY McBRIDE, LEROY T. BARNES, JR., PETER C.B. BYNOE, DIANA S.
FERGUSON, EDWARD D. FRAIOLI, PAMELA D.A. REEVE, VIRGINIA P.
RUESTERHOLZ, HOWARD L. SCHROTT, MARK S. SHAPIRO, MYRON A. WICK,
III, LARRAINE D. SEGIL, JOHN M. JURELLER and MARY A. WILDEROTTER,
the Defendants, and FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation, Nominal Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00826
(D. Conn., May 16, 2018), alleges that from at least February 6,
2015 through the present, the Defendants caused Frontier to issue
false and misleading statements concerning the Company's true
financial and operating condition. Moreover, defendants' wrongful
acts have caused the Company to face a complicated and expensive-
to-defend securities class action. Accordingly, the Defendants'
violations of the law have severely damaged Frontier. Although
Frontier has been severely injured, defendants have not fared
nearly so badly. During their tenure as Frontier's top insiders,
defendants collectively pocketed more than $37 million in
salaries, fees, stock, and other incentive-based compensation not
justified in light of the serious breaches of fiduciary duty and
violations of federal law that have occurred during their watch.
These payments unjustly enriched Defendants.

Frontier is a Delaware corporation that provides communications
services to urban, suburban and rural communities in 29 states.
On February 5, 2015, the Company announced that it entered an
agreement to acquire Verizon Communications Inc.'s wireline
operations in California, Texas, and Florida for $10.54 billion
in cash and assumed debt. News of the acquisition caused
Frontier's stock price to jump by 8.7% to $125.55 on February 12,
2015. The Verizon wireline acquisition was completed on April 1,
2016. But Defendants failed to disclose the fact that the
wireline assets Frontier acquired from Verizon were not
performing well and were causing substantial financial problems.

On February 27, 2017, the Defendants caused the Company to begin
revealing the true impact the non- and under- performing wireline
assets were having when they released fourth quarter of 2016
financial results. The release stated that the Company's results
were negatively impacted by the "resolution of non-paying
acquired CTF accounts." Frontier's Chief Executive Officer,
Daniel J. McCarthy, provided additional color on the effect these
accounts were having when he stated that "[r]esults for the
fourth quarter were impacted by our intensified efforts to
resolve acquired accounts in California, Texas and Florida that
we have determined to be nonpaying." During a conference call
with investors that same day, defendant McCarthy explained that
the Company had been working through the account-cleanup process
since July 20, 2016, that the Company began disconnecting non-
paying accounts at the end of August 2016, and that the
disconnects continued through the first quarter of 2017.

These revelations caused the Company's stock price to fall nearly
11% ($5.40 per share) to a closing price of $43.95 on February
28, 2017. This precipitous fall wiped out approximately $424
million in shareholder equity. Then, on May 2, 2017, the Company
reported its first quarter 2017 financial results that included a
net loss of $75 million and a year-over-year first quarter
decline in revenue of $53 million. During a conference call that
day, defendant Ralph P. McBride, Frontier's Chief Financial
Officer, stated that the non-paying accounts and the automation
of legacy non-paying disconnects accounted for approximately $16
million of the revenue decline. Defendant McBride explained that
"[t]he CTF account cleanup reduced Q1 revenue by $11 million, and
the onetime impact related to automating the nonpay disconnect
process for the legacy properties reduced Q1 revenue by $5
million."

These revelations caused the Company's stock price to plummet
more than 16% to $24.15 per share on May 3, 2017, wiping out
another $376.9 million in shareholder equity. In an effort to
prop up the Company's rapidly declining stock price, on or around
May 12, 2017, Frontier's Board announced a reverse stock split at
a ratio of 1 share for 15 shares, which the Company announced was
completed on July 10, 2017.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan P. Whitcomb, Esq.
          DISERIO MARTIN O'CONNOR
            & CASTIGLIONI LLP
          One Atlantic Street, 8th Floor
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (203) 358 0800
          Facsimile: (203) 348 2321
          E-mail: jwhitcomb@dmoc.com

               - and -

          Benny C. Goodman III, Esq.
          Erik W. Luedeke, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
            & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-8498
          Telephone: (619) 231 1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231 7423
          E-mail: bennyg@rgrdlaw.com
                  eluedeke@rgrdlaw.com


GC SERVICES: Dickens Renews Class Certification Bid in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled TERRI E. DICKENS, on behalf
of the estate of Ronnie E. Dickens and others similarly situated
v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 8:16-cv-00803-JSM-
TGW (M.D. Fla.), renews her motion to certify this class:

     (1) All persons with a Florida address, (2) to whom GC
     Services Limited Partnership mailed an initial communication
     that stated: (a) "if you do dispute all or any portion of
     this debt within 30 days of receiving this letter, we will
     obtain verification of the debt from our client and send it
     to you," and/or (b) "if within 30 days of receiving this
     letter you request the name and address of the original
     creditor, we will provide it to you in the event it differs
     from our client, Synchrony Bank," (3) between April 4, 2015
     and April 4, 2016, (4) in connection with the collection of
     a consumer debt, (5) that was not returned as undeliverable
     to GC Services Limited Partnership.

Ms. Dickens also asks the Court to appoint her, in her capacity
as personal representative of the estate of Mr. Dickens, as class
representative, and to appoint her counsel as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=adzEKDL5

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
                  mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
                  jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          William S. Helfand, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1400
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 659-6767
          Facsimile: (713) 759-6830
          E-mail: bill.hefland@lewisbrisbois.com


GENERAL MILLS: Court OKs $97,500 Atty's Fees in "Rooker"
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted Plaintiff's Motions for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement, Final Approval of Attorneys' Fees and
Costs, and Final Approval of Class Representative Payment in the
case captioned JAMIE ROOKER, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MILLS
OPERATIONS, LLC, et al., Defendants, No. CV 17-467 PA (PLAx)
(C.D. Cal.).

The Court certifies the Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23, solely for the purpose of settlement.  The
Settlement Class is defined as: "any current or former non-exempt
employees of Defendants GENERAL MILLS OPERATIONS, LLC, and
GENERAL MILLS, INC. (Defendants) at their Carson facility at any
time from November 7, 2012, to August 14, 2017, and who have not
previously released the Released Claims."

The Court approves payment of reasonable attorneys' fees to Class
Counsel in the amount of $97,500 and costs in the amount of
$7,203.23, to be paid from the Gross Settlement Fund as provided
in the Settlement Agreement.

The Court approves the payment of $5,000 to be paid from the
Gross Settlement Amount in satisfaction of any claim for
penalties that may be owed to under the Private Attorneys General
Act (PAGA), Cal. Labor Code section 2699, et seq., with 75% as
provided in the Settlement Agreement payable directly to the
Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA).

The Court approves the payment for Settlement Administration
Costs incurred by ILYM Group, Inc., in the amount of $14,658.99
to be paid from the Gross Settlement Fund as provided in the
Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 26, 2018 Judgment
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8pqx2fn from Leagle.com.

Jamie Rooker, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Andrea Leigh Rosenkranz, Lavi and
Ebrahimian LLP & Joseph Lavi, Lavi and Ebrahimian LLP, 8889 West
Olympic Blvd., Suite 200, Beverly Hills, CA 90211

General Mills Operations, LLC, a limited liability company &
General Mills, Inc., a corporation, Defendants, represented by
James E. Hart -- jhart@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC & Jon
G. Miller -- jmiller@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC.


GEORGE WESTON: Class Action Over Rana Plaza Collapse Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Kari, writing for Law Times, reports that the legal
analysis of the judge who declined to certify a proposed $2-
billion class action in connection with the 2013 collapse of a
plaza in Bangladesh in which 1,130 workers were killed was front
and centre at the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Lawyers for the appellants in Das v. George Weston Ltd. argued
that Superior Court Justice Paul Perell exceeded his
jurisdiction, went on an improper "fact-finding mission" and
erred in his interpretation of the plaintiffs' pleadings.

"Justice Perell did not look at the entire case," said
Peter Jervis on the first day of a two-day hearing at the Court
of Appeal.

"He misconstrued the breadth of the negligence claim.  He
narrowed it to set up a straw claim that he could knock down,"
argued Mr. Jervis, a partner at Rochon Genova LLP.

If the lower court decision is upheld, it could have a
significant impact on class actions alleging negligence related
to foreign operations, he suggested.

"Is this court prepared to say that the laws of Ontario will not
hold a Canadian company responsible for flaws in its supply chain
that it knows about? There has never been a case like this," said
Jervis.

The action stems from the fact that the Loblaw subsidiary Joe
Fresh purchased clothes from a company that used a sub-supplier
to manufacture the goods inside the Rana Plaza, where the
industrial accident occurred.  Bureau Veritas, a company that
Loblaw retained to conduct social audits of factories in
Bangladesh, is also a defendant (Weston is the controlling
shareholder of Loblaw).

The class action is being supported financially by the Law
Foundation of Ontario's class proceedings fund.  Justice Perell
dismissed the action last July. He found that the law of
Bangladesh applied to the proposed class and the action was
barred by a limitations period in that country.

As well, the defendants' Rule 21 motion was successful as Justice
Perell concluded that there were "no legally viable tort claims"
against the defendants.

In awarding $2.3 million in costs to the defendants, Justice
Perell was critical of the plaintiffs' legal approach.  Aspects
of the pleadings where described as "conclusory, argumentative,
rhetorical, tautological, inflammatory and question-begging," by
the judge.

"Loblaws and Bureau Veritas, who did not own or construct Rana
Plaza or cause it to collapse, are accused of having and
breaching a duty of care by not taking steps to protect the
employees and others at Rana Plaza from the villainy of third
parties," stated Justice  Perell, in rejecting this position.

In arguing that the Superior Court decision should be upheld,
lawyers for Loblaw say that the plaintiffs are trying to impose
liability for actions by third parties over which it had no
control.

"The real causes of the collapse were all in Bangladesh," states
Christopher Bredt -- CBredt@blg.com -- lead lawyer for Loblaw, in
written submissions filed with the Court of Appeal.

"Under the appellants' approach, factory workers' rights would be
governed by the law of whatever country hosts the corporate
headquarters of the customer for whom they happen to be producing
items at a particular moment in time," adds Mr. Bredt, a partner
at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP.

"This approach frustrates the putative class members' reasonable
expectations and offends comity by arrogating to Ontario courts
the power to impose our legal regime on the citizens of
Bangladesh," he wrote.

Loblaw has adopted a corporate social responsibility standard for
its domestic and international businesses, which leads to a duty
of care, Jervis argued during the Court of Appeal hearing.

"They outsourced for profit.  They knew there were dangers," he
told the panel of justices -- David Doherty, Kathryn Feldman and
Douglas Gray (sitting ad hoc).

"You are pleading assumed responsibility.  But the documents
don't say that," noted Doherty. "If you pleaded to certain
documents, is the motions judge not entitled to look at the
documents?" he asked.

Justice Perell went beyond what a judge is permitted to do in a
Rule 21 motion, Jervis replied.

"He can read them, but they are not evidence. At this stage, he
has to take the pleadings as true. At trial, that may be
disproven," Jervis added.

"Justice Perell reduced this case to a purchaser of goods that
does not have liability to the workers.  The facts that are
pleaded, plead proximity.  This is not a case of foreign farm
workers," stated Jervis.

At times, the judicial panel appeared skeptical of the
characterization of Justice Perell's legal analysis.

"It is all linked together.  I am not convinced he has reduced
it," said Feldman.

On the issue of costs, the Law Foundation of Ontario is asking
the Court of Appeal to find either that no costs are payable or,
alternatively, reduce the total award to $500,000 from $2.3
million if the appeal is unsuccessful.

The Court of Appeal reserved its decision after the two-day
hearing. [GN]


GLOBAL EAGLE: Purcell Julie Investigates Fiduciary Duty Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Purcell Julie & Lefkowitz LLP, a class action law firm dedicated
to representing shareholders nationwide, is investigating a
potential breach of fiduciary duty claim involving the board of
directors of Global Eagle Entertainment Inc. (NASDAQ: ENT).

If you are a shareholder of Global Eagle Entertainment Inc. and
are interested in obtaining additional information regarding this
investigation, free of charge, please visit us at:

     http://pjlfirm.com/global-eagle-entertainment-inc/

You may also contact Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq. either via email
at rl@pjlfirm.com or by telephone at 212-725-1000.  One of our
attorneys will personally speak with you about the case at no
cost or obligation.

Purcell Julie & Lefkowitz LLP -- http://www.pjlfirm.com-- is a
law firm exclusively committed to representing shareholders
nationwide who are victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty and other types of corporate misconduct. [GN]


GOLD STANDARD: Zollicoffer Seeks to Certify Class of Laborers
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled JAMES ZOLLICOFFER, ANTWOIN
HUNT and NORMAN GREEN, on behalf of themselves and similarly
situated laborers v. GOLD STANDARD BAKING, INC., PERSONNEL
STAFFING GROUP, LLC d/b/a MOST VALUABLE PERSONNEL d/b/a MVP, Case
No. 1:13-cv-01524 (N.D. Ill.), file with the Court a revised
pleading pursuant to the Court's April 23, 2018 Opinion and Order
and move the Court for an order certifying the proposed class for
claims arising under Section One of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

The Plaintiffs further seek to certify this class:

     African-American laborers who sought work assignments
     through MVP and were otherwise eligible to work at GSB, but
     on one or more occasions were not assigned to work at GSB
     when a position for which they were otherwise qualified was
     available during the period of four years prior to the
     filing of the Plaintiffs' Original Complaint for the Section
     1981 claims up through and including December 31, 2015.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives, to appoint their counsel to serve as counsel for
the class, and to authorize notice to the class of the action and
their right to opt out.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
          Alvar Ayala, Esq.
          WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 701
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 795-9121
          E-mail: cwilliams@wagetheftlaw.com
                  aayala@wagetheftlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Sellers, Esq.
          Shaylyn Cochran, Esq.
          Miriam R. Nemeth, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: jsellers@cohenmilstein.com
                  scochran@cohenmilstein.com
                  mnemeth@cohenmilstein.com


GOLDEN STATE: Court Needs Supplemental Briefing in "Palma"
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order requiring Supplemental Briefing in the
case captioned ROMEO PALMA, Plaintiff, v. GOLDEN STATE FC, LLC,
d/b/a AMAZON.COM, Defendant, No. 1:18-cv-00121-DAD-MJS (E.D.
Cal.).

The Plaintiff is employed by the defendant in its Patterson,
California fulfillment center. The Plaintiff's job duties at the
fulfillment center include packaging, loading, unloading, and
various other tasks. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated employees, alleging
that they have been exposed to, have suffered, and/or were
permitted to work under defendant's unlawful employment
practices.

Here, the plaintiff's complaint alleges that the defendant
regularly requires the plaintiff to work shifts in excess of 10
hours without providing a third rest break. However, neither
party has addressed whether the First Amended Complaint alleges
that this practice was universally followed in every instance.
Because the plaintiff has challenged jurisdiction by arguing that
the violation rate in this case is less than 100%, the defendant
now bears the burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction is proper
in this court.

Accordingly, the defendant is ordered to submit supplemental
briefing addressing the following issues: (1) whether the
allegations of the FAC, as pleaded, allege a 100% violation rate
under Ibarra; (2) if not, what constitutes a reasonable violation
rate based on the allegations of the FAC and the available
evidence; and (3) what constitutes a reasonable estimate of the
amount in controversy in light of that violation rate.

The Plaintiff is directed to file its response to the defendant's
supplemental brief, if any, within fourteen days thereafter.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 12, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybrvyfwe from Leagle.com.

Romeo Palma, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua H. Haffner --
jhh@haffnerlawyers.com -- Haffner Law, PC.

Golden State FC, LLC, Doing business as Amazon.Com, Defendant,
represented by Alejandro David Szwarcsztejn --
david.szwarcsztejn@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis and Bockius
LLP & Barbara J. Miller -- barbara.miller@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP.


GSP TRANSPORTATION: Enters Settlement in Principle with Campbell
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Travis R. McDonough entered an order in the lawsuit
entitled SUSAN CAMPBELL, on behalf of herself and on behalf of
all other similarly situated current and former employees v. GSP
TRANSPORTATION, INC. and JEFF SCHOEPHEL, Case No. 1:17-cv-00045-
TRM-CHS (E.D. Tenn.), denying with leave to re-file the
Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint and
motion to certify class.

On April 27, 2018, the parties submitted a joint status report,
representing that they have come to a settlement in principle and
that the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended
complaint and motion to certify class are now moot, according to
the Order.

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


GUADALUPE, CA: "Limon" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS H. LIMON, NORMA BRIBIESCA, JULIO CARRILLO, SALVADOR
CURIEL, ALEJANDRO ESTRADA, STEVEN IWASKO, CIAN LENEHAN, ALEJANDRO
MARIN, FRANK MEDINA, JOANA MENDOSA, HEATH MILLER, MARIA NEGRANTI,
EFRAIN ISAAC OSEGUERA, ISRAEL REYES, and ROSANNE TESORO, the
Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF GUADALUPE, and DOES 1 THROUGH 10,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04122 (C.D. Cal., May
16, 2018), seeks to recover compensation for overtime work
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully
violated, and are willfully violating, the compensation
requirements of the FLSA, by employing Plaintiffs, and all other
similarly situated employees, for weeks longer than the
applicable maximum weekly hours established by Section 207 of the
FLSA, without properly compensating them for work performed in
excess of the hours at rates not less than one and one-half times
their regular rates of pay.

The Plaintiffs are non-exempt rank and file employees who are
regularly suffered or permitted to work in excess of the
applicable overtime threshold every work period, but do not
receive compensation for all such time worked at the rate of one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay from the Defendant.
More specifically, Defendants are not paying for all hours worked
above the overtime threshold, are not paying the correct base
hourly rate of pay which thereby causes an incorrect regular rate
of pay, and do not include all forms of compensation in its
calculation of the Plaintiffs regular rate of pay, all in
violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 207.

Guadalupe is a small city located in Santa Barbara County,
California. According to the U.S. Census of 2010, the city has a
population of 7,080.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael A. McGill, Esq.
          ADAMS, FERRONE & FERRONE
          4333 Park Terrace Drive, Suite 200
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 373 5900
          Facsimile: (818) 874 1382
          E-mail: mmcgill@adamsferrone.com


GUAM: USCIS Attorney Fights Sanction for Denial of H-2B Petitions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Kerrigan, writing for The Guam Daily Post, reports that the
attorney for the Justice Department Office of Immigration
Litigation maintains the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service
is in compliance with the District Court's preliminary injunction
and should not be held in contempt or sanctioned for its
continued denial of H-2B petitions.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Glenn Girdharry filed his response on
April 27 in answer to a motion filed on May 25 by attorney Jeff
Joseph, who represents the Guam Contractors Association and 11
other plaintiffs.

Mr. Joseph wants Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood of the
District Court of Guam to impose sanctions on USCIS and hold the
immigration agency in contempt after its denial of three H-2B
petitions from Guam Advance Enterprises.

Guam Advance Enterprises is not one of the original plaintiffs,
but Joseph describes the company as a "potential class member,"
whose petitions were denied after Judge Gatewood's March 31
decision to grant class-action certification to the lawsuit and
despite her Jan. 24 preliminary injunction ordering USCIS to
reverse its previous denials of H-2B worker petitions, and to
stop the blanket denial of future petitions.

Mr. Girdharry argues that the preliminary injunction doesn't
apply to H-2B petitions filed by companies that are not among the
original 12 plaintiffs and the court hasn't issued any order to
expand the scope of its preliminary injunction beyond those 12
plaintiffs.

Mr. Girdharry points out that the preliminary injunction refers
repeatedly to "the plaintiffs," which he maintains "means
precisely that -- the named plaintiffs in this lawsuit."

He argues "there is no reference anywhere in the (preliminary
injunction) to a 'class' or 'proposed class,' confirming (USCIS')
reading that the injunction does not apply to unidentified third
parties that may claim membership in the putative class."

Mr. Girdharry says Mr. Joseph's request for sanctions against
USCIS "is highly inappropriate and should be rejected outright."
He added "the court should not expand the scope of the
preliminary injunction to the certified class." [GN]


HELIX ENERGY: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
GERALD HERNANDEZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. HELIX ENERGY SOLUTIONS
GROUP, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01588 (S.D. Tex.,
May 16, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, Helix violated the FLSA by employing
Plaintiff and other similarly situated nonexempt employees "for a
workweek longer than 40 hours [but refusing to compensate them]
for [their] employment in excess of 40 hours at a rate not less
than one and one-half times the regular rate at which [they are
or were] employed."

During Plaintiff's employment with Helix, he regularly worked in
excess of 70 hours per week. In fact, Plaintiff worked a minimum
of 84 hours per week each week that he was on rotation. Helix
knew or reasonably should have known that Plaintiff worked in
excess of 40 hours per week. Helix did not pay Plaintiff overtime
"at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate
at which he [was] employed.

Helix Energy Solutions Inc., known as Cal Dive International
prior to 2006, is an American oil and gas services company
headquartered in Houston, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HITACHI AUTOMOTIVE: Court Certifies Class in "Lear" FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington, granted Plaintiffs' Motion
to Certify Class in the case captioned CAROL LEAR and JAMES
TINCHER, On behalf of themselves & all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. HITACHI AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, AMERICAS, INC.,
Defendant, Action No. 5:17-cv-186-JMH (E.D. Ky.).

This is an action for unpaid overtime wages brought by Plaintiffs
Carol Lear and James Tincher on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated employees, including without limitation,
Production Supervisors employed by Defendant Hitachi Automotive
Systems Americas, Inc., at its Berea, Kentucky manufacturing
facilities.  This collective action challenges the Defendant's
policy of failing to pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated employees overtime pay for hours over 40 worked in a
workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Kentucky Wage and Hour Act, KRS Section 337.010.

The case sits at the notice stage of the bifurcated certification
process. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to conditionally certify
their FLSA claim for unpaid overtime wages as a collective action
and order notice of the action to:

     "All current and former supervisors including, without
limitation, Production Supervisors, Quality Supervisors, and
Warehouse Supervisors employed by the Defendant in its Berea,
Kentucky manufacturing facilities at any time since April 24,
2012, excluding all supervisors who have only worked on the south
side of the Berea Motors facility since April 24, 2012."

After consideration of the parties' arguments, the lenient
standard, and in the interest of justice, the Court holds the
notice will include:

     "All current and former supervisors including, without
limitation, Production Supervisors, Quality Supervisors, and
Warehouse Supervisors employed by the Defendant in its Berea,
Kentucky manufacturing facilities at any time since April 24,
2014, who worked more than forty (40) hours in any workweek
during their employment, excluding all supervisors who have only
worked on the south side of the Berea Motors facility since April
24, 2014."

In addition to facilitating notice, the FLSA allows "courts to
monitor preparation and distribution of the notice" to the
putative members of the collective action, thereby ensuring that
it is timely, accurate, and informative.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 26, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yaocovty from Leagle.com.

Carol Lear, On behalf of HERSELF and All Others Similarly
Situated & James Tincher, Plaintiffs, represented by David W.
Garrison -- dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com -- Barrett, Johnston,
Martin & Garrison, LLC, pro hac vice, John Christopher Sanders --
csanders@chrissanderslaw.com -- Joshua A. Frank --
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com -- Barrett, Johnston, Martin &
Garrison, LLC, pro hac vice, Scott P. Tift --
stift@barrettjohnston.com -- Barrett, Johnston, Martin &
Garrison, LLC, pro hac vice & Seth M. Hyatt --
shyatt@barrettjohnston.com -- Barrett, Johnston, Martin &
Garrison, LLC, pro hac vice.

Hitachi America, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Craig P.
Siegenthaler -- csiegenthaler@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher &
Phillips, Lauren Claycomb, Fisher & Phillips, Megan R. U'Sellis -
- musellis@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips & Timothy J.
Weatherholt -- tweatherholt@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher &
Phillips.

Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Craig P. Siegenthaler, Fisher & Phillips, Megan R. U'Sellis,
Fisher & Phillips & Timothy J. Weatherholt, Fisher & Phillips.


HOMES OF OPPORTUNITY: Belmont Moves to Certify RS Managers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned Susan Belmont, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated v. Homes of Opportunity,
Inc. and Lawrence A. Maniaci, Case No. 4:18-cv-10854-LVP-MKM
(E.D. Mich.), moves for the conditional certification of this
collective class:

     All persons who are or have been employed by Defendants
     Homes of Opportunity, Inc. and Lawrence A. Maniaci as
     Residential Services Managers and similar positions for any
     of the homes they operate in Michigan from [three years back
     from the date the Court orders conditional certification] to
     the present.

The Motion is made pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ms. Belmont also asks the Court to order the Defendants to
produce the list necessary to facilitate notice to the proposed
class members.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xm8RtI6W

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Megan A. Bonanni, Esq.
          Robin B. Wagner, Esq.
          PITT, MCGEHEE, PALMER AND RIVERS, P.C.
          117 West Fourth Street, Suite 200
          Royal Oak, MI 48067
          Telephone: (248) 398-9800
          Facsimile: (248) 398-9804
          E-mail: mbonanni@pittlawpc.com
                  rwagner@pittlawpc.com


HOWROYD-WRIGHT EMPLOYMENT: Becerra-South Sues over Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APRIL BECERRA-SOUTH, individually, and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
HOWROYD-WRIGHT EMPLOYMENT AGENCY, INC./APPLE ONE SERVICES, LTD.,
and DOES 1 through 25, the Defendants, Case No. BC705970 (Cal.
Super. Ct., May 16, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under
the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's claims are typical of
the claims of the class members. The Plaintiff and the members of
the class sustained damages arising out of Defendants' common
practice of failing to:

     -- pay overtime wages,
     -- provide meal and rest periods,
     -- pay all wages due at termination,
     -- provide proper paycheck stubs, and
     -- pay all wages for all hours worked.

Howroyd-Wright Employment Agency, Inc., doing business as
AppleOne, provides employment services. It offers career
assistance, direct hire, temporary and contingent, project
staffing, and managed services; and government, payroll
accommodation, education and training, and outplacement
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Gould, Esq.
          Aarin A. Zeif, Esq.
          GOULD & ASSOCIATES
          17822 E 17th Street, Suite 106
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone: (714) 669 2850
          Facsimile: (714) 544 0800
          E-mail: Michael@wageandhourlaw.com
                  Aarin@wageandhourlaw.com


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Defective Brakes Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of New
York granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment in the case captioned ANNE MARIE HAAG, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, Defendant, No. 12-CV-6521L (W.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiff alleges that defendant Hyundai Motor America
breached the terms of an express service warranty, and
misrepresented or omitted material facts about an alleged vehicle
defect at the time she purchased her 2009 Hyundai Santa Fe.

The Plaintiff initially claims that the defendant breached its
obligations to repair or replace her vehicle's brakes, under the
terms of the Limited Warranty that accompanied her purchase of a
2009 Hyundai Santa Fe.

The Defendant argues that the plaintiff's breach of express
warranty claim must be dismissed, because the particular defects
that the plaintiff alleges braking systems with rotors that were
too thin and/or caliper pins that were not galvanized or
otherwise sufficiently anti-corrosive to avoid premature rusting
are, as a matter of law, design defects not covered by the
Warranty, and not defects in factory workmanship or materials.

Under New York law, a manufacturing defect results when a mistake
in manufacturing renders a product that is ordinarily safe
dangerous so that it causes harm, while a design defect results
when the product as designed is unreasonably dangerous for its
intended use.

Here, it appears undisputed that the components of the brake
system for the plaintiff's vehicle were intentionally chosen by
defendant for use throughout the Santa Fe product line.  The
Plaintiff makes no plausible claim, and offers no evidence, that
their inclusion in the plaintiff's vehicle was the result of a
mistake or fabrication flaw. To the contrary, the plaintiff
specifically claims that the entire 2007-2012 Santa Fe product
line suffered from the same defect, premature corrosion of the
braking system, resulting from the intentional use of inferior or
defective materials.

The Plaintiff simply urges the Court to depart from recent
precedent and find that a design defect resulting from an
intentional selection of defective materials is as violative of
the Warranty and covered there-under as much as a negligent or
inadvertent one. Bound as it is by well-settled precedent and
finding no flaw therein, the Court declines to depart from it.

As such, the plaintiff's claims that the entire Santa Fe product
line, as designed, contained a defective rear braking system, are
appropriately viewed as design defect claims rather than
manufacturing defect claims. They are therefore not covered by
the express terms of the Warranty, and fail as a matter of law.

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Section 349 prohibits misleading business
practices which harm consumers, and requires pleading and proof
of three elements: (1) that an act or practice was consumer-
oriented; (2) that it was misleading in a material respect; and
(3) that the plaintiff was injured thereby.

The Plaintiff contends that the defendant concealed, or at least
omitted, information concerning the alleged brake system defect
in her vehicle at the time of purchase.

The Court find that multiple questions of material fact preclude
summary judgment on the plaintiff's consumer protection claim.
These include factual disputes concerning nearly every element of
the claim, including: whether the brake parts at issue were
actually defective; whether and to what extent the defendant was
aware of the defect; whether the defendant concealed or omitted
information concerning the defect and/or the scope of relevant
Warranty coverage to the plaintiff in connection with the
plaintiff's purchase of her vehicle; whether the omission of such
information is material; and whether and to what the plaintiff's
damages are attributable to the concealment or omission of
information by the defendant, rather than to the plaintiff's
alleged failure to perform regular vehicle maintenance.

Because the facts material to the plaintiff's N.Y. General
Business Law Section 349 claim are largely in dispute, as matters
now stand, resolution of that claim on a motion for summary
judgment would be inappropriate.

The Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted in part,
and denied in part.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 26, 2018 Decision
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y95qt4z8 from
Leagle.com.

Anne Marie Haag, both individually and on behalf of a class of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Elmer R.
Keach, III -- bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com -- Law Offices of Elmer
Robert Keach, III, PC, Gary S. Graifman -- ggraifman@kgglaw.com -
- Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., Nicholas A. Migliaccio -
- nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com -- Migliaccio & Rathod, Gary E.
Mason, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP & Jennifer S. Goldstein,
Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, pro hac vice, 518 Monroe Street,
Nashville, TN, 37208

Hyundai Motor America, Defendant, represented by Michael L.
Kidney -- michael.kidney@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US
LLP, pro hac vice, Timothy J. Graber -- tgraber@gmclaw.com --
Gibson, McAskill & Crosby, James W. Clayton --
james.clayton@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, pro hac
vice & Brian P. Crosby -- bcrosby@gmclaw.com -- Gibson, McAskill
& Crosby, LLP.


INTEREXCHANGE INC: 9th Cir. Refuses to Review Au-Pair Class Cert
----------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that former au
pairs alleging their visa sponsors engaged in wage-fixing may
continue with their class action after the Tenth Circuit denied
review of the class certification order April 26.

The sponsors failed to establish that review of the order is
appropriate, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
said.  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) gives federal
appeals court discretion to review class certification orders,
but review is the "exception rather than the rule," the court
said. [GN]


IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Class Certification Sought in "Hovermale" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled JENNIFER D. HOVERMALE, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. IMMEDIATE
CREDIT RECOVERY, INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-05646-RBK-JS (D.N.J.),
moves the Court for an Order certifying the case to proceed as a
class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The Court will commence a hearing on June 4, 2018, at 10:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0vKLU0I1

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          Facsimile: (973) 532-2056
          E-mail: philip@sternthomasson.com
                  andrew@sternthomasson.com


J.C. PENNEY: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Garcia Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINIC GARCIA, an individual and on behalf of current and former
similarly situated employees in the State of California, the
Plaintiff, v. J. C. PENNEY CORPORATION, INC. and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 37-2018-00024148-CU-OE-CTL
(Cal. Super. Ct., May 16, 2018), seeks to recover minimum and
regular wages and overtime wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly-
situated employees of Defendants worked under similar policies,
practices, and procedures relating to wage statements,
recordkeeping, and payment of wages applicable to Defendants'
facilities in California. The Plaintiff and similarly aggrieved
employees were nonexempt hourly employees and eligible to earn
non-discretionary bonuses and commissions based on sales and
performances, including additional remuneration for the sale of
JCP credit cards to customers. The Plaintiff and similarly
aggrieved employees worked more than 8 hours in a workday and/or
more than 40 hours in a workweek.

J. C. Penney is an American department store chain with 850
locations in 49 U.S. states, and Puerto Rico.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Short, Esq.
          Kristina De La Rosa, Esq.
          SHORTLEGAL, APC
          350 10th Ave., Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 272 0720
          Facsimile: (619) 839 3129


JPAY INC: Reyes Moves to Certify Class and Subclass of Ex-Inmates
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled JOE RUDY REYES, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JPAY, INC.;
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; PRAXELL INC.; AND SUNRISE BANKS
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No. 2:18-cv-00315-R-MRW (C.D. Cal.),
moves the Court for an order certifying this class:

     All persons who, from applicable statutes of limitation
     through the present, upon their release from a California
     Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation facility, were
     given the balance of their inmate trust account and/or all
     or a portion of the funds owed to them under Cal. Penal Code
     Section 2713.1 on a "JPay Progress Card," as issued and/or
     serviced by JPay, Inc., Praxell, Inc., and Sunrise Bank
     National Association.

The Plaintiff also moves the Court for an order to certify this
Subclass:

     All persons who, from applicable statutes of limitation
     through the present, upon their release from a California
     Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation facility, were
     given all or a portion of the funds owed to them under Cal.
     Penal Code Section 2713.1 on a "JPay Progress Card," as
     issued and/or serviced by JPay, Inc., Praxell, Inc., and
     Sunrise Bank National Association.

The Plaintiff further moves to have the Plaintiff's Counsel to be
appointed as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on June 4, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RFkxLM6d

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lisa Faye Petak, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          801 Garden Street, Suite 301
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 456-1496
          Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
          E-mail: lpetak@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Griffin, Esq.
          Laura R. Gerber, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com
                  lgerber@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Lisa Faye Petak, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          801 Garden Street, Suite 301
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 456-1496
          Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
          E-mail: lpetak@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Griffin, Esq.
          Laura R. Gerber, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com
                  lgerber@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Sabarish Neelakanta, Esq.
          Daniel Marshall, Esq.
          Masimba Mutamba, Esq.
          THE HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER
          P.O. Box 1151
          Lake Worth, FL 33460
          Telephone: (561) 360-2523
          Facsimile: (866) 228-1681
          E-mail: sneelakanta@humanrightsdefensecenter.org
                  dmarshall@humanrightsdefensecenter.org
                  mmutamba@humanrightsdefensecenter.org


JPMORGAN CHASE: Childresses' Bid to Certify Class Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GARY and ANNE CHILDRESS, et al., the
Plaintiffs, v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 5:16-CV-298-BO (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Terrence W. Boyle
entered an order on May 18, 2018:

   1. granting Parties' joint motion to stay consideration of
      Plaintiffs' pending motions pending the outcome of
      mediation between the parties;

   2. denying without prejudice motions to certify class and to
      compel, with permission to refile in the event the matters
      are not resolved through mediation; and

   3. granting motions to seal filed by JPMorgan Chase.

The Court said, "This action is hereby stayed. The clerk is
directed to remove this case from the Court's active docket while
the parties pursue mediation. At the close of 90 days from the
date of entry of this order, or earlier if mediation is
successful or reaches an impasse, the parties shall file a joint
notice and status report detailing what issues, if any, remain to
be adjudicated. On the filing of the joint notice and status
report, the clerk shall return the case to the Court's active
docket without further order of the Court."

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


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Collins et al Seek to Certify Collective Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled STACY COLLINS, TIANGE LUSENI and LISA
PETERSON, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC.
and KOHL'S CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00065-
VAB (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying an "opt-in" collective action;

   2. approving issuance of notice to:

      "all Assistant Store Managers employed by Defendants at any
      time from May 21, 2015 forward"; and

   2. directing Defendants to produce the names, last known
      addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Xg8ZZMc5

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
          Michael Petela, Esq.
          HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC
          221 Main Street, Suite 502
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Telephone: (860) 522 8888
          Facsimile: (860) 218 9555
          E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com
                  mpetela@hayberlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          PETER DELANO LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994 5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994 5801
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  pdelano@llrlaw.com


LEGEND MINING: Conditional Certification in "Kaesemeyer" Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana, Lafayette Division, denied Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Certification in the case captioned Kaesemeyer, v.
Legend Mining USA Inc et al., Civil Action No. 6:17-cv-01520
(W.D. La.).

The Plaintiff, a resident of the State of Washington, worked for
Legend Mining USA, Inc., the American subsidiary of Legend
Mining, Inc., at the Weeks Island salt mine in Iberia.  The
Plaintiff alleges he was told that pay dates would be the 10th
and 25th of every month.  The Plaintiff alleges he never received
a pay check for the 10 days he worked in October.  The Plaintiff
filed this action alleging causes of action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) for non-payment of wages and miscalculated
regular rate, the Louisiana Wage Payment act, La. R.S. Sections
23:631-632 and breach of contract.

The Plaintiff seeks certification of a collective pursuant to 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b), consisting of:

     "All employees of Legend Mining Inc., and Legend Mining USA,
Inc., within the United states of America, who worked within the
tree years prior to the filing of this Complaint and were not
paid overtime premiums consisting of one and a half times their
regular rate under the FLSA."

The Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to identify any
other potential plaintiffs, failed to obtain affidavits from any
potential plaintiffs, and failed to provide evidentiary support
for the existence of a widespread plan or policy.  The
Plaintiff's Complaint and employment contract do not provide
support for his claim that similarly situated individuals exist,
leaving the Plaintiff with only unsupported and minimal
allegations that Legend violated the FLSA such that it affected
all employees at Legend.  Those bare allegations are insufficient
to support conditional certification.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to show that a
collective action should be conditionally certified and notice
issued. Under Lusardi v. Xerox Corporation, 118 F.R.D. 351
(D.N.J. 1987)) lenient standard, the relevant inquiry for the
Court is whether the Plaintiff has sufficiently shown that other
current and former employees of Legend were together the victims
of a single decision, policy or plan.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 26, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc6wnwrv from Leagle.com.

Daniel Kaesemeyer, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Joseph
Stiegler, Stiegler Law Firm. 318 Harrison Ave., Suite 104, New
Orleans, LA 70124

Legend Mining U S A Inc & Legend Mining Inc, Defendants,
represented by Lisa Brener, Brener Law Firm & Douglas R. Kraus,
Brener Law Firm, 3640 Magazine Street, New Orleans, LA 70115


LEWIS GALE: "Hardy" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH HARDY, KIRK HENDRICKS, RODRIGO CONTRERAS, SHANNON FINKS,
and DEION SANDERS, individually and on behalf of all other
employees and former employees of Lewis Gale Medical Center, LLC
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. LEWIS GALE MEDICAL CENTER,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-00218-EKD (W.D. Va., May 16,
2018), seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages, unpaid
minimum wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorney's fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs are all hourly, non-exempt
employees within the definition of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
and therefore are entitled to minimum wages and to overtime
compensation for any hours worked over 40 hours per week. The
Defendant strongly encouraged, or required, Plaintiffs to clock
in seven minutes prior to the start of their shift. Plaintiffs
are prohibited from signing in more than seven minutes early. The
Plaintiffs were only permitted to clock out within the seven
minute period prior to the end of their shift if their
replacement had already reported for duty.

Lewis Gale Medical Center, LLC operates hospitals and medical
centers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John P. Fishwick, Jr., Esq.
          Monica L. Mroz, Esq.
          Carrol M. Ching, Esq.
          FISHWICK & ASSOCIATES PLC
          101 South Jefferson Street, Suite 500
          Roanoke, VA 24011
          Telephone: (540) 345 5890
          Facsimile: (540) 343 5789
          E-mail: John.Fishwick@fishwickandassociates.com
                  Monica.Mroz@fishwickandassociates.com
                  Carrol.Ching@fishwickandassociates.com


LIVE NATION: June 18 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on April 30
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.
(NYSE: LYV) from February 23, 2017 through March 30, 2018, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Live Nation investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Live Nation class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1333.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) Live Nation failed to abide by the terms of an
antitrust consent decree with the Department of Justice (the
"Consent Decree"); (2) Live Nation lacked adequate internal
controls to prevent a violation of the Consent Decree; and (3) as
a result of the foregoing, Live Nation's financial statements and
defendants' statements about Live Nation's business, operations,
and prospects, were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. 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 18, 2018.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1333.htmlto join the class
action. You may also contact Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of
Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. [GN]


LYFT: Drivers File Class Action Over Undisclosed Charges
--------------------------------------------------------
Eric Ross, writing for Koaa, reports that the popular ride-
sharing service "Lyft" is at the center of a federal lawsuit --
accused of ripping off its drivers.

Chief Investigative Reporter Eric Ross put the company's honesty
and integrity to the test to see whether it's being upfront about
how it pays employees.

News 5 Investigates took 5 Lyft rides and on every ride, there
was a difference in the fare Lyft charged us and what the company
told the driver we paid.  This price discrepancy happened before
Lyft took out its standard service fees.

James Campbell has been driving for Lyft for about 6 months.

"You are your own boss," he said.  "You don't have to answer to
anybody."

Mr. Campbell retired from the oil industry and drives part-time
to stay make a little extra money.

"I like to make at least $50 a day," he said.

With Mr. Campbell's permission, News 5 hit the streets to find
out whether the billion dollar company is taking advantage of
employees.

On our first ride, we had Campbell take us from our studio in
Colorado Springs to the Starbucks in The Promenade Shoppes at
Briargate -- about 5 miles away.

At the end of our ride, we compared the fare.

On our phone, we paid $10.81 for the ride.  However, it showed
Campbell we paid $8.94 for our ride and then Lyft took out $2.24
in service fees to give him a total of $6.70.

"So we're missing about a dollar and something somewhere,"
Mr. Campbell said.

It's actually $1.87 fare difference Lyft didn't tell the driver
about.  That's in addition to the $2.24 service fee Lyft took
out, bringing the total fees to $4.11.

On our second ride, we had Campbell drive from the Briargate
Starbucks to the Kum and Go gas station on N. Chestnut which is a
little more than 7.5 miles away.

On this ride, Lyft charged us $13.43.  On Campbell's phone, Lyft
showed him we paid $10.57 -- a $2.87 difference.  That's before
Lyft deducted it's "service fee" of $2.64, bringing the total
fees to $5.50.

"It all adds up," Mr. Campbell said.  "Did I get stiffed or does
Lyft have an account somewhere that the dollar (discrepancy) is
paying for like a lawsuit?"

Lyft is currently fighting a federal lawsuit which claims the
company is deceiving drivers and underpaying them, while lining
the company's pocketbook.

In all of our rides, we noticed at least a $1.50 discrepancy
between what Lyft charged us for the our fare, and what Lyft told
the drivers we paid.

"Lyft is making plenty of money," Mr. Campbell said.

Of course, Mr. Campbell would like to see the pay scale be more
transparent.

"They don't explain crap," he said.

Mr. Campbell would also like to see more of the money go back to
the drivers since they also have to factor in the cost of gas.

"We take what we make and we make the best of it," he said.

Lyft declined to comment on pending litigation but did send us
the following statement:

"Drivers are integral to Lyft, and we are constantly working to
help them achieve their goals.  That's why Lyft has offered in-
app tipping since our earliest days and was the first to
introduce key features like same-day payments and low-cost car
rentals.  It's important to note that passenger pricing and
driver pay are based on different factors, explained in Lyft's
Terms of Service.  Passengers who input a destination when
requesting a ride pay based on the estimated time and distance of
the trip, which is quoted to them at the time of booking.  This
allows passengers to see upfront how much their ride will cost.
Drivers are paid based on the actual time and distance of the
trip, calculated once it is completed.  This helps ensure that if
a driver encounters a variable that makes the ride longer, such
as traffic, they are not underpaid because the estimate given to
the passenger was lower than the actual cost of the ride.  Lyft
does charge a service fee on each ride, which helps power the
Lyft platform and related services." [GN]


M3 FINANCIAL: Mason Seeks Final Approval of $600K Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled ELAINE MASON, on behalf of
herself, and all others similarly situated v. M3 FINANCIAL
SERVICES, INC., an Illinois corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-04194
(N.D. Ill.), moves for final approval of class action settlement.

In her complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that M3's debt collection
efforts violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") and by using
prerecorded voice messages to call consumers cell phones without
consent.  Following extensive discovery and settlement
negotiations, the Parties reached a settlement that provides
extraordinary relief to consumers.

M3 has agreed to establish a $600,000 Settlement Fund for the
19,385 Settlement Class Members whose cellphone numbers were
called by M3 during the Class Period and were identified on the
Class List.  Each is entitled to a pro rata payment from the
Settlement Fund, after the costs of notice and claims
administration, attorneys' fees and litigation costs and an
incentive payment is deduced from the Settlement Fund.  Based on
the number of approved claims, each claimant is expected to
receive approximately $360.

The Settlement Class is defined in the Agreement as follows:

     All persons in the United States who (1) received one or
     more calls from M3 Financial, (2) that were placed through
     the Global Connect dialing platform (ATDS and/or
     pre-recorded voice message), (3) on his or her cellular
     telephone(s), (4) and that number was not listed in the
     patient or guarantor field on the account in which the
     call(s) were placed, (5) from May 12, 2011 through May 26,
     2016, and (6) whose telephone numbers are identified in the
     Class List.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
          Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  alexis@consumersadvocates.com
                  kas@consumersadvocates.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Salas, Esq.
          SALAS WANG LLC
          73 W. Monroe, Suite 219
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 803-4963
          E-mail: jsalas@salaswang.com


MASTRIA INCORPORATED: "De Leon" Suit Can't Proceed as Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled HECTOR DE LEON, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
MASTRIA INCORPORATED, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-
00626-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila entered an
order on May 21, 2018, denying Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
class certification.

The Court said, "On January 25, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a
motion seeking conditional class certification pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants opposed. In their reply, the
Plaintiffs responded that they 'do not contest Defendants'
request for an order denying their motion for FLSA class
certification. This case shall proceed only on the individual
claims of the named plaintiffs that remain in the case, Hector De
Leon and Carlos Cisneros. No further amended complaint shall be
filed."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LpcMa19w


MAZZONE MANAGEMENT: Olvera, et al. Seek to Certify 3 Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JULIO A. OLVERA, et al., on behalf of
themselves, and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
MAZZONE MANAGEMENT GROUP LTD., et al., the Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-00502-BKS-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
for an order:

   1. certifying three classes including Collective Action Class
      pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act; New York
      Restaurant Class; and New York Restaurant Class; and

   2. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as co-counsel for the
      Classes.

The FLSA Collective Action Class is defined as:

   "all tipped, hourly workers employed by Mazzone Restaurants
   (waiters, waitresses, bartenders, bussers, runners, and other
   hourly service workers) within three years prior to [April 29,
   2016] through the date of final disposition of this action and
   who were subject to Defendants' unlawful practices of
   illegally retaining portions of tips when customers purchased
   wine";

The New York Restaurant Class is defined as:

   "all tipped, hourly workers employed by Mazzone Restaurants
   (waiters, waitresses, bartenders, bussers, runners, and other
   hourly service workers) within three years prior to [April 29,
   2016] through the date of final disposition of this action and
   who were subject to Defendants' unlawful practices of: (1)
   illegally retaining portions of tips when customers purchased
   wine"; (2) failing to pay minimum wage under the New York
   labor Law and/or (3) failing to provide tipped workers with
   required notice and obtaining signed acknowledgement of such
   notice"; and

The New York Catering Class is defined as:

   "all tipped, hourly workers employed by Mazzone Restaurants
   (waiters, waitresses, bartenders, bussers, runners, and other
   hourly service workers) within three years prior to [April 29,
   2016] through the date of final disposition of this action and
   who were subject to Defendants' unlawful practices of: (1)
   taking deductions from the Class members tip pool by failing
   to pass along the 20% Service charge or Catering Fee placed on
   customers' bills to employees as a gratuity; and/or (2)
   deducting wages for meals, regardless of whether employees ate
   meals at catered events";

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NkEYG2pf

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the putative Class:

          WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
          90 Woodbridge Center Drive
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095
          Telephone: (732) 636 8000

               - and -

          FLEISCHMAN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          565 Fifth Avenue, Seventh Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 880 9567

               - and -

          LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH T. MOEN
          45 Prospect Street
          Cambridge, MA 02139
          Telephone: (61) 575 9240


MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: July 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
If You Purchased Solodyn(R) and/or Its Generic Equivalent You
Could Get Money From A Class Action Lawsuit Settlement

A proposed $20 million settlement has been reached in a class
action lawsuit involving the antibiotic drug Solodyn(R).  The
lawsuit claims that Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., Impax
Laboratories, Inc., Lupin Limited, Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
and Sandoz Inc. (the "Defendants") violated state competition
(i.e. antitrust and consumer protection) and unjust enrichment
laws by agreeing not to compete with each other and keeping
lower-cost generic versions of Solodyn(R) off the market. The
Defendants deny this.  No one is claiming that Solodyn(R) is
unsafe or ineffective.

What does the settlement provide?

To settle the lawsuit, Impax Laboratories, Inc. has agreed to pay
$20 million into a Settlement Fund to settle all claims in the
lawsuit brought on behalf of consumers and health insurers known
as third-party payors.  This settlement is in addition to the $23
million settlement recently announced with Medicis Pharmaceutical
Corp.

Class Counsel will ask the Court to award attorneys' fees in an
amount not to exceed one-third of the Settlement Fund, plus
interest, litigation expenses and incentive payments to the Class
Representatives.  After these deductions, the remainder of the
Settlement Fund will be distributed pro rata to Class Members who
file a valid claim form.  The amount of money you are eligible to
receive will depend on how much you (and other consumers) paid
for Solodyn(R) or generic versions of Solodyn(R).

Who is included?

Generally, you are included in the Classes if you purchased, paid
and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of 45mg, 55mg,
65mg, 80mg, 90mg, 105mg, 115mg, and/or 135mg Solodyn(R) and/or
its generic equivalent prescription in AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, FL,
HI, ID, IL, IA, KS, LA, ME, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH,
NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OK, OR, RI, SD, TN, UT, VT, WA, WV, WI, WY,
DC and PR, in tablet form, from July 23, 2009 through February
25, 2018, inclusive. Certain third-party payors are also members
of the Classes.

You are NOT a member of the Classes if: you paid a "flat co-
payment" for all of your prescription drug purchases regardless
of whether they are brand or generic; you are one of the
Defendants or an officer, director, manager, employee,
subsidiary, or affiliate of any Defendant(s); you purchased only
directly from Defendants or for resale purposes; you purchased or
received Solodyn(R) or its generic equivalent only through a
Medicaid program; you are a Pharmacy Benefit Manager; or you are
the judge in this lawsuit or a member of the judge's immediate
family.

How do I get a payment?

You must submit a Claim Form by July 31, 2018 to be eligible for
a payment. The Claim Form, and instructions on how to submit it,
are available at www.SolodynCase.com or by calling 1-800-332-
7414.  If you previously submitted a Claim Form for the Medicis
settlement, you do not need to submit another Claim Form.  Your
previous Claim Form will be used to calculate any payment that
you may be entitled to.

What are my other rights?

If you are a Class Member, you may comment on or object to the
proposed Settlement.  To do so, you must act by June 18, 2018.
Details on how to comment or object are at www.SolodynCase.com.

The Court will hold a hearing tentatively set for 3:00 p.m. on
July 18, 2018, to consider whether the Settlement and all of the
terms are fair, reasonable, and adequate.  These deadlines may be
amended by Court Order, so check the litigation website noted
below.

For More Information or to Request a Claim Form
Visit www.SolodynCase.com
Call 1-800-332-7414  [GN]


MOLINA HEALTHCARE: June 29 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., on April 30 disclosed that a complaint
has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of all persons or
entities that purchased the common stock of Molina Healthcare,
Inc. ("Molina" or the "Company") (NYSE: MOH) between August 31,
2014 and August 2, 2017, 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 Molina during the Class Period, or
purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Molina,
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: (1)
Molina's administrative infrastructure was never designed to
handle the size and complexity of the Company's rapid growth
strategy; (2) Molina failed to remediate systemic issues and
costly disruptions with critical administrative infrastructure
functions including provider payment and utilization management;
and (3) as a result, Molina common stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.  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 August 2, 2017, the Company
withdrew its 2017 earnings outlook and announced that it will
eliminate 1,500 jobs, and exit certain Obamacare markets after
the health insurer posted a steep second quarter loss.

On this news, shares of Molina declined almost 6%, closing at
$62.32 per share on August 3, 2017, on heavy trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than June 29, 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. [GN]


NATIONAL RAILROAD: Campbell's Bid for Class Certification Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Emmet G. Sullivan entered an order in the consolidated
lawsuits captioned KENNETH CAMPBELL, et al. v. NATIONAL RAILROAD
PASSENGER CORPORATION, Case No. 1:99-cv-02979-EGS (D.D.C.), and
LORETTA K. BETHEA v. AMTRAK POLICE DEPARTMENT, Case No. 1:01-cv-
01513-EGS (D.D.C.),

   -- granting Amtrak's motion to exclude the report and
      testimony of Jay M. Finkelman;

   -- denying Amtrak's motion to exclude the report and testimony
      of Thomas Roth;

   -- denying Amtrak's motion to exclude the report and testimony
      of Edwin Bradley and Liesl Fox;

   -- granting in part Amtrak's motion to strike portions of the
      declarations filed by the Plaintiffs in support of class
      certification;

   -- granting in part and denying in part Amtrak's motion to
      strike the Plaintiffs' reply in further support of their
      motion for class certification;

   -- denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;

   -- granting Amtrak's motion for partial summary judgment;

   -- dismissing the Plaintiffs' disparate-impact claims are;

   -- directing the parties to submit a joint status report,
      setting forth their recommendations for further proceedings
      in the case, by no later than June 14, 2018; and

   -- vacating the motion hearing that was scheduled for May 11,
      2018, at 10:30 a.m.

Copies of the Order are available at no charge at:

   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EmvwdGwB
   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5jyDRTdD


NATIONAL UNION: Bid to Enjoin "Zebersky" Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned STEPHEN GIERCYK, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 13-6272 (D.N.J.), the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part and
denied in part Class Counsel Golomb & Honik, P.C., The Aughtman
Law Firm, and Hemmings & Stevens, PLLC's (Class Counsel) motion
to enjoin a Florida state action brought by Zebersky Payne LLP
(Zebersky) against Class Counsel.

Zebersky has initiated the Florida State Court Action challenging
Class Counsel's fee allocation and seeking declaratory judgment
that Class Counsel and Zebersky are required to mediate the
dispute over attorneys' fees under the first Joint Prosecution
Agreement.

Zebersky argues that, even if the Court has retained jurisdiction
over fee-related disputes, the Court cannot enjoin the Florida
State Action under the All Writs Act.  Zebersky notes that in In
re Linerboard, the Third Circuit relied on the "in aid of
jurisdiction" exception to the Anti-Injunction Act because the
multi-district litigation in that case was ongoing and thus a
parallel action threatened to disrupt the orderly resolution of
the federal litigation.  The Court finds that Zebersky is correct
that in this case, the litigation is complete.

Even if the Court were to accept Zebersky's argument that the
case is concluded, the Court would still find that an injunction
is appropriate to protect the finality of its judgment and
prevent relitigation.  Here, the Court issued an Order which, by
approving the Settlement Agreement, delegated to Class Counsel
the responsibility for allocating attorneys' fees "based on the
expenses incurred and the contributions of counsel."  Rather than
challenge the Settlement Agreement or Order, Zebersky chose to
initiate a new proceeding in Florida state court seeking monetary
damages from Class Counsel.

Zebersky argues that the Florida State Action concerns a private
contractual dispute between Zebersky and Class Counsel, but
ignores the fact that the dispute concerns the allocation of
attorneys' fees in the litigation, a matter on which the Court
has already ruled.  The Florida State Action threatens the
finality of the Court's Order and cannot go forward.  An
injunction is necessary to protect or effectuate the Court's
judgment.

Accordingly, the Court granted Class Counsel's motion to enjoin
the Florida State Action.  As the parties have not briefed Class
Counsel's motion to approve the fee allocation recommendation as
to Zebersky, that request is denied without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 26, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y92kcqvv from Leagle.com.

STEPHEN GIERCYK, Plaintiff, represented by RICHARD M. GOLOMB-
rgolomb@golombhonik.com -- GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.,KENNETH J.
GRUNFELD -- kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com -- GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.,
KEVIN WILLIAM FAY -- kfay@eckertseamans.com -- ECKERT SEAMANS
CHERIN & MELLOTT & RUBEN HONIK -- rhonik@golombhonik.com --
GOLUMB & HONIK, P.C.

Ajay Das, Plaintiff, represented by KENNETH J. GRUNFELD, GOLOMB &
HONIK, P.C.

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, doing
business as NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, A DIVISION OF
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. (AIG), Defendant, represented
by BRIAN M. ENGLISH -- benglish@tompkinsmcguire.com -- TOMPKINS,
MCGUIRE, WACHENFELD & BARRY, LLP, WILLIAM B. MCGUIRE, TOMPKINS,
MCGUIRE, WACHENFELD & BARRY, LLP & GRANT W. MCGUIRE, TOMPKINS,
MCGUIRE, WACHENFELD & BARRY, LLP,  3 Becker Farm Rd #402,
Roseland, NJ 07068, USA.


NEVADA: Court Narrows Claims in "Walden" Wage & Hour Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada
granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' First Amended Collective and Class Action Complaint
in the case captioned DONALD WALDEN JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v.
STATE OF NEVADA, ex rel. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, and
DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 3:14-cv-00320-MMD-WGC (D. Nev.).

The Plaintiffs are individuals who were or are employed with NDOC
as non-exempt hourly correctional officers.  The Plaintiffs were
required to and did work a forty-hour workweek. If the Plaintiffs
worked an alternative variable workweek schedule, they were
required to work and did work eighty hours in a two-week period.
As a matter of policy, the Plaintiffs were only compensated for
regularly scheduled shift times at their work stations.  However,
the Plaintiffs were required to perform tasks before and after
their shifts (commonly referred to as preliminary and
postliminary activities. They claim that they were not
compensated for these activities.

The Defendant makes five arguments in support of dismissing the
FAC: (1) accepting the Plaintiffs' allegations as true, each
earned more than $7.25 per hour and therefore the FAC fails to
state a violation of the FLSA's minimum wage requirement;
(2) the Plaintiffs failed to plead any facts to establish a nexus
between assertions that they were uncompensated for 45 minutes of
pre- and post-shift activities, especially in light of the
uniqueness of their jobs, the different size of the NDOC
facilities, and the different tools each had to use for their
positions; (3) the Nevada Constitution's Minimum Wage Amendment
("MWA") does not apply to government employees; (4) the
Plaintiffs' NRS Section 284.180 claim lacks merit because the
Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies prior
to filing suit; and (5) the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim
should be dismissed because Plaintiffs' employment with NDOC is
statutory, not contractual, and no actual contract is identified
as having been breached.

Straight Time Claim

In responding to the Defendant's contention that the FAC fails to
state a violation of the FLSA's minimum wage requirement, the
Plaintiffs point out that their first claim is not a minimum wage
claim; rather, it is a straight time claim. The Defendant does
not address whether a straight time claim should be dismissed in
its reply and instead states that "Plaintiffs are improperly
seeking to amend their complaint via their opposition, as the
Court's prior order granting leave to amend did not include
language permitting a new straight time claim."

However, in light of the Plaintiffs' clarification that they are
asserting a failure to pay wages claim, the Court will permit the
claim to proceed.  The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is therefore
denied as to Plaintiffs' first claim.

Overtime Claim

The Defendant makes two independent arguments: first, the FAC's
allegations regarding the Defendant's failure to pay overtime
does not meet the specificity requirements of Landers; and
second, the facts as alleged are insufficient to demonstrate that
the pre- and post-shift tasks are compensable under the FLSA.

In Landers, the Ninth Circuit stated that at a minimum, a
plaintiff asserting a violation of the FLSA overtime provisions
must allege that she worked more than forty hours in a given
workweek without being compensated for the hours worked in excess
of forty during that week, and that a plaintiff may establish a
plausible claim by estimating the length of her average workweek
during the applicable period and the average rate at which she
was paid, the amount of overtime wages she believes she is owed,
or any other facts that will permit the court to find
plausibility.

The Plaintiffs remedied the previous deficiencies in their
complaint by identifying the applicable time period, identifying
a given workweek with the hours above forty hours for which each
Plaintiff was not compensated, and the amount each Plaintiff
believes they are owed in overtime wages for each year worked.
This is sufficient to satisfy Landers.

The Motion to Dismiss is therefore denied as to the Plaintiff's
claim for failure to pay wages in violation of the FLSA.

Pre- and Post-Shift Activities as Compensable Work

It is axiomatic, under the FLSA, that employers must pay
employees for all hours worked.

The Defendant first argues that the FAC's allegations fail to
show that the Plaintiffs' pre- and post-shift activities are work
under the FLSA. While the FLSA does not define the term work, the
Supreme Court has defined work as physical or mental exertion,
whether burdensome or not, controlled or required by the employer
and pursued necessarily and primarily for the benefit of the
employer.

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs: do not allege that NDOC
requires when each officer is required to perform the identified
activities or that NDOC required them to do these activities off-
the-clock; do not allege in the FAC that there are differences in
the time when the Plaintiffs are required to report to the prison
[versus] when they are required to report to their assigned posts
for the day; arrive early for their own convenience or the
convenience of fellow employees; and fail to allege sufficient
facts to show that NDOC derives any benefits from these
activities because presumably, NDOC's respective prisons still
have officers on duty.

However, the Court is able to reasonably infer from the
allegations in the FAC that NDOC required these activities to be
performed without compensation and therefore off the clock; that
these activities were required to be performed before the start
of regularly scheduled shifts and after the end of regularly
scheduled shifts; and that the Plaintiffs arrived early to
complete these preliminary tasks because NDOC required them to do
so.

The Defendant also argues that these activities are de minimus
and again asserts that the factual allegations in the FAC are
implausible. The Court, however, does not quibble about the
plausibility of facts when doing so would require this Court to
look at evidence outside the pleadings. What is sufficient at
this stage of the litigation is that there is a scope of
activities that employees must perform, that these activities are
integral and indispensable to their positions as prison guards,
and that the factual allegations are that these activities
generally take 45 minutes to perform off the clock.

The Court therefore finds that the FAC's allegations permit this
Court to make the reasonable inference that these activities, as
alleged, are not de minimis.

The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is therefore denied as to the
Plaintiff's claim for violation of the FLSA's overtime provision.

Minimum Wage Amendment Claim

It is unclear from the plain language of the MWA whether other
entity applies to the state government. The MWA states in
relevant part that an employer is any other entity that may
employ individuals.

The Court therefore denies the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as
to this claim without prejudice and directs supplemental briefing
as to whether this issue should be certified and the effect of
certification on the remaining claims in this action.

NRS Section 284.180 Claim

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff has failed to plead facts
demonstrating they have exhausted the administrative requirements
of NRS Chapter 284.

The Plaintiffs are wrong. NRS Section 284.195 applies where an
employee has been appointed to a position of employment by an
appointing authority where the appointment of the employee is
contrary to law and regulation and payroll certification does not
occur. That unlawfully appointed employee then may sue the
appointing authority and not the State of Nevada, for the amount
that employee is owed based on any work she performed, and she
may initiate a private right of action without going through the
administrative grievance process normally required of state
employees.

Therefore, the claim for violation of NRS Section 284.180 is
dismissed without prejudice.

Breach of Contract

The Defendant argues in relevant part that NDOC's Variable Work
Schedule Request form (Variable Request Form) is not an
employment agreement and is instead a document simply giving
employees the choice of working either a forty-hour workweek over
the course of five days or an eighty-hour workweek over the
course of fourteen days.

The Plaintiffs state that their breach of contract claim is
premised upon the determination that the pre- and post-shift work
is compensable under federal and state law.

The Variable Request Form, however, is clearly an agreement to
work a variable schedule in a workweek, not an agreement or
contract to pay overtime. To the extent the Variable Request Form
states that overtime will be paid under NRS Section 284.180, this
is merely a statement of what the law requires of the Defendant.
The Court therefore finds that the Variable Request Form is not a
contract to pay overtime wages to the Plaintiffs. The Court
therefore dismisses the breach of contract claim.

Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted in part
and denied in part. It is granted as to the Plaintiffs' claim for
violation of NRS Section 284.180 and the Plaintiffs' claim for
breach of contract. It is denied as to the Plaintiff's remaining
claims and is denied without prejudice as to the Plaintiffs'
claim for violation of the Minimum Wage Amendment.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 26, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycflqeml from Leagle.com.

Nathan Echeverria, Aaron Dicus, Brent Everist, Daniel Tracy,
Martin Gaura, Added by FLSA Consent see document, Terry Greene,
FLSA Consent, Eric Hood, FLSA Consent, John Hurt, FLSA Consent,
Edward Inwood, FLSA Consent, James Kelly, FLSA Consent, Floyd
Miller, FLSA Consent, Curtis Smith, FLSA Consent, Kenneth Webb,
FLSA Consent, Ingrid White, FLSA Consent, Johnathan R. Allen-
Ricksecker, FLSA Consent, Josep Allison, FLSA Consent, Yesenia
Aviles, FLSA Consent, Robert P. Barker, FLSA Consent, Rocky
Baros, FLSA Consent, Francisco Bautista, FLSA Consent, Kathleen
E. Beaver, FLSA Consent, Taerik Berry, FLSA Consent, Erica Brown,
FLSA Consent, Mark Brown, FLSA Consent, Wendall Bunting, FLSA
Consent, Karen Chislett, FLSA Consent, Kenneth J. Clark, FLSA
Consent, William M. Clarke, FLSA Consent, Willie Clayton, FLSA
Consent, Kenneth F. Corzine, FLSA Consent, Tirome Dale, FLSA
Consent, Terry Day, FLSA Consent, Kevin Dennis, FLSA Consent,
John J. Dibari, FLSA Consent, Franklin E. Dickens, FLSA Consent,
Michael Fuscarino, FLSA Consent, Anthony Garcia, FLSA Consent,
Jeffrey R. Gilbert, FLSA Consent, Douglas Hamilton, FLSA Consent,
Tejay Harvey, FLSA Consent, Robert D. Hendricks, FLSA Consent,
Johnny Raymond Isum, FLSA Consent, Martin P. Kelly, FLSA Consent,
Nathan Kennet, FLSA Consent, Dariusz Krol, FLSA Consent, Efrain
Lona, FLSA Consent, David J. Luce, FLSA Consent, Mark S.
Mooberry, FLSA Consent, Walter Oilar, FLSA Consent, Burch M.
Perry, FLSA Consent, Jeremy D. Peterson, FLSA Consent, Mark David
Poland, FLSA Consent, Domingo J. Quintanilla, FLSA Consent,
Jonathan Rivera, FLSA Consent, Christian Ruchel, FLSA Consent,
Aaron Ryer, FLSA Consent, Danilo Santos, FLSA Consent, Justin
Scarano, FLSA Consent, Chris Schaeffer, FLSA Consent, Shannon
Shelton, FLSA Consent, Frank M. Sherman, FLSA Consent, Brian
Shultz, FLSA Consent, Daniel Tedesco, FLSA Consent, Joel E.
Tyning, FLSA Consent, Claye Vogelsang, FLSA Consent, Jacob
Walden, FLSA Consent, Sandra Walker, FLSA Consent, Bruce C.
Welsch, FLSA Consent, Daniel Zurschiede, FLSA Consent, Robert
Ahmad, FLSA Consent [12], Tania Arguello, FLSA Consent [12],
Richard Bogue, FLSA Consent [12], Sean J. Brooks, FLSA Consent
[12], Timothy Carlman, FLSA Consent [12], Loren G. Chupulin, FLSA
Consent [12], Rashay Crosswhile, FLSA Consent [12], Ronald Davis,
FLSA Consent [12], Finley Cornelius, FLSA Consent [12], Rick
Giancola, FLSA Consent [12], Greg Gillam, FLSA Consent [12],
Kristopher Ledingham, FLSA Consent [12], Mark Marangi, FLSA
Consent [12], Shalon Marangi, FLSA Consent [12], Perry Mikel,
FLSA Consent [12], Daniel L. Mondragon, FLSA Consent [12], Jason
N. Nelson, FLSA Consent [12], Cory Newton, FLSA Consent [12],
Jorge Olague, FLSA Consent [12], Curtis Welby Peery, FLSA Consent
[12], Dshamba Prater, FLSA Consent [12], Charles Ratcliff, FLSA
Consent [12], Timothy Ridenour, FLSA Consent [12], Luis A.
Rodriguez, FLSA Consent [12], William Sevier, FLSA Consent [12],
William Tobin, FLSA Consent [12], Kirk Darrell Valdez, FLSA
Consent [12], Emilio Vignapiano, FLSA Consent [12], Eric A. Ward,
FLSA Consent [12], Aaron C. White, FLSA Consent [12], Brenda
Williams, FLSA Consent [12], Omar Bass, FLSA Consent [15], Johnny
Bilavarn, FLSA Consent [15], Efren De Jesus, FLSA Consent [15],
Terrel A. Gregory, FLSA Consent [15], Mark Grimaldi, FLSA Consent
[15], Jimmy Jones, FLSA Consent [15], Joseph Lewis, FLSA Consent
[15], Paul Lunkwltz, FLSA Consent [15], Ronald A. Mirador, FLSA
Consent [15], Danielle Money, FLSA Consent [15], Michael Naylor,
FLSA Consent [15], Larry W. Roberts, FLSA Consent [15],
Christopher Sloan, FLSA Consent [15], Shawn Thorne, FLSA Consent
[15], Robert D. Varay, FLSA Consent [15], Cuong Vo, FLSA Consent
[15], Robert Ashcraft, FLSA Consent [18], James Barnett, FLSA
Consent [18], Giovanni Capra, FLSA Consent [18], Willie Clayton,
FLSA Consent [18], James T. Cook, FLSA Consent [18], Huston
Crutchfield, FLSA Consent [18], Radek Dvorak, FLSA Consent [18],
Michael A. Flores-Nava, FLSA Consent [18], Michael Ford, FLSA
Consent [18], Michael P. Gavin, FLSA Consent [18], Tony Lai, FLSA
Consent [18], Cory Lee, FLSA Consent [18], Robert Baker, FLSA
Consent [19], John Bankston, FLSA Consent [19], Christopher
Caggiano, FLSA Consent [19], Lonnie Crose, FLSA Consent [19],
Gilber Fuentes, FLSA Consent [19], Steven Indiveri, FLSA Consent
[19], Colby Ingram, FLSA Consent [19], Christopher Jones, FLSA
Consent [19], Emory King, FLSA Consent [19], Christopher Neville,
FLSA Consent [19], Donald Pierce, FLSA Consent [19], Jan Michael
Shultz, FLSA Consent [19], Jamie Stevens, FLSA Consent [19],
Emery Williams, FLSA Consent [19], Richard Atherton, FLSA Consent
[24], Russel Atkins, FLSA Consent [24], Joseph Baros, FLSA
Consent [24], Nickey Brooks, FLSA Consent [24], Vincent Brooks,
FLSA Consent [24], Timothy Calderone, FLSA Consent [24], Michael
Chavez, FLSA Consent [24], Todd Drake, FLSA Consent [24], James
Hogan, FLSA Consent [24], Abdi S. Ismail, FLSA Consent [24],
Chais Vee Jenkins, FLSA Consent [24], Sarkis Jopalian, FLSA
Consent [24], Felix J. Kreskey, FLSA Consent [24], Todd Ludwig,
FLSA Consent [24], Nicholas McGahuey, FLSA Consent [24], Antoine
Norman, FLSA Consent [24], Vincent Saladino, FLSA Consent [24],
Mitchell Villegas, FLSA Consent [24], Gregory Bennett, FLSA
Consent [34], Benitez Christian, FLSA Consent [34], Gerald
Collette, FLSA Consent [34], Donald W. Davis, FLSA Consent [34],
Lukas Ferris, FLSA Consent [34], Michael Gaskins, FLSA Consent
[34], Bradley Hansen, FLSA Consent [34], Julio Mesa, FLSA Consent
[34], Gilbert J. Ramirez, FLSA Consent [34], Donald Thorpe, FLSA
Consent [34], Adrian Arias, FLSA consent[35], Tanya Armerdariz,
FLSA consent [35], Ben Eric V. Calvez, FLSA consent [35], Gerald
Clarett, FLSA consent [35], Detlin Georgiev, FLSA consent [35],
Eric Mark, FLSA consent [35], Charles J. Razmic, FLSA consent
[35], David Soley, FLSA consent [35], Jeremy Summers, FLSA
consent [35], Diego Torres, FLSA consent [35], Jesse Vargas, FLSA
consent [35], Stewart Whalum, FLSA consent [35], Curtis Willhite,
FLSA consent [35], Jurea A. Williams, FLSA consent [35], Bryan E.
Wilson, FLSA consent [35], :;pud Brewster, FLSA consent [37],
Hector Carrillo, FLSA consent [37], Benjamin R. Fehr, FLSA
consent [37], Gary Garrison, FLSA consent [37], Sean Horlacher,
FLSA consent [37], Eric Jones, FLSA consent [37], Sean Olsen,
FLSA consent [37], David K. Magnum, FLSA consent [37], Teresa G
McCastle, FLSA consent [37], Richard Martin, FLSA consent [37],
Michael A. Ramos, FLSA consent [37], Edwin Segovia, FLSA consent
[37], Stanley Thomas Shinault, FLSA consent [37], Phillip Travis,
FLSA consent [37], Derland Blake, FLSA consent [38], Canute
Brown, FLSA consent [38], Taham Castillo, FLSA consent [38],
Russell Garvin, FLSA consent [38], Brian Gentile, FLSA consent
[38], Judith Gibson, FLSA consent [38], Britney Harris, FLSA
consent [38], Jonathan Lara, FLSA consent [38], Jack Maurer, FLSA
consent [38], Charles May, FLSA consent [38], Gustavo Sanchez,
FLSA consent [38], Bret Sandborn, FLSA consent [38], Dory
Vesperas, FLSA consent [38], Carl Arnold, FLSA consent [40],
Timothy Dressler, FLSA consent [40], Martin K. Freeman, FLSA
consent [40], Pedro Guerra, FLSA consent [40], Charles May, FLSA
consent [40], Andre Shawn Natali, FLSA consent [40], Jose
Navarrete, FLSA consent [40], Teresa Radke, FLSA consent [40],
Alonzo Romero, FLSA consent [40], Cameron Seisan, FLSA consent
[40], Scott J. Smith, FLSA consent [40], Darin Statton, FLSA
consent [40], Dennis M. Stuckey, FLSA consent [40], David Wilson,
FLSA consent [40], Jonathan Binder, FLSA consent [44], Michael
Dane, FLSA consent [44], Scott Gilbert, FLSA consent [43], Jose
Haros, FLSA consent [44], Floyd Marshall, FLSA consent [43], Todd
Miller, FLSA consent [41], Jason Saing, FLSA consent [41], Mark
Tansey, FLSA consent [44], Anthony Vaccaro, FLSA consent [43],
Cresencio Zamora, FLSA consent [43], Jeremy Ambler, FSLA consent
[46], Rama Akash, [55] FLSA consent, Jonathan Allen-Ricksecker,
[55] FLSA consent, Adrian Arias, [55] FLSA consent, Ysenia
Aviles, [55] FLSA consent, Almon Bame, [55] FLSA consent, Derland
Blake, [55] FLSA consent, Kenneth Clark, [55] FLSA consent,
Michael Covington, [55] FLSA consent, Taham Cristilli, [55] FLSA
consent, Juan Cruz, [55] FLSA consent, Shawn Elder, [55] FLSA
consent, Luke Gardner, [55] FLSA consent, Rick Giancola, [55]
FLSA consent, Reggie Goins, [55] FLSA consent, Britney Harris,
[55] FLSA consent, Nicole Crowley Jones, [55] FLSA consent, Maria
Kinsey, [55] FLSA consent, William Kirste, [55] FLSA consent,
Paul Kluever, [55] FLSA consent, Efrain Lona, [55] FLSA consent,
Jesus Meranza, [55] FLSA consent, Mark Mooberry, [55] FLSA
consent, Cory Newton, [55] FLSA consent, Lawrence Panozzo, [55]
FLSA consent, Jeffrey Peeler, [55] FLSA consent, Larry Puckett,
[55] FLSA consent, Charles Razmic, [55] FLSA consent, Jonathan
Rivera, [55] FLSA consent, Joe Roberts, [55] FLSA consent, Jason
Saing, [55] FLSA consent, Gustavo Sanchez, [55] FLSA consent,
Cameron Seisan, [55] FLSA consent, Shannon Shelton, [55] FLSA
consent, Kenneth Thackwell, [55] FLSA consent, Ashley Thomason,
[55] FLSA consent, Phillip Travis, [55] FLSA consent, Michael
Val, [55] FLSA consent, Kirk Valdez, [55] FLSA consent, Emilio
Vignapiano, [55] FLSA consent, Audy Viloria, [55] FLSA consent,
John Williams, [55] FLSA consent, Donald Walden, Jr. & Travis
Zufelt, Plaintiffs, represented by Joshua D. Buck --
josh@thiermanbuck.com --, Thierman Buck, LLP, Leah Lin Jones --
leah@thiermanbuck.com -- Thierman Buck, LLP & Mark R. Thierman --
mark@thiermanbuck.com -- Thierman Buck, LLP.

State Of Nevada, Defendant, represented by Ann McDermott, Office
of the Attorney General, Richard Dreitzer --
Richard.Dreitzer@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz,
Edelman & Dicker LLP, Theresa M. Haar, Cara Teresa Laursen,
Wilson Elser Moscowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, David S. Kahn,
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP & James T. Tucker,
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicke, 150 East 42nd Street. New
York, NY 10017

Nevada Department of Corrections, Defendant, represented by
Theresa M. Haar, Cara Teresa Laursen, Wilson Elser Moscowitz
Edelman & Dicker LLP, David S. Kahn, Wilson Elser Moskowitz
Edelman & Dicker LLP, James T. Tucker, Wilson Elser Moskowitz
Edelman & Dicker, Karissa D. Neff, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman
& Dicker LLP & Richard Dreitzer, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz,
Edelman & Dicker LLP, 150 East 42nd Street. New York, NY 10017


NEW ENTERPRISE: Court Narrows Claims in "Carr"
----------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of Delaware granted in part and denied in
part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned KENNETH
CARR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant
ADVANCED CARDIAC THERAPEUTICS, INC., Plaintiff, v. NEW ENTERPRISE
ASSOCIATES, INC., PETER JUSTIN KLEIN, ROY T. TANAKA, DUKE S.
ROHLEN, ARIS CONSTANTINIDES, WILLIAM OLSON, MICHAEL J. PEDERSON,
NEW ENTERPRISE ASSOCIATES 14, L.P., NEA PARTNERS 14, LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, NEA 14 GP, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, NEA VENTURES 2014,
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND DUKE ROHLEN AND KENDALL SIMPSON ROHLEN,
AS TRUSTEES OR SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE, OF THE ROHLEN REVOCABLE TRUST
DATED U/A/D 6/12/98, Defendants, and ADVANCED CARDIAC
THERAPEUTICS, INC. Nominal Defendant, C.A. No. 2017-0381-AGB (Del
Ch.).

The action involves a dispute between Kenneth Carr, a co-founder
of Advanced Cardiac Therapeutics, Inc. (ACT), and its controlling
stockholder, New Enterprise Associates, Inc. (NEA).  NEA became
ACT's controlling stockholder as a result of the sale of Series
A-2 preferred stock that was offered to a select group of
investors.  Carr was not among them. The Series A-2 offering
implied a value for ACT of approximately $15 million. In October
2014, ACT sold a warrant to Abbott Laboratories (Abbott) for $25
million, giving it the option to purchase all of ACT's equity for
a 30-month period for up to $185 million.

In the interim between the Series A-2 offering and the warrant
sale to Abbott, another medical device company made a proposal to
acquire ACT for up to $300 million, but that overture was not
pursued. In 2016, ACT repurchased the warrant from Abbott for $25
million in cash and a note as part of a settlement agreement.

The gravamen of Carr's complaint is twofold:

   (1) that the Series A-2 offering that allowed NEA to become
ACT's controlling stockholder was approved by a conflicted board
and severely undervalued ACT; and

   (2) that NEA orchestrated the potential sale of ACT to Abbott
on the cheap as part of a strategy to optimize the value of its
portfolio by inducing Abbott to acquire Topera and invest in
VytronUS.

Carr's complaint asserts various claims on behalf of a putative
class of stockholders (and, alternatively, derivatively) for
breach of fiduciary duty and/or aiding and abetting against ACT's
directors at the time of the challenged transactions and NEA.

The Series A-2 Financing and the Warrant Transaction Shall Be
Treated as Separate Transactions

First, under the end result test, the doctrine will be invoked if
it appears that a series of separate transactions were
prearranged parts of what was a single transaction, cast from the
outset to achieve the ultimate result. Second, under the
interdependence test, separate transactions will be treated as
one if the steps are so interdependent that the legal relations
created by one transaction would have been fruitless without a
completion of the series. The third and most restrictive
alternative is the binding-commitment test under which a series
of transactions are combined only if, at the time the first step
is entered into, there was a binding commitment to undertake the
later steps.

The Court decline to view the Series A-2 Financing and the
Warrant Transaction as a single transaction because, under the
facts alleged, none of the three tests has been met.

The Warrant Transaction Claims are not Moot

Under Delaware law, a plaintiff's cause of action accrues at the
moment of the wrongful act not when the harmful effects of the
act are felt even if the plaintiff is unaware of the wrong. Any
challenge to the Warrant Transaction thus accrued upon the
execution of the underlying transaction, and not upon a later
exercise of the Warrant. Accordingly, even if the Warrant was
never exercised, any claims relating to its issuance would not be
rendered moot.

The Series A-2 Financing Claims are Derivative and the Warrant
Transaction Claims are Direct

In every case the court must determine from the complaint whether
the claims are direct or derivative. Whether a claim is direct or
derivative must turn solely on the following questions: (1) who
suffered the alleged harm (the corporation or the suing
stockholders, individually); and (2) who would receive the
benefit of any recovery or other remedy (the corporation or the
stockholders, individually)?

The Court conclude that Carr's claims with respect to the Series
A-2 Financing are derivative and his claims with respect to the
Warrant Transaction are direct.

The Series A-2 Financing

Carr contends that defendants executed the Series A-2 Financing
to dilute unfairly certain other ACT stockholders, including
himself.
Here, Carr's invocation of Gentile to characterize as direct his
claims challenging the Series A-2 Financing fails because the
Complaint is devoid of any well-pled facts supporting the
assertion that there was a controlling stockholder at the time of
that transaction. The Complaint does not allege that NEA was a
controlling stockholder before the Series A-2 Financing but
rather that the Series A-2 Financing resulted in NEA gaining
ownership of more than 65% of ACT's stock an as-converted basis.
Carr also has failed to plead facts supporting his assertion that
NEA and the Trust together constituted a controlling stockholder
group before the Series A-2 Financing.

Because Carr has not adequately pled that there was a controller
at the time of the Series A-2 Financing, the transaction does not
meet the paradigm described in Gentile, and his claims for
improper dilution resulting from the Series A-2 Financing are
derivative. Parenthetically, because the Complaint's allegations
that the Trust was part of a control group with NEA are not well-
plead, the Trust will be dismissed from this case because the
only claims asserted against the Trust flow from this
unsubstantiated premise.

The Warrant Transaction

Carr argues that the sale of the Warrant and the process or lack
of process it were the equivalent of an end-stage transaction in
which a plaintiff alleges that breaches of fiduciary duty
resulted in a change-of-control despite inadequate merger
consideration and without adequate protections for individual
stockholders who thus may bring claims directly.

Here, in exchange for $25 million, Abbott purchased the right to
buy ACT for a period of time for an up-front payment of $75
million plus potential milestone payments capped at total
consideration of $185 million. Thus, the operative question is
whether Carr suffered harm independent of any injury to the
corporation that would entitle him to an individualized recovery
due to the Warrant Transaction. In Court's view, he has, so his
claim is direct.

Based on the conclusions the Court have reached so far, many of
the claims in the Complaint can be disposed of in whole or in
part. First, given the Court's conclusion that the transactions
must be analyzed separately and that the claims challenging the
Series A-2 Financing are derivative while the claims challenging
the Warrant Transaction are direct, Counts I-III must be
dismissed insofar as they challenge the Series A-2 Financing and
Counts IV-VI must be dismissed insofar as they challenge the
Warrant Transaction.

Second, given the Court's conclusion that NEA was not a
controlling stockholder at the time of the Series A-2 Financing,
Count IV fails to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty
against NEA with respect to that transaction and thus Count IV
must be dismissed in its entirety.

Third, given the Court's conclusion that NEA was a controlling
stockholder at the time of the Warrant Transaction, Count III
fails to state a claim for aiding and abetting a breach of
fiduciary duty against NEA with respect to that transaction and
thus Count III must be dismissed its entirety.

This leaves parts of four claims to be analyzed, specifically
Counts V and VI with respect to the Series A-2 Financing, which
occurred first in time, and Counts I and II with respect to the
Warrant Transaction.

Counts V and VI of the Complaint State Viable Claims for Relief
Concerning the Series A-2 Financing

Demand Is Excused for the Series A-2 Financing Claims

Here, the Board experienced turnover between its approval of the
Series A-2 Financing and when Carr filed suit over three years
later. On April 2, 2014, when the Series A-2 Financing was
approved, the Board consisted of six members: Klein, Rohlen,
Tanaka, Olson, Pederson, and Constantinides. On May 18, 2017,
when Carr filed the Complaint, the Board consisted of four
members: Klein, Rohlen, Tanaka, and Drant. Thus, between these
two events, three of six members (Olson, Pederson, and
Constantinides) left the Board and a new director (Drant) was
added. Because there was turnover of less than a majority of the
directors on the Board between the Series A-2 Financing and when
the Complaint was filed, the Aronson test applies for claims
concerning that transaction.
To survive a motion to dismiss under the Aronson test, a
plaintiff must plead facts that "raise a reasonable doubt as to
(i) director disinterest or independence or (ii) whether the
directors exercised proper business judgment in approving the
challenged transaction.

In any event, the defendants concede that Klein would not be
independent for purposes of evaluating a demand,92 and Rohlen's
status as the CEO of NEA-controlled ACT, in addition to his
service on other NEA portfolio companies, creates a reasonable
doubt about his independence from NEA.93Accordingly, demand is
excused as to Count VI for aiding and abetting against NEA.

Count V States a Claim for Breach of Fiduciary Duty Against the
Director Defendants Regarding the Series A-2 Financing

The standards governing a motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim for relief under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6) are well
settled: (i) all well-pleaded factual allegations are accepted as
true; (ii) even vague allegations are well-pleaded if they give
the opposing party notice of the claim; (iii) the Court must draw
all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party; and
([iv]) dismissal is inappropriate unless the plaintiff would not
be entitled to recover under any reasonably conceivable set of
circumstances susceptible of proof.

Here, it is alleged that the Series A-2 Financing placed an
approximately $15 million valuation on ACT, yet the Warrant
exercise price ($75 million) proposed less than three months
later in Abbott's June 30, 2014 LOI was five-times that amount.
Such a gap in value in the span of just a few months, without any
allegations about intervening events that increased ACT's value
meaningfully, supports an inference that NEA was able to gain
control on the cheap through the Series A-2 Financing.

Given the specific facts pled in the Complaint about the process
and price of the Series A-2 Financing, it is certainly reasonably
conceivable that the Series A-2 Financing was not entirely fair.
Accordingly, Count V states a claim for breach of fiduciary duty
against the Director Defendants with respect to their approval of
the Series A-2 Financing.

Count VI States a Claim for Aiding and Abetting Against NEA
Regarding the Series A-2 Financing

In Count VI of his Complaint, Carr alleges that NEA aided and
abetted the Board's breach of its fiduciary duty by approving the
Series A-2 Financing.

Viewing the facts alleged in the light most favorable to Carr, as
the Court must at this stage of the proceedings, the Court find
that Carr has adequately pled that NEA knowingly participated in
the Board's breach. Klein served as both an ACT director and an
NEA partner, so his alleged knowing participation in the Board's
breach of its fiduciary duty with respect to the Series A-2
Financing may be imputed to NEA. The Complaint alleges that both
NEA and Klein had a financial incentive to dilute cheaply ACT
stockholders to gain control of the Company at an unfairly low
price, and that NEA exploited conflicts of interest on the Board
by deploying Klein to facilitate a transaction purportedly unfair
to the existing ACT stockholders. These interactions between ACT
and NEA, which acquired 90% of the Series A-2 Preferred Stock,
amount to more than simple arm's-length negotiations, since
Klein's venture capital firm, where he is a partner, wanted NEA
to acquire the preferred stock at the lowest possible valuation.
Accordingly, the Court find it reasonably conceivable that NEA
aided and abetted the Board's breach of fiduciary duty.

In sum, with respect to Carr's allegations regarding the Series
A-2 Financing, the Court finds that demand is excused with
respect to these claims, and that the Complaint states claims of
breach of fiduciary duty against the Director Defendants and
aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty against NEA. Thus,
defendants' motion to dismiss Counts V and VI is denied insofar
as those claims concern the Series A-2 Financing.

Counts I and II of the Complaint State Viable Claims for Relief
Concerning the Warrant Transaction

Count II States a Claim for Breach of Fiduciary Duty Against the
Director Defendants Regarding the Warrant Transaction

A complaint can survive a motion to dismiss if a plaintiff has
adequately pled that the directors breached their duty of care or
loyalty in coming to that determination. Here, Carr has pled
facts such that it is reasonably conceivable that the Director
Defendants breached both of these duties in connection with their
approval of the Warrant Transaction so as to rebut the business
judgment rule.

With respect to the duty of care, Carr has pled that Medtronic's
letter of intent was objectively superior to Abbott's proposal,
yet the Board did not pursue a transaction with Medtronic or use
Medtronic's proposal to attempt to extract a higher price from
Abbott before approving the Warrant Transaction several months
later, after Abbott's letter of intent's 60-day exclusivity
period had expired.

With respect to the duty of loyalty, Carr has rebutted the
business judgment rule because he has pled facts showing that at
least half of the six-person board that approved the Warrant
Transaction was not disinterested or independent. At the time of
the transaction, ACT itself represented that both Klein and
Pederson were tainted, because Klein was an NEA partner and
Pederson was the President and CEO of VytronUS and was discussing
potential employment with Abbott. Rohlen also was not independent
and disinterested in my view, because he was the CEO of the NEA-
controlled Company.

The director's conflicts arising from their relationships with
NEA are salient because, as discussed below, NEA itself allegedly
was motivated to accept less than fair value for its shares of
ACT in order to benefit from Abbott's acquisition of Topera and
investment in VytronUS. Thus, the directors' conflicts of
interest provide a sufficient and independent basis for Carr's
claims against the Director Defendants regarding the Warrant
Transaction to survive a motion to dismiss.

Count I States a Claim for Breach of Fiduciary Duty Against NEA
as a Controlling Stockholder Regarding the Warrant Transaction

Carr alleges that NEA breached its fiduciary duty as a controller
by taking advantage of its dominant position and engaging in
self-dealing. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that NEA
engaged in a form of portfolio optimization by selling the
Warrant to acquire ACT on the cheap to Abbott in order to
incentivize Abbott to undertake transactions favorable to NEA
with respect to two of its other portfolio companies; namely for
Abbott to acquire Topera and invest in VytronUS. Carr alleges, in
essence, that NEA prioritized its fund's overall rate of return
over maximizing value for ACT's stockholders. This is precisely
the kind of behavior that controllers may not engage in under
Delaware law. Accordingly, Count I of the Complaint states a
claim that NEA breached its fiduciary duty as a controller with
respect to the Warrant Transaction.

In sum, with respect to Carr's allegation regarding the Warrant
Transaction, the Court find that the Complaint has stated claims
of breach of fiduciary duty against the Director Defendants and
NEA as ACT's controlling stockholder. Thus, defendants' motion to
dismiss Counts I and II is denied.

The Complaint Fails to Plead Non-Exculpated Claims Against
Certain Director Defendants

Tanaka and Olson

Here, Carr has not pled facts such that it would be reasonable to
infer that Tanaka's compensation as a VytronUS director or
Olson's stock options in ACT were material to them so as to taint
their decision-making. Thus, Tanaka and Olson will be dismissed
from this action because of the Complaint's failure to plead a
non-exculpated claim against them with respect to either the
Series A-2 Financing or the Warrant Transaction.

Constantinides and Rohlen

Carr contends that Constantinides was tainted with respect to the
Warrant Transaction because of a series of events involving
economic dependency between NEA and Constantinides's employer at
the time, NBGI, as well as the structure of their plan that
contemplated distributions to both of them out of the warrant
purchase money from Abbott.

This argument fails because Carr does not plead sufficient facts
permitting an inference that the ties between NEA and NBGI reach
the threshold required for materiality as to Constantinides.

For these reasons, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss Counts III and IV and denied the motion as to Counts I,
II, V, and VI.

A full-text copy of the Chancery Court's March 26, 2018
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yd3k375g
from Leagle.com.

T. Brad Davey -- bdavey@potteranderson.com -- and Matthew A.
Golden -- mgolden@potteranderson.com -- of POTTER ANDERSON &
CORROON LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Barry S. Pollack --
bpollack@psdfirm.com -- and Joshua L. Solomon --
jsolomon@psdfirm.com -- of POLLACK SOLOMON DUFFY LLP, Boston,
Massachusetts; Counsel for Plaintiff.

Herbert W. Mondros -- hmondros@margolisedelstein.com -- and
Krista R. Samis -- ksamis@margolisedelstein.com -- of MARGOLIS
EDELSTEIN, Wilmington, Delaware; Counsel for Defendants Peter
Justin Klein, Roy Tanka, Duke Rohlen, Aris Constantinides,
William Olson, Michael Pederson, Duke Rohlen and Kendall Simpson
Rohlen, as Trustees or Successor Trustee of the Rohlen Revocable
Trust Dated U/A/D 6/12/98, and Nominal Defendant Advanced Cardiac
Therapeutics, Inc.

Michael F. Bonkowski -- mbonkowski@coleschotz.com -- and Nicholas
J. Brannick -- nbrannick@coleschotz.com -- of COLE SCHOTZ P.C.
Wilmington, Delaware; Roger A. Lane -- rlane@foley.com --
Courtney Worcester -- cworcester@foley.com -- and Jasmine D. Coo
-- jcoo@foley.com -- of FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, Boston,
Massachusetts; Angelica Boutwell of FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, Miami,
Florida; Counsel for Defendants New Enterprise Associates, Inc.,
New Enterprise Associates 14, L.P., NEA Partners 14, Limited
Partnership, NEA 14 GP, Limited Partnership, NEA Ventures 2014
Limited Partnership.


NISSAN NORTH: Judge Dismisses Some Claims in Timing Chain Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Nissan timing chain class-action lawsuit is working its way
through the court system as the automaker succeeded in getting
some claims dismissed while the judge allowed other allegations
to continue.

The class-action lawsuit includes the following Nissan models:

   -- 2004-2006 Nissan Altima
   -- 2004-2008 Nissan Maxima
   -- 2004-2009 Nissan Quest
   -- 2005-2010 Nissan Frontier
   -- 2005-2010 Nissan Pathfinder
   -- 2005-2010 Nissan Xterra

Plaintiff Sarah Duncan says she purchased a 2007 Nissan Maxima in
Massachusetts in 2010.  Six years later in 2016 when the car had
about 127,000 miles on it, a Nissan technician allegedly told her
the timing chain needed to be replaced at a cost of $1,500.

Nissan told the plaintiff she would have to pay the entire amount
because the car was beyond its warranties.

Plaintiffs Anthony and Judy Weissenburger say they purchased a
2004 Nissan Maxima in 2004, but in 2011 a Nissan technician told
them the timing chain should be replaced, leaving the couple to
pay $1,400 of their own money for repairs.

Additional named plaintiffs make similar allegations about their
timing chains, and they claim when Nissan agreed to settle a
previous timing chain lawsuit, that was proof the automaker knew
the systems were defective.

The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in October 2016 alleging the
timing chain tensioning systems damage the engines and pose
safety hazards to occupants.  The plaintiffs also claim Nissan
knew or should have known the timing chains were defective at the
time the vehicles were sold or leased.

Instead, consumers weren't informed about the alleged defects,
but Nissan did send dealerships technical service bulletins
(TSBs) about the timing chains.

One plaintiff alleges a Nissan technician told her the systems
are equipped with a component made of inferior plastic that wears
away, allegedly a component that should "last the lifetime of the
car."

According to the lawsuit, Nissan realized the plastic part
wouldn't last forever so the automaker improved the material used
in later models.

Nissan offers two warranties on the vehicles, a basic warranty
and a powertrain warranty.  The basic covers repairs during the
first 36,000 miles or 36 months, whichever occurs first, and the
powertrain warranty covers repairs during the first 60,000 miles
or 60 months.

However, the plaintiffs argue Nissan intentionally set the
warranty limits where they are because the automaker knew the
timing chains would fail after the warranties expired.

In filing the motion to dismiss, Nissan argues dealers have every
right to refuse warranty work when a vehicle is no longer under
warranty, but the plaintiffs claim the warranty limits should be
ignored because the warranties are "unconscionable" considering
the automaker concealed the defects.

The class-action lawsuit will proceed after the judge refused to
dismiss express warranty and breach of contract claims, along
with one state (Massachusetts) claim.

However, Nissan was successful in getting certain claims tossed
out, including claims of violating the Oregon Unlawful Trade
Practices Act, the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act, the North
Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act and implied
warranty of merchantability claims.

Although Nissan did agree to settle a previous timing chain
class-action lawsuit, the judge says that California lawsuit has
no relation to laws that govern Massachusetts.

The Nissan timing chain class-action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts - Duncan,
et al., v. Nissan North American, Inc., et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP,
Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., Stull, Stull & Brody.

CarComplaints.com has complaints from drivers of the Nissan
vehicles listed in the lawsuit:

   -- Nissan Altima
   -- Nissan Maxima
   -- Nissan Quest
   -- Nissan Frontier
   -- Nissan Pathfinder
   -- Nissan Xterra  [GN]


NOVARTIS PHARMA: Drogueria Sues over Exforge Non-Compete Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
DROGUERIA BETANCES, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS
CORPORATION, NOVARTIS AG, NOVARTIS CORPORATION, ENDO
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., PAR
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and PAR PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC.,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04361 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2018),
seeks overcharge damages arising out of Novartis's unlawful
agreement with Par not to compete in the market for Exforge and
corresponding AB-rated generic drug products.

This antitrust action challenges Defendants' anticompetitive
conduct that delayed generic competition in the United States and
its territories for Exforge, an FDA-approved prescription drug
product for the treatment of hypertension comprising the active
ingredients amlodipine and valsartan. Prior to the market entry
of generic equivalents of Exforge, Novartis's U.S. sales of
branded Exforge exceeded $400 million annually.

Generic manufacturers Par and Synthon Pharmaceuticals Inc.
recognized the huge market potential for Exforge and, in or about
October and November, 2007, became the first generic drug makers
to file ANDAs with the FDA seeking approval to market generic
amlodipine and valsartan tablets, with Exforge as their Reference
Listed Drug. Par was the first to file an ANDA for the 10/160,
5/160 and 10/320 milligram strengths of amlodipine and valsartan,
respectively, while Synthon was the first to file an ANDA for the
5/320 milligram strength. On information and belief, in their
ANDAs, Par and Synthon addressed the three Novartis patents
listed in the FDA Orange Book for Exforge by indicating that: (1)
they would not seek final FDA approval until the September 21,
2012 expiration of exclusivities associated with U.S. Patent No.
5,399,578 ("the '578 Patent"), which covered the active
ingredient valsartan; but (2) they would seek final FDA approval
to market, and intended to launch, their ANDA products prior to
the expiration of the follow-on patents, U.S. Patent Nos.
6,294,197 ("the '197 Patent") and 6,395,728 (the '728 Patent),
which they claimed were invalid and/or would not be infringed by
Par's and Synthon's proposed generic equivalents.

On November 30, 2011, Par entered into an asset purchase
agreement with Synthon under which Par would acquire Synthon's
ANDA for a generic version of Exforge (5 mg/320 mg and 10 mg/320
mg of amlodipine and valsartan, respectively). On December 30,
2011, Par closed on this asset purchase agreement. In or around
2011 and following receipt of notice of Par's ANDA containing
challenges to the '197 and '728 Patents, Par and Novartis reached
an agreement under which (1) Par agreed not to compete in the
market for fixed combinations of amlodipine and valsartan until
September 30, 2014, thereby allocating the entire Exforge market
to Novartis until that date, and (2) Novartis agreed not to
compete in the generic Exforge market from September 30, 2014 to
March 30, 2015, thereby allocating the entire market for generic
versions of Exforge to Par for six months.

According to the complaint, the Agreement contained a promise by
Novartis to refrain from launching an "authorized generic"
version of Exforge for the first six months after Par's launch,
thereby depriving the market of an additional competitor and
lower prices. On March 19, 2010, the FDA granted tentative
approval to Par's ANDA for a generic version of Exforge,
determining that Par's ANDA for generic Exforge was approvable
and satisfied all bioequivalence, chemistry, manufacturing, and
controls ("CMC"), and labeling requirements. On March 28, 2013,
the FDA granted final approval to Par's ANDA for a generic
version of Exforge. The FDA granted tentative approval to
Synthon's ANDA for a generic version of Exforge prior to March
28, 2013, determining that Synthon's ANDA for generic Exforge was
approvable and satisfied all bioequivalence, CMC, and labeling
requirements.

Novartis is a Swiss multinational pharmaceutical company based in
Basel, Switzerland. It is one of the largest pharmaceutical
companies by both market capitalization and sales.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Raphael, Esq.
          Erin Leger, Esq.
          Susan Segura, Esq.
          SMITH SEGURA & RAPHAEL, LLP
          3600 Jackson St., Ste. 111
          Alexandria, LA 71303
          Telephone: (318) 445 4480
          Facsimile: (318) 487 1741

               - and -

          John Gregory Odom, Esq.
          Stuart Des Roches, Esq.
          Andrew Kelly, Esq.
          Dan Chiorean, Esq.
          ODOM & DES ROCHES
          Poydras Center
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2020
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 522 0077
          Facsimile: (504) 522 0078

               - and -

          Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq.
          Joseph Opper, Esq.
          Dan Litvin, Esq.
          GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP
          88 Pine Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 398 0055
          Facsimile: (212) 764 6620

               - and -

          Russell A. Chorush, Esq.
          Miranda Jones, Esq.
          HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH LLP
          1111 Bagby, Suite 2100
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 221 2000
          Facsimile: (713) 221 2021


NYKO: Nintendo Switch Owners File Class Action Over Dock Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cecilia D'Anastasio, writing for Kotaku, reports that several
Nintendo Switch owners who purchased a third-party dock from Nyko
were furious last March when the dock apparently bricked their
$300 console.  On April 27, one brought a class action lawsuit
against Nyko alleging that the company wasn't vocal enough about
the dock's manufacturing defect.

Nyko's portable Switch docking kit is a cheaper alternative to
Nintendo's official $90 dock.  Late last year, users raved about
how portable and convenient it was.  Until the Switch's 5.0
update on March 12, many say it worked perfectly fine. Over the
next few weeks, dozens of owners complained on Reddit and
Nintendo forums that their Switches began losing functionality.
Some stopped turning on entirely.  The third-party dock issue
wasn't just limited to the Nyko?Switch owners who had purchased
the FastSnail or Insignia docking kit reported problems, too.

Reached for comment in March, Nyko told Kotaku that they are
"aware of the issue some Portable Docking Kit owners are facing
after updating the firmware on their Nintendo Switch to version
5.0," adding, "we believe it is related to the way the Switch
handles AV output for an external TV/monitor while the console is
docked on the Portable Docking Kit."

A disgruntled Nyko Switch dock owner named Michael Skiathitis
filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. district court of
central California.  The dock, which he purchased at a Walmart in
Jacksonville, Florida, apparently messed up his Switch.  In
April, he sent it to Nintendo for repair and told Nyko about his
issue -- but in the meantime, he'll probably lose all his save
data. (The Switch, unlike Nintendo's 3DS system and the rival
Xbox One and PS4 consoles, doesn't let users back up their saves,
so a destroyed or lost system means that one's save files are all
gone, too).  The lawsuit alleges that, "unbeknownst to consumers,
the Nyko Portable Docking Kits for Nintendo Switch are prone to
causing numerous problems to the devices that they are intended
to support," adding that Nyko did not go far out of its way to
disclose the bug.

Nintendo told Kotaku back in March that Switch owners probably
shouldn't buy unlicensed product and accessories.

Asked about how many people are participating in the lawsuit,
Skiathitis' lawyers did not provide comment. [GN]


PALACIOS, TX: "Hubanek" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
STERLING HUBANEK, Individually and on behalf of all others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PALACIOS, TEXAS,
the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00149 (S.D. Tex., May 16, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, Palacios is a municipality located in
the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Palacios employed
Hubanek as a peace officer during the events made this basis of
this action. During Hubanek's employment with Palacios, he was
covered by the FLSA. Palacios paid Hubanek on an hourly basis.
During Hurricane Harvey, Palacios police officers and other
personnel were required to work. The employees, including
Hubanek, physically worked 12 hours shifts. During the twelve
"off' hours, the employees were required to remain "on call" on
specific premises designated by Palacios, thereby making that
time compensable hours. Palacios did not pay Hubanek, or the
other similarly situated employees for the hours required to
remain on the premises designated by Palacios during the
Hurricane. Instead, Palacios altered the timesheets of Hubanek,
and others, changing the hours submitted on the "City Timesheet",
removing the compensable "on call" hours.

Palacios failed to compensate Hubanek for all of his compensable
hours of work, including overtime, from August 20, 2017 to
September 2, 2017. Palacios failed to maintain accurate time and
pay records for Hubanek and other similarly situated nonexempt
employees. Palacios knew or showed a reckless disregard for
whether its pay practices violated the FLSA.

Palacios is a city in Matagorda County, Texas, United States. The
population was 5,153 at the 2000 census.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory Cagle, Esq.
          1602B State St.
          Houston, TX 77007
          Telephone: (713) 489 4789
          Facsimile: (713) 489 4792


PHILIP MORRIS: Two Attorneys in Tobacco Litigation Suspended
------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Joseph, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
the Florida Supreme Court disagreed with a court-appointed
referee's recommendation to admonish prominent attorney Philip M.
Gerson and co-counsel Steven K. Hunter, instead imposed a harsher
punishment, suspending both Miami attorneys for 30 days.

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Michael Hanzman, who served as referee,
found the attorneys violated one, not two, Florida Bar rules
governing attorneys conflicts of interest involving current and
former clients. He found the attorneys violated Florida Bar Rule
4-1.7, which governs conflicts with current clients, but not Rule
4-1.9, which deals with former clients.

"The case was -- in the court's opinion -- a proverbial black
swan and outlier, both procedurally and substantively," Judge
Hanzman wrote in his referee's report.  "And while this court
does not condone counsel's conduct, and finds that they exercised
poor judgment, it concludes that given the totality of the
circumstances presented, the sanction of 'admonishment' is
warranted and appropriate."

The high court disagreed, and found the attorneys had violated
both rules.

Messrs. Gerson and Hunter had represented flight attendants in
bringing suits as part of what has been called "Broin progeny"
litigation, in the wake of Broin v. Philip Morris, a class action
against tobacco companies over exposure to smoke in airline
cabins, which was settled in 1997.

Broin was among the first class actions to hold cigarette
companies companies accountable for smoking-related illnesses.
It did not result in direct compensation for class members, but
included a settlement agreement that required the tobacco
companies to provide $300 million to a foundation dedicated to
scientific research about cigarette-related diseases.

That foundation, the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute,
later became part of the litigation.  After individual suits
against the tobacco defendants stalled, Mr. Gerson, Mr. Hunter
and other attorneys sought to have the court monitor the Flight
Attendant Medical Research Institute's expenses, and allocate a
portion of the $300 million to flight attendants.

Two members of the foundation's board of trustees filed a motion
to remove the attorneys from the case, claiming the lawyers acted
against current and former clients' best interests.  They said
some clients had objected to attorneys' petition, and had not
provided informed consent.

"While respondents forcefully deny these charges, this case --
like many brought by the bar -- is far from nascent, arriving
with a highly unusual, lengthy and tangled history," Judge
Hanzman wrote.

The Florida Bar started disciplinary action.  It accused Messrs.
Hunter and Gerson of violating Florida Bar Rules 4-1.7 and 4-1.9,
which deal with conflicts of interest in representing current and
former clients, respectively.

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Jerald Bagley granted the foundation
trustees' motion to disqualify the attorneys, after finding a
conflict of interests.

Messrs. Hunter and Gerson challenged the ruling, but the other
attorneys did not seek appellate review.  They filed a petition
for certiorari in the Third District Court of Appeal, which
quashed the disqualification order.

The appellate panel found the case presented "a common dilemma,"
in which a minority of class members disagree with the legal
strategy.  It also found the bar rule inadequate in addressing
this issue.

But the Florida Supreme Court reversed the state appellate panel,
and upheld Judge Bagley's ruling.

More bad news for Messrs. Hunter and Gerson from the high court:
Justices also sided the bar in its ethics case.

"The court disapproves the referee's recommended discipline and
instead imposes 30 days' suspensions from the practice of law,"
it ruled on April 11.

Mr. Hunter and his attorney Christopher Lynch did not respond to
a request for comment by press time.  Public records indicate he
notified the court on April 12 that he was no longer practicing
law.

Mr. Gerson has been a member of the bar since 1970 and served on
its committees over the years.  He has stepped away for his
practice, and intends to return when the suspension expires.  His
attorney, David Pollack of Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler
Alhadeff & Sitterson in Miami, said the ruling disappointed the
long-time attorney.

"It's just a shame that 40 years on, he has this one blight on
his not just spotless ethical record, but his record of service
to the bar and the broader community," Mr. Pollack said.

Mr. Gerson, in an email to Daily Business Review, said "if
readers want more information they should read the report of the
referee, Hon. Michael Hanzman." [GN]


PROPARK AMERICA: "Sadino" Remanded to Calif. State Court
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand the case
captioned AARON SADINO, Plaintiff, v. PROPARK AMERICA WEST, LLC,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-06018-JST (N.D. Cal.), to the
San Francisco Superior Court.

Sadino was employed by Propark as an hourly valet/parking
attendant in San Francisco County.  Propark is a parking
management company that operates hundreds of parking management
services throughout California.  Sadino alleges that Propark
failed to provide him with meal periods, rest breaks, or itemized
wage statements.

The Defendants allege that Sadino's meal period claims are pre-
empted by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act
(LMRA) and that the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the
remaining state law claims.

Nonnegotiable rights are not subject to section 301 pre-emption,
the Court said, citing Livadas, 512 U.S. at 123. In California,
the right to meal periods is plainly nonnegotiable, as held in
Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d at 1082.

Here, Sadino and the other putative class members are
parking/valet attendants. Valet/parking attendants are not
eligible for exemption under Section 512 Cal. Lab. Code., the
Court concluded. Section 512(f) (subdivision (e) applies to each
of the following employees: (1) an employee employed in a
construction occupation; (2) [a]n employee employed as a
commercial driver; (3) [a]n employee employed in the security
services industry as a security officer and (4) an employee
employed by an electrical corporation, a gas corporation, or a
local publicly owned electric utility. Thus, Sadino is ineligible
for an exemption. Sadino's rights to a meal period and a rest
break are nonnegotiable and are not preempted by section 301 of
the LRMA.

Sadino's meal period and rest break claims are not pre-empted by
section 301. Therefore, the Court does not have supplemental
jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

Federal court jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. Section 1332
requires complete diversity of citizenship between the parties.
Here, there is a question of whether the individual defendants
qualify as employers, particularly given the definition of
employer from Martinez. However, this case is only at the
pleading stage. Sadino makes allegations that, if true, would
potentially support a finding that defendants Steele, Hewitt, and
Dreisbach exercised control over Sadino's working conditions.
Defendants have not met their burden to show that Sadino could
not possibly recover from defendants Steele, Hewitt, or
Dreisbach. Therefore, the Court does not find that these
defendants were fraudulently joined.

Because complete diversity is lacking, the Court need not reach
the question of whether the amount in controversy is satisfied.
The Defendants have failed to meet their burden to show that
removal is proper.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 26, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybx8hjdv from Leagle.com.

Aaron Sadino, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Righetti --
matt@righettilaw.com -- Righetti Glugoski, P.C. & Michael C.
Righetti, Righetti Glugoski, P.C.,  456 Montgomery St Ste 1400.
San Francisco, CA 94104.

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


QUINSTREET INC: Faces Securities Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP on April 30 disclosed that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, against
QuinStreet, Inc. ("QuinStreet" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: QNST)
on behalf of investors that acquired QuinStreet securities during
the period from February 10, 2016 through April 10, 2018 (the
"Class Period"), seeking recovery of damages for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws.  Pursuant to
applicable law, investors have until June 26, 2018 to apply to
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that on April 11, 2018, as the market opened,
Kerrisdale Capital published a report entitled "QuinStreet, Inc.
(QNST) Leading Nowhere" which suggested that QuinStreet was
generating fake web traffic and poor-quality clicks for its
customers.  On this news, shares of QuinStreet fell from $12.32
to close at $10.14 per share on April 11, 2018 (a decline of
$2.18).

If you acquired QuinStreet securities, have information or would
like to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W.
Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by email at
telrod@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form to discuss
your rights or interests in this litigation.

Kirby McInerney LLP -- http://www.kmllp.com-- is a New York-
based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities,
antitrust, whistleblower and consumer litigation.  The firm's
efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have
resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars.

Contacts:

Kirby McInerney LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, 212-371-6600
http://www.kmllp.com
Email: telrod@kmllp.com  [GN]


RELIABLE REPORTS: Court Dismisses Non-Ohio Residents' FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
Federal Overtime Claims of Non-Ohio Residents for Lack of
Personal Jurisdiction Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) and denied
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the State and Federal Overtime
Claims for Failure to State a Claim Under Rule 12(b)(6) in the
case captioned HAROLD MACLIN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RELIABLE REPORTS OF TEXAS,
INC., d/b/a Reliable Reports, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17 CV
2612 (N.E. Ohio).

Plaintiff Harold Maclin is a resident of Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
He alleges that he worked as an Inspector for Reliable from July
2016 to 2017. He asserts that the day-to-day duties of an
Inspector involve traveling to the property in question to
conduct an inspection, completing a report, and then forwarding
the report to his/her manager where it is reviewed for accuracy
and completeness.  Maclin asserts that it was common for him and
others to work more than 50-60 hours per week absent overtime
pay. More specifically, Reliable would pay inspectors the piece-
work rate for hours worked in a week over 40, and not the
overtime premium. Additionally, Maclin alleges that Reliable
failed to make and preserve accurate records of time worked, much
less overtime worked.

The Defendant argues that the Court does not have personal
jurisdiction over the Fair Labor Standard Act claims asserted by
non-Ohio plaintiffs under Rule 12(b)(2) claim, and the additional
state and federal overtime factual allegations still do not pass
Iqbal/Twombly muster under Rule 12(b)(6).

Reliable does not dispute that the Court has specific
jurisdiction over the FLSA claim of Ohio plaintiffs; it contends
only that the Court does not have specific jurisdiction over that
claim brought by non-Ohio plaintiffs.

In support of its position that the Court does not have specific
jurisdiction over the FLSA claims of non-Ohio plaintiffs,
Reliable cites Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of
California, 137 S.Ct. 1773 (2017).

The Court finds that Bristol-Myers applies to FLSA claims, in
that it divests courts of specific jurisdiction over the FLSA
claims of non-Ohio plaintiffs against Reliable. The federal
overtime claims of non-Ohio Inspectors against Reliable have less
of a connection to the State of Ohio than the non-California
plaintiffs' claims had to the State of California in Bristol-
Myers. Only 14 of Reliable's employees live and work in Ohio. The
other 424 employees live and work outside Ohio and their claims
have no connection whatsoever to this State.

For these reasons, the Court grants the motion to dismiss the
FLSA claim of non-Ohio plaintiffs for lack of personal
jurisdiction.

Here, Maclin has asserted the dates of his employment, that he
and others normally worked 50-60 hours per week and the reason
for working so many overtime hours, that Reliable failed to keep
accurate time records, and that he and others were compensated
for overtime hours at the non-overtime piece-work rate. Reliable
argues that it did not classify Maclin as exempt from overtime
laws and that it did, in fact, pay Maclin for hundreds of
overtime hours. This does not sound like a case where the
defendant is in the dark and has no notice of the state and
federal overtime claims against it. The same analysis applies
equally to the state overtime claim.

Accordingly, the Court declines to follow cases in other
jurisdictions that require explicitly detailed factual
allegations in order to state overtime claims and, thus, denies
Reliable's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the state and federal
overtime claims.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 26, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9b2lqxu from
Leagle.com.

Harold Maclin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. Lazzaro --
anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com -- Lazzaro Law Firm, Chastity L.
Christy -- chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com -- Lazzaro Law Firm, Don
J. Foty, Kennedy Hodges & Lori M. Griffin --
lori@lazzarolawfirm.com -- Lazzaro Law Firm.

Reliable Reports of Texas, Inc., doing business as Reliable
Reports, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory V. Mersol --
gmersol@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler & Jeffrey R. Vlasek --
jvlasek@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler.


RM GALICIA: Court Approves $1.5MM TCPA Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement in the case captioned BELINDA GUTIERREZ-
RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. R.M. GALICIA, INC. DBA PROGRESSIVE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-00182-H-BLM (S.D.
Cal.).

The Plaintiff alleges that, beginning around March 2015, the
Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA),
by using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) or
artificial/pre-recorded voice system to call cellular telephones
without prior express consent.

Under the Proposed Settlement, the Defendant will establish a
settlement fund of $1,500,000 (Settlement Fund) to resolve the
litigation involving Damages Settlement Subclass members. This
amount will pay approved claims on a pro rata basis and any and
all settlement costs, defined as all costs incurred in the
litigation by the Plaintiff, including but not limited to the
Plaintiff's attorneys' fees, costs of suit, cost of litigation,
cost of notice and claims administration. For its attorneys' fees
and costs, the Plaintiff's counsel agrees to requests no more
than 30% of the Settlement Fund. The Settlement Fund will also be
used to pay the class representative an incentive award of
$7,500.

The Court finds that the settlement class meets the numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation
requirements of Rule 23(a). The class is sufficiently numerous
because the Damages Settlement Subclass alone contains 61,939
members, 44,744 of whom were sent Postcard Notices regarding the
Proposed Settlement via U.S. mail.

Common questions predominate because the primary common issue is
whether the Defendant used an ATDS or an artificial or pre-
recorded voice system to call cellular phones without recipients'
prior express consent in violation of the TCPA.

There is no evidence that any purported class members gave prior
express consent to the Defendant's placement of the calls at
issue, or that the Defendant obtained the persons' cell phone
numbers in the course of the underlying healthcare transactions
in which the alleged debts were incurred. Thus, the Court is
satisfied that individualized issues of consent do not preclude a
finding of commonality.

Furthermore, typicality is satisfied because both the Plaintiff
and the purported class members held the same position and claim
the same injury namely, that they received calls on their cell
phones that were placed by the Defendant using LiveVox or TCN
and/or featuring a pre-recorded or artificial voice messages
without their prior express consent.

Because the Plaintiff's claims are reasonably co-extensive with
those of absent class members, the typicality prerequisite is
met. And finally, the adequacy requirement is satisfied because
the Plaintiff and her counsel have vigorously prosecuted the
interests of the class and class counsel has extensive experience
in class actions and complex litigation, including TCPA cases.

Although the Plaintiff is confident that she would prevail if
this litigation continued, she acknowledges several not-
insignificant obstacles to her doing so, including issues related
to consent, the Defendant's anticipated motion for summary
judgment, the Plaintiff's anticipated motion for class
certification, and the likelihood of appeals.

Balancing the continuing risks of litigation (including the
strengths and weaknesses of the Plaintiff's case), with the
benefits afforded to members of the class, and the immediacy and
certainty of a substantial recovery, the Court concludes that
these factors favor approval of the Proposed Settlement.

The discovery process in this case involved extensive party and
third-party discovery, extensive meet and confer efforts by
counsel, and the development of a mutually agreed-upon sampling
protocol to identify the unique telephone numbers constituting
the Damages Settlement Subclass.

Based on the record before the Court, there is no indication of
collusion. The requested attorneys' fee award 28.8% of the
Settlement Fund is close to the benchmark percentage and does not
signify a disproportionate distribution to class counsel.
This factor supports approval.

Class counsel is experienced with TCPA actions and believes that
the Plaintiff's claims are meritorious, but also believes that
the Proposed Settlement offers meaningful relief and is in the
class's best interests. This factor also supports approval.

No class member has objected to the Proposed Settlement, and one
class member has requested exclusion. The complete lack of
objections is indicative of the adequacy of the settlement. Thus,
the class members' reaction favors granting final approval.

The Court finds that the Proposed Settlement is fair, adequate,
and reasonable pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e),
and therefore grants the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of
the class action settlement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 26, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yb5f325q from Leagle.com.

Belinda Gutierrez-Rodriguez, on behalf of herself, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexis M. Wood --
alexis@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron,
Kas L. Gallucci -- kas@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of
Ronald A. Marron & Ronald Marron -- ron@consumersadvocates.com --
Law Office of Ronald Marron.

R.M. Galicia, Inc., doing business as, Defendant, represented by
Bryan C. Shartle -- bshartle@sessions.legal -- Sessions, Fishman,
Nathan & Israel, L.L.P., pro hac vice, David Israel-
disrael@sessions.legal -- Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel,
L.L.P., pro hac vice, Debbie P. Kirkpatrick --
dkirkpatrick@sessions.legal -- Sessions Fishman Nathan and Israel
& James Kevin Schultz -- jschultz@sessions.legal -- Sessions
Fishman Nathan and Israel LLP.


SCHNUCK MARKETS: 7th Cir. Rules on Economic Loss Rule Issue
-----------------------------------------------------------
James F. Bogan III, ESq., of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP,
in an article for Lexology, wrote that data breaches are now a
fact of life, whether for card-carrying consumers or commercial
entities that are either victims of hacking or otherwise required
to deal with the consequences. Class action litigation often
ensues, not only on behalf of the impacted consumers, but also by
affected financial institutions, including, for example, card-
issuing banks. In Community Bank of Trenton v. Schnuck Markets,
Inc., -- F.3d --, No. 17-2146, 2018 WL 1737126 (7th Cir. Apr. 11,
2018), the Seventh Circuit breathed new life into the economic
loss doctrine, holding as a matter of state (Illinois and
Missouri) law that the commercial participants in the card
payment system -- a system governed by a network of contracts
allocating risk for data breaches -- could not sue another
participant (a merchant that suffered a breach) in tort to
supplement existing contractual remedies. This decision
emphasizes the need for any participant in a contractual network
to scrutinize the remedies provided in the contractual framework,
because tort liability might otherwise be foreclosed.

In Schnuck, Midwestern grocery store chain Schnuck Markets
(Schnucks) suffered a data breach in 2012. Cybercriminals gained
access to the Missouri-based Schnucks' computer system,
ultimately stealing data pertaining to over two million credit
and debit cards. The breach affected 79 of Schnucks' 100 stores
in the Midwest, many of which are in Illinois and Missouri.

Data breach litigation ensued. One of the cases was filed not by
consumers but by financial institutions (card-issuing banks) that
bore the costs of reissuing credit and debit cards and otherwise
providing financial indemnity for the cybercriminals' fraud.

A network of contracts connects all of the participants in the
card payment system -- merchants such as Schnucks, card-
processors, banks, and card brands -- to facilitate credit and
debit card payments. In these contracts, all participating
parties agree to assume certain responsibilities and be subject
to certain contractual remedies. One of the responsibilities is
to abide by data security rules called PCI DSS (Payment Card
Industry Data Security Standards). And one of the contractual
remedies provides for the sharing among the participants of the
costs arising from any data breach.

Under this network of contracts, the card networks eventually
imposed over $1.5 million in reimbursement charges and other fees
against Schnucks, which liability was later split between
Schnucks and other network participants (Schnuck's card processor
and acquiring bank).

The central issues in the case arose under Illinois and Missouri
law, where many of the affected Schnucks stores are located, and
"present[ed] fairly new variations on the economic loss rule in
tort cases." Id. at *1. That is because network participants --
the plaintiff banks --  brought a putative class action against
Schnucks seeking to impose tort liability for the data breach in
the form of claims for negligence and negligence per se. The
plaintiff banks further alleged that they suffered tens of
millions of dollars of damages that were not covered by the
existing contractual remedies, arising from lost employee time,
indemnity payments, and transaction fees and lost interest. As
the Seventh Circuit observed, "the banks seek reimbursement for
their losses above and beyond the remedies provided under the
card network contracts." Id. at *4.

In its analysis of the common law claims, the panel examined the
economic loss doctrine in commercial litigation. As the court
observed, "state courts have generally refused to recognize tort
liabilities for purely economic losses inflicted by one business
on another where those businesses have already ordered their
duties, rights, and remedies by contract." Id. The main issue,
according to the court, was one of duty, "in the sense that tort
law generally does not supply additional liabilities on top of
specified contractual remedies." Id.

The plaintiff banks argued forcefully they had no direct
contractual relationship with Schnucks and therefore should not
be bound by the economic loss doctrine. That argument did not
persuade the panel: "[P]arties to the card payment system are not
ships passing (or colliding) in the night. All parties involved
in the complicated network of contracts that establish the card
payment system have voluntarily decided to participate and to
accept responsibility for the risks inherent in their
participation. This includes at least some risk of not being
fully reimbursed for the costs of another party's mistake." Id.
at *7.

While the specifics of the contractual remedies were not readily
apparent from the record excerpts of the relevant contracts,
"what matters is not the details of the remedies but their
existence." Id. (emphasis in original). According to the panel,
the banks could not seek additional recovery in tort just
"because they are disappointed by the reimbursement they received
through the contractual card payment systems they joined
voluntarily." Id. The court concluded: "we do not see either a
paradigmatic or doctrinal reason why either Illinois or Missouri
would recognize a tort claim by the issuing banks in this case,
where the claimed conduct and losses are subject to these
networks of contracts." Id. at *8. [GN]


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces DRAM Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Pulse reports that the world's dominant DRAM makers Samsung
Electronics Co., SK Hynix Inc. and Micron Technology Inc. face a
joint class action lawsuit for allegedly colluding to keep
supplies tight and send memory chip prices high.

U.S. law firm Hagens Berman has invited consumers to sign up for
its class action case against the two Korean chipmakers plus one
of their own by accusing them of collectively raising the price
of DRAMs used to power mobile phones and computers that could
help in reparations for set manufacturers and consumers.

The antitrust litigation was filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California against Micron, Samsung
Electronics and SK Hynix and their U.S. units on behalf of
American consumers who purchased smartphones or computing
products from July 2016 to February 2017.

According to Hagens Berman attorneys, the three chipmakers that
dominate 96 percent of the highly exclusive DRAM market agreed
"to limit the supply of DRAM, a critical component of phones and
computers, to drive up prices."

Due to tight supply on top of heated demand for memory chips in
increasing big data and smart application, DRAM prices jumped 47
percent in price per bit in 2017, the largest gain in 30 years.
The prices jumped 130 percent in the period cited in the class
action, helping to more than double revenues for the three
dominant suppliers, the firm said.

According to DRAMeXchange, DRAM revenue expanded 76 percent for
full 2017.  Samsung dominated the market with a 46 percent share
as of the end of December and SK Hynix, with a 28.7 percent
share, ended last year with its best-ever bottom line. Micron
accounted for 20.8 percent.

The law firm claimed "illegal price-fixing scheme has led to
consumers overpaying for their electronic devices" and believes
"those who unknowingly paid high prices for their computers and
mobile devices deserve compensation for the greed and wrongdoings
of these major electronics corporations."

"What we've uncovered in the DRAM market is a classic antitrust,
price-fixing scheme in which a small number of kingpin
corporations hold the lion's share of the market," said
Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman.  "Instead of
playing by the rules, Samsung, Micron and Hynix chose to put
consumers in a chokehold, wringing the market for more profit."

The law firm won a $300 million settlement in a similar case in
2006 against 18 DRAM manufacturers, including Samsung Electronics
and SK Hynix.

The two Korean companies plan to strongly refute the charge on
grounds that the prices of DRAM and other memory chips had
strengthened not because of fixing and capacity control, but
because demand had far exceeded supply.

On April 30, shares of SK Hynix closed 2.99 percent down at
84,500 won.  Samsung Electronics shares are suspended for the
stock-split procedure. [GN]


SAN DIEGO GAS: Faces Lawsuits Over Powerline Easements
------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Raftery, writing for East County Magazine, reports that
several property owners have filed lawsuits against San Diego Gas
& Electric (SDG&E) over negative impacts from the utility's plan
to widen easements to 15 feet on each side of power lines in
communities including Pine Valley, Descanso and Alpine.

"The issue is the impact that it will have on a person's ability
to use their own property," attorney Vince Bartolotta with
Thorsnes, Bartolotta, McGuire, a law firm specializing in civil
law and consumer advocacy cases.

SDG&E has indicated that it has notified approximately 100
property owners of the expanded easements for the purpose of
fire-hardening power lines and equipment to prevent more
devastating wildfires.

The company is offering compensation for the easements, but some
property owners contend that the amounts are inadequate.

In some cases, Mr. Bartolotta says, "That homeowner is basically
precluded from using that property."  He adds that some easements
include wells, ingress and egress to properties, and "some go
right through the house."

One such case was recently featured in a two-part series on
KUSI's Turko Files. (View part 1 and part 2.) Part 1, titled
"Worthless," documented issues faced by a Pine Valley couple who
discovered the easement ran right through their house, including
two thirds of their home as well as a patio addition and shed.
They raised concerns that they could not remodel, expand, or even
rebuild after a fire.

In Part II, SDG&E spokesperson Allison Torres assured that the
utility would write protection into easements giving all
homeowners the right to rebuilt after a fire.  But the homeowners
indicated there are concerns over potential loss of insurance due
to the easement, which they view as a land grab.  Turko asked why
the utility couldn't simply route around some homes, or put power
lines underground.

The Pine Valley couple is among the clients now represented by
Mr. Bartolotta.   "Our position is that in that case, they are
impacting the entire house."

The attorney says a class action wasn't filed because each
situation is different.  "In some cases, we may as well fight the
take itself, saying this is unnecessary," he says, adding that
lines "could be moved or not be there at all."

In other cases, property owners may be fine with having a portion
of property taken but that SDG&E "is not valuing the property
appropriately.  They get a lowball appraisal and then offer less
than that."  SDG&E's Torres has contested this point, claiming
the utility is offering fair market value.

Mr. Bartolotta says that some homeowners want more money, while
in others "we want them [SDG&E] to take the entire property
because the easement makes the property unusable."  Some property
owners may be willing to move and have the utility buy the entire
property at fair market value 'for its highest and best use,"
according to Mr. Bartolotta.  For other clients who want to keep
their homes and land, he says, "Then we have to prevent the
taking of the easement where it is."

Like Turko, Mr. Bartolotta contends that the utility could
reroute around some properties or move the line and easement a
few feet to avoid creating such negative impacts.  "They are a
big bureaucracy and power corrupts," he observes.  "They think
that they are big and can just do whatever they want . . .
Sometimes they ignore the ordinary citizen they are supposed to
be serving, and that's not right.  That's where I come in."

Some homeowners might be able to negotiate with SDG&E directly,
if the impact is slight.  But in most cases, Bartolotta cautions,
"They're going against SDG&E, who has done this tens of thousands
of times through the years and has a stable of expert witnesses.
The average homeowners don't know a good appraiser from a bad
one.  They don't have the money to go up against SDG&E.  They
need lawyers like us who have the experience to go up against
SDG&E and get SDG&E to pay the highest and best use for that
property."

The firm has a track record of legal actions against SDG&E in the
past on issues ranging from power poles to damage from wildfires
linked to power lines, as well as a case in which a child was
electrocuted by a power line and lost an arm.  "SDG&E knows us
well," Mr. Bartolotta says.

His aim is to get property owners compensated fairly or rectify
some of the harm.  The process could move quickly or take a year
or so for final resolution after a suit is filed, depending on
whether the utility is willing to work an agreement out with the
property owners, the attorney adds.

The law firm has indicated it is eager to speak with other
property owners who have received notices from SDG&E regarding
taking of property for the easements.  Vince Bartolotta can be
reached at (619) 236-9363 or via the law firm's website at
www.tbmlawyers.com. [GN]


SEMPRA ENERGY: Court Dismisses "Plumley" Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Second Amended Complaint (SAC) in the case captioned CRAIG M.
PLUMLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SEMPRA ENERGY, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00512-BEN-AGS (S.D. Cal.).

This putative securities class action arises out of an October
23, 2015 natural gas leak from a well identified as SS-25 at
Aliso Canyon ("the Aliso Canyon gas leak"). The leak was sealed
on February 18, 2016. The crux of Plaintiffs' Complaint for
securities fraud is that Sempra made false and/or materially
misleading statements in its 2010 and 2014 rate increase
applications to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
and in various public statements prior to and following the Aliso
Canyon gas leak regarding Sempra's commitment to safety, the
scope of the Aliso Canyon gas leak, and the risks the Aliso
Canyon gas leak posed, primarily because none of these statements
disclosed that SS-25 lacked a safety valve and/or sliding sleeve
valve.

The Plaintiffs essentially re-plead the same scienter allegations
that Defendant Reed's January 4, 2016 stock sales evidence her
scienter because she would not have received as much money for
that sale if she had waited until after Governor Jerry Brown
declared the Aliso Canyon gas leak to be a state of emergency.

The Plaintiffs' allegations regarding Reed's scienter suffer from
the same flaws identified in the Court's June 20, 2017 Order,
which it finds applicable to its current analysis of the
Defendants' instant motion to dismiss and incorporates by
reference in this Order.

In particular, the Plaintiffs' opposition again fails to rebut
the Defendants' prima facie evidence of Reed's consistent stock
trading history. More importantly, the Plaintiffs' have not
plausibly alleged particularized facts to support the inferences
they wish the Court to draw, that Governor Brown told Ms. Brown
that he was going to declare a state of emergency, that Ms. Brown
advised Reed of the same, that Reed sold her stock based on this
information, and that Reed therefore must have known the omission
of SS-25's lack of safety valve was false or misleading. Once
again, the Court concludes these inferences are neither
reasonable nor compelling based on the complete lack of facts,
other than Ms. Brown's position on Sempra's board and her alleged
lack of natural gas or utility background, to support the
Plaintiffs' many accusations.

The Plaintiffs' re-pleaded allegations that the Defendants made
false and misleading statements in their 2014 CPUC rate increase
application because they failed to disclose that Well SS-25, like
the other wells at Aliso Canyon, were materially deficient and
lacked any safety or shutoff valve and lacked any sliding sleeve
valve still fails to plausibly establish a strong inference of
the Defendants' scienter. Assuming the Plaintiffs' allegations
that the 2014 application contained false and misleading
statements are true, the Court agrees with the Defendants that
the Plaintiffs have not met their pleading burden because they
did not identify any specific persons responsible for the
application's statements who had knowledge of the falsity and who
intended to deceive investors or was deliberately reckless in
deceiving investors.
Indeed, the Plaintiffs' opposition does not even address this
issue, it merely recites its unfounded conclusion that
Sempra's/SCG's securing CPUC rate increases via deficient
applications evidences the Defendants' scienter.

In sum, reviewing the SAC's scienter allegations individually and
holistically, the Court is not convinced that the Plaintiffs have
met their pleading burden to establish a strong inference of
scienter for any the Defendant. Similar to the First Amended
Complaint, at best, the SAC alleges Sempra and/or SCG knew that
SS-25 lacked a safety valve and had a financial motive and
opportunity to omit this information from: 1) the 2014 CPUC rate
increase application, 2) public statements regarding the scope
and health effects of the Aliso Canyon gas leak, 3) public
statements regarding estimated time to stop the leak, and 4) the
November 13, 2015 prospectus.

The Court finds these allegations, without more, are not
sufficient to support an inference of scienter, and therefore the
Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for violation of Section
10(b).

Having determined the Plaintiffs have not met their pleading
burden to adequately plead a violation of Section 10(b), the
Court also finds the Plaintiffs cannot maintain their Section
20(a) claims against Defendants Reed and Arriola. Accordingly,
the SAC is dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 26, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y787wme9 from Leagle.com.

Craig M Plumley, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by J. Alexander Hood,
II -- ahood@ pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer
Banner Sobers, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer Pafiti --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Jeremy A. Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew L.
Tuccillo -- mltuccillo@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice
& Adam C. McCall -- amccall@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.

Sempra Energy & Southern California Gas Company, Defendants,
represented by Robert E. Gooding, Jr. --
robert.gooding@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.


SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC: Sued Over Bungled Fairfield Project
------------------------------------------------------------
John Monk, writing for The State, reports that lawyers suing
South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G) told a S.C. Circuit Court
judge on April 30 that all of the utility's ratepayers should be
eligible for refunds because of a bungled multibillion-dollar
nuclear reactor construction project.

The lawyers want their lawsuits against the utility to be
declared class actions representing all SCE&G customers, not just
their clients.

Lawyers representing SCE&G and the plaintiffs suing it also
argued on April 30 over whether a controversial 2007 law -- the
Base Load Review Act -- is constitutional.  That law allowed
SCE&G to charge its ratepayers for construction of two nuclear
reactors.

SCE&G's customers already have paid $2 billion toward the
Fairfield County project, which the utility abandoned last year.
Its customers also are paying an additional $37 million a month
toward the project's cost, even though it never will be finished.

If Judge John Hayes grants the class-action motion and the
plaintiffs suing SCE&G win their case, all of the utility's
approximately 700,000 S.C. ratepayers would be eligible for a
refund.  If Judge Hayes denies the motion, only those people who
have filed individual lawsuits against the utility could get
refunds -- if they win their case.

But SCE&G attorney David Balser -- dbalser@kslaw.com -- fired
back, telling Judge Hayes the lawyers who are seeking class-
action status are involved in multiple lawsuits against the
utility in state and federal court. Those lawsuits pit the
interests of the lawyers' clients and SCE&G's other customers
against each other, Mr. Balser said.

As a result, the lawyers suing SCE&G have multiple conflicts of
interests, said Mr. Balser, an attorney with the Atlanta-based
King & Spalding law firm.

Mr. Balser showed the court a large chart of the law firms suing
SCE&G, with lines that he said showed the conflicts of interest.
He said those conflicts pose numerous "fatal flaws and fatal
problems."

But lawyer Gibson Solomons, who is suing SCE&G, told Judge Hayes
there were so many similarities in the various state court
lawsuits against the utility that the judge quickly should grant
class-action status.

"This day, as we sit here, SCE&G will collect another $1.2
million," Mr. Solomons told Judge Hayes, referring to the $37
million a month that SCE&G continues to charge its customers for
the failed nuclear project.

The lawyers also argued over whether the Base Load Review Act was
constitutional when the Legislature passed it.

That law also allowed SCE&G to increase its rates for
construction at the nuclear project and, the utility argues,
allows it to continue to recover its costs, even though the
project has been abandoned.

Bob Cook, a top lawyer with the S.C. attorney general's office,
told Hayes the money that ratepayers keep paying to SCE&G doesn't
benefit anyone but the utility's stockholders, who get dividends
every three months paid for from customers' bills.

"You can also refer to the Base Load Review Act as the
'Stockholders' Protection Act,'" Mr. Cook said.  "It is for the
stockholders, by the stockholders and serves the stockholders."

Since 2007, SCE&G's customers have been held captive by the Base
Load Review Act, Mr. Cook said.  SCE&G raised electric rates
while its customers could not challenge the hikes or question the
viability of the "plant that was never built."

In all, ratepayers have paid some $2 billion for the nuclear
fiasco, Mr. Cook said.

"The Base Load Review Act is the gift that keeps on giving to the
utility and keeps on taking from utility customers," Mr. Cook
said, arguing the law is unconstitutional because it takes
property -- money for customers' monthly bills -- without due
process.

Ashley Parrish, Esq. -- aparrish@kslaw.com -- a King & Spalding
attorney representing SCE&G, disputed Mr. Cook's assertions.

The Base Law Review Act requires the utility to give its
customers notice of rate hikes, and they can request a hearing
before any hike goes into effect, Ms. Parrish said.  Dissatisfied
ratepayers also had the option of going to the Legislature and
trying to change the Base Load Review Act, the attorney said.

In any case, monthly utility bills "are not constitutionally
property," Ms. Parrish contended.

Judge Hayes is not expected to make a ruling soon.

The April 30 hearing took place at the Richland County
Courthouse.

Last July, SCE&G, its parent company SCANA and its junior
partner, the state-owned Santee Cooper utility, abandoned the
nuclear project, having spent $9 billion over a decade of
construction attempting to build two reactors.

Critics contend SCE&G had known for years the reactors could not
be finished.  Despite that, they contend, the utility continued
to charge its customers for the project. [GN]


SQUAW VALLEY: Court Extends Time to Respond in "Pinto"
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California extended the time to Respond to First Amended
Complaint in the case captioned JOAO GABRIEL PINTO, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SQUAW VALLEY RESORT, LLC, a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-02281-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff filed this action against defendant Squaw Valley
and defendant KSL Resorts, alleging the following: (1) Failure to
Pay Minimum Wages; (2) Failure to Pay Wages and Overtime Under
Labor Code Section 510.

The Parties stipulate and request that Squaw Valley's deadline to
respond to the FAC be extended by forty-five (45) days, from
April 9, 2018, until May 24, 2018.

The Court, having reviewed the Stipulation of the Parties and
finding good cause, ordered that the deadline for Squaw Valley to
file a responsive pleading to the Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint is extended until May 24, 2018.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 9, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybsvpu24 from Leagle.com.

Joao Gabriel Pinto, Plaintiff, represented by Alvin B. Lindsay --
alvin@yeremianlaw.com -- David Yeremian & Associates, Inc. &
David Harmik Yeremian -- david@yeremianlaw.com -- David Yeremian
& Associates, Inc.

Squaw Valley Resort, LLC, Defendant, represented by Alexander M.
Chemers -- alexander.chemers@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree,
Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Lori A. Bowman --
lori.bowman@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak
and Stewart PC & Kelsey A. Webber --
kelsey.webber@ogletreedeakins.com --  Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak
& Stewart, PC.


SUGAR TRANSPORT: Court Extends Discovery Deadlines in "Guinn"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order for Limited Extension of Discovery
Related Deadlines in the captioned RYAN GUINN, an individual, on
behalf of himself, and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. SUGAR TRANSPORT OF THE NORTHWEST, INC.;
BRONCO WINE COMPANY, a California corporation; CLASSIC WINES OF
CALIFORNIA, a California corporation, a California corporation,
and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00325-WBS-
EFB (E.D. Pa.).

The Parties have engaged in discovery, and Defendant Sugar
Transport propounded Requests for Production, Set One on Bronco
on February 28, 2018. The Requests were designed to allow Sugar
Transport to obtain documents relevant to its defense that it
does not owe the Plaintiff overtime under the Motor Carrier
Exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Bronco served
responses on April 2, 2018, objecting on the grounds that the
requests were overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional
to the needs of the case, amongst other objections. After meeting
and conferring, the Parties have agreed to narrow the scope of
the requests. Even so narrowed, Bronco represents that the
responsive documents are voluminous (Bronco Production). Sugar
Transport has noticed the depositions of Byron Baker and Larry
Mitts for April 16 and 17, 2018 respectively. Sugar Transport
requires the documents in the Bronco Production in enough advance
of these depositions to both copy and analyze them.

The Parties further agree that the deadline to complete the
Document Inspection will be extended.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 16, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9bwnwk4 from Leagle.com.

Ryan Guinn, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Ian A. Kass, Pagano & Kass APC & James L. Pagano, Pagano & Kass
APC,. 96 North Third Street, Suite 525. San Jose, CA 95112
Sugar Transport of the Northwest, Inc., a California corporation,
Defendant, represented by Cassandra M. Ferrannini --
cferrannini@downeybrand.com -- Downey Brand LLP & Alexandra K.
LaFountain -- alafountain@downeybrand.com -- Downey Brand LLP.

Bronco Wine Company, a California corporation & Classic Wines of
California, a California corporation, Defendants, represented by
Eric J. Sousa, Rodarakis & Sousa, APC & Brandy Barnes, Rodarakis
& Sousa, APC., 1024 J. Street,Suite 425, Modesto, CA 95354


SUNRISE SENIOR: Court Grants Final OK of "Johnson" Class Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California dismissed with prejudice the case captioned JANEE
JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated
and/or aggrieved, Plaintiff, v. SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING MANAGEMENT,
INC., a corporation; SUNRISE ASSISTED LIVING, an entity unknown;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
00443-AB-RAOx (C.D. Cal.).

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 26, 2018 Order and
Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7gpcdce from
Leagle.com.

Janee Johnson, on behalf if herself and all those similarly
situated and/or aggrieved, Plaintiff, represented by Natasha R.
Chesler -- nrc@cmlegal.com -- Chesler McCaffrey LLP & Timothy B.
McCaffrey, Jr. -- tbm@cmlegal.com -- Chesler McCaffrey LLP.
Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc., a corporation, Defendant,
represented by Jason C. Schwartz -- jschwartz@gibsondunn.com --
Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice, Anna M. McKenzie --
amckenzie@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP, pro hac
vice, Dustin Gary May -- dmay@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and
Crutcher LLP & Michele L. Maryott -- mmaryott@gibsondunn.com --
Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP.


SUNTRUST BANK: Fails to Secure Classified Info, LeRoy et al. Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica LeRoy, Curtis Smith, and Loretta Smith, the Plaintiffs,
v. SunTrust Bank, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02200-MHC
(N.D. Ga., May 16, 2018), seeks equitable relief enjoining
SunTrust from engaging in wrongful conduct pertaining to misuse
and/or disclosure of Plaintiffs' and Class members' personally
identifiable information, and from refusing to issue prompt,
complete, and accurate disclosures to Plaintiffs and Class
members.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action case against SunTrust for
its failures to secure and safeguard its customers' personal and
highly private and confidential information, including names,
addresses, account balances, and other PII which SunTrust
maintains in connection with its banking relationships with its
customers, and for failing to provide timely, accurate, and
adequate notice to Plaintiffs and other Class members that their
PII had been compromised.

SunTrust has acknowledged that approximately 1.5 million
Customers' PII were compromised; what is presently unknown is for
what period of time this information was compromised and being
taken for malicious purposes. In any event, Plaintiffs' and the
Class members' PII was compromised due to SunTrust's acts,
omissions, and its failure to properly protect the PII.

In addition to SunTrust's failure to prevent the compromise of
the PII, it also failed to notify its customers when the
compromise was detected in February of 2018, thereby preventing
Plaintiffs and the Class members from taking action to protect
themselves, and it wasn't until April 20, 2018 -- when SunTrust
finally acknowledged the compromise -- that Plaintiffs and the
Class members could take any action to prevent the consequences
of the compromise of their PII loss and the damages which might
follow.

SunTrust Banks is an American bank holding company. The largest
subsidiary is SunTrust Bank. It had US$175 billion in assets as
of December 31, 2013.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adian R. Miller, Esq.
          John Yanchunis, Esq.
          Ryan McGee, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200
          Post Office Box 57007
          Atlanta, GA 30343-1007
          Telephone: (404) 496 7332
          Facsimile: (404) 496 7428
          E-mail: armiller@forthepeople.com
                  jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                  rmcgee@forthepeople.com


SYNGENTA: Lawyers Misled Corn Growners, Lawsuit Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Madison-St. Clair Record reports that sixty thousand corn growers
fell for a racket that Texas lawyer Mikal Watts led, lawyer
Douglas Nill of Minneapolis claims in U.S. district court.

Mr. Nill sued Mr. Watts, partner Fernando Guerra, the Watts
Guerra firm of San Antonio, and 14 other firms on April 24,
seeking to void every contract.

The lawsuit identifies former Illinois Congressman Bill Enyart as
a member of Watts Guerra, and alleges that Enyart misled growers.

According to the suit, Mr. Watts is alleged to have secretly
opted his 60,000 clients out of a federal class action against
seed producer Syngenta, in order to receive 40 percent fees.

He allegedly litigated the corn suits in Minnesota state court
rather than federal courts because federal courts act as
fiduciaries.

And, after criticizing class actions to his clients, Mr. Watts
allegedly reached an agreement with class counsel but didn't tell
his clients about it.

Judges have not approved the settlements, which involve $1.5
billion.

Mr. Nill wrote that Mr. Watts misled judges through
misrepresentations and omissions.

He wrote that U.S. district judge John Lungstrum of Kansas might
exercise his authority to cap the contracts.

"However, the court will have to cap the contract at zero to
prevent a situation where farmers are not assessed more fees and
expenses than of the merits of those proceedings and what is in
the best interest of farmers," Mr. Nill wrote.

He wrote that growers were told again and again that a mass tort
individual suit is better than a class action, because class
actions recover only coupons for plaintiffs.

He attributed such a statement to Mr. Enyart, quoting the
Champaign News-Gazette about a meeting in Champaign on Sept. 23,
2015.

The newspaper stated, "Additionally, the firm is filing suits in
Minnesota, where Syngenta Seeds is located, as opposed to filing
in a federal court."

The newspaper stated, "Enyart said the advantage to this was that
instead of getting a discount for seed corn in the future, as in
a class action case, there would be a gross settlement fee and
the firm would simply send the farmer a check."

"The statement is misleading and a fraud of omission," Mr. Nill
wrote.

Mr. Enyart's registration shows his place of business at Eckert
Enyart, in Belleville. [GN]


TARGET CORP: Settles Criminal Background Check Case for $3.4MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Bolchi and Sue Davis, writing for Workers World, report that
in a victory for a select group of jobseekers, Target Corp. is
being forced to get rid of its racist criminal background checks.
As part of a class action lawsuit won by the NAACP Legal Defense
and Education Fund, Target will pay a total of $3.4 million to
individuals and donate $600,000 to five organizations that help
people with criminal records find work.

According to court documents, 41,000 African-American and Latinx
applicants with records were denied jobs between May 2008 and
December 2016.  Applicants expressed frustration with the broken
criminal justice system -- disqualification because of
misdemeanor convictions going back 10 years, conditional offers
turned down based on decades-old drug convictions, and more.

The settlement, filed April 5, will now allow those applicants to
be eligible for priority hiring or interviewing, with restitution
for each one of up to $1,000.  Consultants will recommend changes
to Target's background check guidelines, reducing the list of
convictions that bar workers from jobs and allowing jobseekers to
appeal. (Minnesota Star Tribune, April 5)

This settlement has massive ramifications.  With 1,800 stores,
Target's new hiring practices will allow access to thousands of
steady, stable jobs.  In order for jobs in the U.S. to be a human
right -- as they are in Revolutionary Cuba -- all barriers need
to be removed. [GN]


TEZOS SECURITIES: Securities Suit Briefing Schedule Set
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California set a Briefing Schedules for the Defendants'
anticipated motions in response to the consolidated complaint in
the case captioned IN RE TEZOS SECURITIES LITIGATION. This
document relates to: ALL ACTIONS. No. 17-cv-06779-RS. (N.D. Cal.)

In the March 16, Order, the Court directed the parties to meet
and confer and file a stipulation and proposed order setting
forth a proposed schedule for filing of a consolidated complaint
and a briefing schedule for Defendants' anticipated motions in
response to the consolidated complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 26, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9cbto3b from Leagle.com.

GGCC, LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by William Richard Restis -- support@restislaw.com --
The Restis Law Firm, P.C., Bruce Daniel Greenberg --
bgreenberg@litedepalma.com -- Lite Depalma Greenberg LLC, Jeremy
Nash -- jnash@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC &
Joseph J. DePalma -- jdepalma@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma
Greenberg, LLC.

Tezos Stiftung, A Swiss Foundation, Defendant, represented by
Andrew S. Gehring -- andrew.gehring@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk
and Wardwell LLP, Edmund Polubinski, III --
edmund.polubinski@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP,
Neal Alan Potischman -- neal.potischman@davispolk.com -- Davis
Polk & Wardwell & Serge Alexander Voronov --
serge.voronov@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP.


TIGER BRANDS: Confirms Presence of Listeria Strain in Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chisom Jenniffer Okoye, writing for The Citizen, reports that
Tiger Brands recently released a statement that confirmed the
presence of the listeria strain that caused the outbreak in its
facilities.

Two law firms representing victims of the deadly listeriosis
outbreak have commended food giant Tiger Brands on their
transparency in releasing listeria testing information to
shareholders.

Tiger Brands recently released a statement that confirmed the
presence of the listeria strain that caused the outbreak at its
facilities.

This meant that their factories in Polokwane, Limpopo, and in
Germiston, Gauteng, would remain closed until the problem is
resolved.

The company said: "The purpose of this announcement [was] to
update shareholders on the results of the independent laboratory
retesting which was carried out in respect of the presence of
LST6 in the above samples."

Human rights lawyer Richard Spoor said: "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 [the] statement amounts to
is the acknowledgement by the company that indeed this outbreak
does come from their factory . . .

"We look forward to working with Tiger Brands' lawyers and
insurers to find an equitable solution for its injured
consumers."

Zain Lundell from LHL Attorneys said the announcement was helpful
and he hoped it would lead to a "speedy and just" settlement for
the individuals affected by the outbreak.

The two firms agreed to consolidate their class actions in
partnership with the US-based food safety law firm Marler Clark,
against Tiger Brands.

The class action currently represents 140 victims affected by the
listeria outbreak.  The firms are in the process of collecting
medical records and evidence related to the case. [GN]


TIM DRAPER: Investors Bring Suit Over Sale of Digital Currency
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Schuessler, writing for The Daily Journal, reports that with
claims those running a cryptocurrency fundraising operation
attempted to skirt U.S. securities laws, a set of investors in a
digital currency called Tezos are asking for their investments to
be repaid, according to a class action lawsuit filed in the San
Mateo County Superior Court.

The plaintiffs in the suit are claiming that by setting up a
Swiss foundation tasked with handling an initial coin offering
for Tezos tokens in July, a Mountain View-based corporation named
Dynamic Ledger Solutions and its shareholders, which include San
Mateo-based venture capitalist Tim Draper, facilitated the
illegal sale of unregistered securities, according to the suit.

The suit outlines a scheme by which Dynamic Ledger Solutions,
owned by Kathleen and Arthur Breitman as well as Draper,
allegedly took advantage of growing interest in digital
cryptocurrencies to stoke enthusiasm for Tezos, a currency the
company enabled by creating the blockchain technology behind it.
A digital ledger that can record transactions, blockchain has
enabled exchanges of bitcoin, and the lawsuit said the Breitmans
attempted to expand the types of applications available on
blockchain in the technology they developed for Tezos.

Though the price of digital currencies such as bitcoin have
surpassed the predictions of many -- stopping just shy of $20,000
in December -- its value has proven to be highly volatile,
plunging to under $7,000 in recent weeks and landing at a little
more than $9,000 on April 27.

In an effort to promote use of the Tezos blockchain, a nonprofit
called the Tezos Foundation was founded in Switzerland in April
of 2017 and a contract allegedly outlining the sale of Dynamic
Ledger Solutions to the foundation was signed by the company and
the foundation in June, according to the suit.

At around the same time, Draper is believed to have invested $1.5
million in Tezos and publicly announced his investment in May,
which the plaintiffs say caused interest in the currency's
impending initial coin offering, or ICO, in July to skyrocket,
according to the suit.

Draper did not respond to requests for comment on this story.

For some two weeks in July, the Tezos ICO was open, it allegedly
raised 65,627 bitcoin and 361,122 of the digital cryptocurrency
Ethereum, the combined total of which were valued at the time at
an estimated $232 million. The digital currencies invested in the
Tezos ICO were worth an estimated $1.2 billion as of Dec. 11,
according to the suit.

Because those who participated in the ICO had a reasonable
expectation that the Tezos token would appreciate in value and
both Draper and Kathleen Breitman made public statements about
the anticipated appreciation of the token, they were involved in
the selling of securities that were never registered with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs, which include Australian entity Trigon Trading
Pty. Ltd. and California resident Bruce MacDonald, also take
issue with the positioning of the exchanges made during the ICO
as a non-refundable donation and not an investment. They allege
that since the ICO, the Breitmans have engaged in public
disagreements with the foundation's president, Johann Gevers, and
that the foundation has been liquidating assets collected during
the ICO, at least $60,000 they say has been paid to Dynamic
Ledger Solutions, according to the suit.

The class is requesting members are repaid their investments and
any appreciation of them as well as compensation of legal fees,
according to the suit.[GN]


TOTAL QUALITY: Two Plaintiffs No Longer Part of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Kidd, writing for Cook County Record, reports that two
plaintiffs who joined a class action suit against an Ohio-based
shipping services provider over accusations of not paying
overtime to employees are no longer part of the case and their
claims could be heading into arbitration, despite the company's
tardiness in presenting the court with the employment agreements
containing the arbitration requirements.

A defense motion to dismiss the claims of the two plaintiffs,
Ryan Azeem and Richard Smith, who joined the suit after it was
filed against Total Quality Logistics (TQL), was granted,
according to a memorandum and order handed down in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 9
by U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly.

Kennelly dismissed the two plaintiffs' claims with prejudice and
also ordered the statute of limitations of their claims be tolled
from the date they opted into the lawsuit until the day of his
order.

"Having considered the totality of the circumstances, the court
concludes that TQL has not acted inconsistently with its right to
arbitrate the claims of plaintiffs Ryan Azeem and Richard Smith,"
Kennelly wrote in the order.  "The court therefore overrules
Azeem and Smith's waiver argument and grants TQL's motion to
dismiss their claims."

Messrs. Azeem and Smith joined the collective action suit against
TQL, accusing the company of violating the Fair Labor Standards
Act by not paying them overtime, according to the background
portion of Kennelly's order.

When the plaintiffs asked for conditional certification of two
classes, TQL asked to compel arbitration or dismiss the claims of
nine of the original plaintiffs, who had arbitration agreements.

TQL, which is based in Cincinnati, provided the court with
varying lists of employees without arbitration agreements, which
initially included Messr. Azeem and Smith.  However, that changed
in October when TQL said it had located arbitration agreements in
Mr. Azeem's and Mr. Smith's personnel files.

"Why did it take so long to find Azeem and Smith's personnel
files?" Judge Kennelly wrote in his order. "TQL has not provided
much of an explanation.  It has submitted an affidavit from
Lindsay Elliott, a TQL human resources employee, who says that
all personnel files from its seven Florida offices (both
Azeem and Smith worked for TQL in Florida) are retained solely in
hard copy and are stored at the company's Tampa office.  Elliott
states, somewhat vaguely, that upon receiving the request for the
personnel files of opt-in plaintiffs in April 2017, TQL 'began
working methodically' to collect the files.  There is no
explanation of what this means -- for example, was it just one
employee working on this? More than that? Where did she have to
look? Were the files in storage? Rather, Ms. Elliott offers only
a general statement that each file had to be located among the
files of other employees.  She says that '[i]n or around October
2017,' she found Smith and Azeem's files and sent them to TQL's
counsel."

When the attorneys for the plaintiffs said they did not want to
drop Messrs. Azeem and Smith for fear that the statute of
limitations might bar their claims, TQL offered to toll the
statute of limitations for both to make up for the time they have
been part of the litigation. Kennelly agreed that that would be
the right course of action.

"To be sure, TQL should have identified Azeem and Smith
membership much sooner," he said in the order.  "But once TQL
became aware they had signed arbitration agreements, it promptly
requested arbitration of their claims: It was not 'assessing its
options,' and it did not 'drop a bombshell' by insisting upon
arbitration.  And TQL did not materially benefit from its delay.
The discovery requests it served resulted in production of only
minimal information by Azeem and Smith, and it likely was the
type of information they would have had to turn over even had
their claims been sent to arbitration before that."

Plaintiffs are represented in the action by attorneys Ryan F
Stephan, of the firm of Stephan Zouras LLP, of Chicago, and
Kimberly De Arcangelis, Charles R. Morgan and Matthew R. Gunter,
of Morgan & Morgan P.A., of Orlando.

TQL is represented by Matthew A. Bills -- matthew.bills@bfkn.com
-- of the firm of Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum & Nagelberg LLP,
of Chicago, and Meaghan K. Fitzgerald, Gregory M. Utter, Bryce J.
Yoder -- byoder@kmklaw.com -- and Sophia R. Holley --
sholley@kmklaw.com -- of Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL, of
Cincinnati.  [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: 14 Women Seek Release from Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Hwang, writing for ABA Journal, reports that fourteen women
sent a letter to the Uber's board of directors on April 26
requesting to be released from the arbitration provision in their
consumer agreement to allow them to pursue a class-action lawsuit
alleging Uber's inadequate driver screening procedures led to the
sexual assault, rape, sexual harassment and gender-motivated
violence they experienced at the hands of their drivers.

The open letter was addressed to the Uber Technologies Inc. board
of directors by women who write that confidential arbitration
goes against Uber's declared mission to help "make streets safer"
and takes away a woman's right to a trial by a jury of her peers,
providing "a dark alley for Uber to hide from the justice system,
the media and public scrutiny."  The plea comes as the ride-
hailing company faces a May 4 deadline to respond to the women's
complaint against the company in court. Law360, Axios, ABC News
and Bloomberg Technology had the story.

"Secret arbitration is the opposite of transparency," the letter
says.  "Forcing female riders, as a condition of using Uber's
app, to pursue claims of sexual assault and rape in secret
arbitration proceedings does not 'make streets safer.' In fact,
it does the opposite.  Silencing our stories deprives customers
and potential investors from the knowledge that our horrific
experiences are part of a widespread problem at Uber. This is not
doing the 'right thing.'"

The women share their stories of being assaulted, groped and
raped by their drivers in the letter.  One said her driver
"jumped into the backseat, groped my body and forcibly tried to
kiss me" when she tried to exit the vehicle.  Another said her
driver "pulled out his penis and masturbated during the ride" and
saw him "on five separate occasions lingering in his car on the
street outside of my apartment complex."

New York City-based Wigdor Law initially filed the class action
in November on behalf of two unidentified women, arguing that
Uber put thousands of women at risk and put profit over safety.
When Uber moved for arbitration, the firm added seven more women
to the case.  Jeanne Christensen, the lawyer for the women, says
she will add another five women, according to Bloomberg
Technology.

The women seek to represent a class of all individuals in the
U.S. who were raped, sexually assaulted or sexually harassed by
their Uber drivers dating back four years, according to Law360.
They are seeking damages and implementation of safety measures by
Uber.

"If Uber is the great force of change it claims, then you, as the
board of the directors, should jump at the opportunity to make
positive changes for women who order rides with Uber," the letter
says.  "Our request to proceed with our case in an open, public
forum, rather than behind the secret doors of arbitration, is
just one such opportunity for Uber to 'do the right thing.'"

Uber representatives did not respond to an ABA Journal request
for comment.  "Sexual assault has no place anywhere and we are
committed to doing our part to end this violence," Uber said in a
statement reported by ABC News and Bloomberg Technology.
[GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: 103 Drivers Face Sexual Assault Complaints
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Ashley O'Brien, Nelli Black, Curt Devine, Drew Griffin,
Majlie de Puy Kamp, Collette Richards and Whitney Clegg, writing
for CNNTech, report that in another case examined by CNN, a woman
from Miami left her kids with their grandmother and went to a bar
with a friend.  She took an Uber home.  She says she passed out
along the way and woke up the next morning with her pants and
underwear on the floor.

The Uber driver allegedly carried her into her apartment, threw
her onto the bed and sexually assaulted her.  She is a plaintiff
in a proposed class action lawsuit against Uber.

"You are pretty much hitchhiking with strangers," she told CNN.
"How many people is it going to take to get assaulted before
something is done?"

According to police, the driver told them he knew the victim had
been drinking and was "wrong for what he did." He pleaded not
guilty for sexual battery and awaits trial.

A woman in Long Beach, California, who alleges she fell asleep
intoxicated in the back of an Uber in 2016, told CNN that she
woke up with the driver assaulting her.  The driver, 47, was
found the next day with her phone and later arrested.  He claimed
the sex was consensual and the district attorney dropped the
criminal case against him.  She is suing Uber over the incident
and for representing its services as "safe."

"You don't think it will happen to you," she told CNN.  "I still
feel ashamed . . . that's why I'm here.  I want a voice. [I'm]
tired of being quiet."

Uber: 'We want to be part of the solution'

Uber, which launched in 2010 in San Francisco as "everyone's
private driver," is the most valuable privately-held tech startup
in the world.  It is valued at $70 billion and operates in 630
cities worldwide.  Uber provides 15 million rides a day.

The issue of sexual assault conflicts with Uber's brand messaging
to provide a "safe ride home."  Its print and digital ads show
women taking Ubers for nights out, and a partnership with Mothers
Against Drunk Driving includes a "designated rider" campaign
urging users to take an Uber to avoid driving under the
influence.  In 2015, Uber set up a popup kiosk in Toronto to
offer free rides to those who blew into breathalyzers.

This is significant given many of the women raped or attacked by
the 103 accused drivers uncovered as a part of CNN's
investigation had been drinking, or were inebriated, at the time
of the incidents.

The majority of the police reports reviewed by CNN involved
incidents that took place in or near major cities across the
country.  Uber did not provide numbers on how many of its drivers
have been accused of sexual assaults.

Five drivers across various states told CNN they were not
provided any kind of sexual harassment or assault training.
Drivers agree to the company's community guidelines when they
sign up to work for the service.  Uber said it updated its
standards in December 2016 to specify no sexual contact is
permitted when using its platform.

The company posted a sexual assault prevention video on its
website to inform drivers and riders "how to create a safer
community." It also said it plans to host 50 community forums
nationwide for advocates, leaders, drivers and riders across to
talk about the issue.  The changes came after CNN first contacted
Uber about this story.

Uber was made aware of CNN's reporting for this story months ago
but the company failed to make any executives available to speak
on the record.  It canceled an on-camera interview with an Uber
executive.

On a call with CNN for an unrelated story, Uber CEO Dara
Khosrowshahi said cracking down on sexual assault is a "new
priority for us."

"It is a priority that I expect to remain a priority for the
foreseeable future," said Mr. Khosrowshahi, who joined the
company in late August after cofounder Travis Kalanick stepped
down.

In a recent statement sent to CNN, an Uber spokesperson said
safety is the company's top priority this year and cited recent
protocol updates such as rerunning driver background checks on an
annual basis moving forward.  The company also said it plans to
roll out a dedicated "safety center" within the Uber app where
riders can designate contacts they want to share trip details
with while they ride; it will also have an emergency button
allowing users to call 911 from inside the app.

"This is just a start and we are committed to doing more," the
spokesperson said.  "Sexual assault is a horrible crime that has
no place anywhere. While Uber is not immune to this societal
issue, we want to be part of the solution to end this violence
forever."

Lyft, an Uber competitor that provides one million rides daily in
the United States and Canada, is also dealing with sexual
assaults by its drivers.  A similar CNN review using the same
methodology found 18 cases of Lyft drivers accused in the past
four years. Four drivers have been convicted.

"The safety of the Lyft community is our top priority," said a
Lyft spokesperson, adding it has "worked hard to design policies
and features that protect our community."

It's common for Uber and Lyft drivers to work for both services.
But each company performs its own background checks.  Both
companies mostly conduct digital background checks via a startup
called Checkr.

Uber said it reviews the records of driver candidates that are
surfaced to the company by its background check provider.  It
said any serious criminal convictions, like sexual assault, sex
crimes against children and kidnapping, would disqualify
candidates.

The company previously didn't have a uniform policy on rerunning
criminal background checks.  But when pressed by CNN, a
spokesperson said in January it started running screenings on
drivers every two years in mid-2017.  In addition to its recent
announcement about annual background checks on drivers, Uber
plans to monitor new criminal offenses (via public records or
pending DUI charges) as they happen.

CNN found two instances in which drivers pleaded guilty to sexual
assaults while working for both Uber and Lyft.

In one case, a Seattle driver began driving for Lyft after Uber
discharged him, according to court documents.  He later sexually
assaulted a Lyft rider.  In the other case, a driver pleaded
guilty in San Diego to indecent exposure and the false
imprisonment of an Uber passenger, as well as battery for a
separate incident involving a Lyft passenger.

Police are tracking reported crimes by drivers

Of the 103 Uber drivers accused of sexual assault or abuse, for
18 of them, criminal cases did not move forward either because
charges were dropped, cases were dismissed, or drivers were found
not guilty.

The district attorneys and police officers who spoke to CNN said
cases don't move forward for several reasons, such as lacking a
probable cause or witness cooperation.

In addition to finding the 103 drivers accused of crimes or named
in a civil lawsuit, CNN contacted more than 20 police departments
to obtain data on complaints that involved Uber or Lyft drivers
and sexual assault.  Four police departments -- Austin, Boston,
Denver and Los Angeles -- tracked crimes involving rideshare
drivers and shared their data on sexual assault complaints.

CNN did not include most of these complaints in its tally of
cases, because they could not all be verified with incident
reports.

However, the numbers suggest that there may be many more overall
incidents of sexual assault than the 103 cases found in the CNN
investigation.

The Boston Police Department received 24 complaints or reports of
Uber drivers allegedly sexually assaulting passengers since 2016.
The department received three assault-related complaints
involving Lyft drivers during the same period.

Since 2016, the Los Angeles Police Department has received at
least 13 similar complaints about Uber drivers, eight regarding
Lyft drivers and more than a dozen about ride-share drivers whose
companies were unclear in data shared with CNN. Only one of those
cases led to an arrest.

In Austin, police have documented at least 16 sexual assault
complaints about Uber drivers -- and at least ten about Lyft
drivers -- since 2015.

Meanwhile, the Denver police department has recorded at least
nine sexual assault or abuse complaints about Uber drivers and at
least 12 about Lyft drivers since 2015, but only two of those
complaints resulted in criminal charges.  Most of the other
Denver cases became inactive due to lack of witness cooperation
or were refused by the district attorney for lack of evidence.

Lawyer: Uber has been 'keeping this story quiet'

Jeanne Christensen, an attorney with law firm Wigdor LLP, has
been pursuing Uber rape and assault cases since 2015 when her
firm filed a lawsuit after a high-profile rape case in New Delhi.
The Uber driver, who had a previous record that included rape and
molestation, was sentenced to life in prison.  The incident
sparked protests and caused authorities to temporarily ban Uber
from the city for six weeks.

That case, and questions about how Uber handled it, thrust the
issue into the spotlight.

Most recently, Ms. Christensen's firm represents a proposed class
action against Uber on behalf of nine plaintiffs, including the
Miami woman CNN interviewed, who said they were assaulted by Uber
drivers.

Uber is trying to compel the women to carry out their case
through arbitration per its legal terms of service.  When users
sign up for Uber, they agree to its terms, which includes
resolving any claim "on an individual basis in arbitration."

Ms. Christensen and the women are pushing back.  In a letter to
Uber's board, 14 women detailed their experiences and urged the
company to remove its arbitration clause, saying it silences them
and forces the issue underground.

"We trusted a company operating in the space of transportation
for hire to mean what it says, and we never thought that Uber
would perpetuate physical violence against women," they wrote.

An Uber spokesperson previously issued a statement to CNN about
forcing the case into arbitration, calling it the "appropriate
venue for this case because it allows the plaintiffs to publicly
speak out as much as they want and have control over their
individual privacy at the same time."

Over the years, Ms. Christensen said she noticed a trend in those
who've come to her firm for help: Victims tend to be female and
petite, live alone, and were inebriated at the time of the
alleged assault, she told CNN.

"If a driver is going to enter her home, he has [likely] asked
her enough questions and knows she lives alone," she said.

Ms. Christensen -- who said she's currently representing 16 women
who alleged they've been been raped or attacked by Uber drivers -
- will not say how many cases against Uber her firm has handled,
citing confidentiality.

Multiple attorneys across the country were similarly silent about
their cases against Uber.  Like many large companies, Uber
requires all parties to sign a confidentially agreement when a
case is settled.

"We aren't simply filing cases so Uber [can] pay women money and
their lawyers to be quiet about it," she told CNN.  "That was a
conscious decision that we made. Uber has done a miraculous job
at keeping this story quiet." [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Briefing Schedule Set in "Yucesoy"
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order to Revise Briefing Schedule Regarding
Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint in the case
captioned HAKAN YUCESOY, ABDI MAHAMMED, MOKHTAR TALHA, BRIAN
MORRIS, and PEDRO SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
and TRAVIS KALANICK, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-00262-EMC (N.D.
Cal.).

The hearing and case management conference will remain on
calendar for June 14, 2018.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 9, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yb3eyfbc from Leagle.com.

Hakan Yucesoy, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan --
sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Adelaide Pagano
-- apagano@llrlaw.com -- Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C., pro hac
vice & Matthew David Carlson -- mdcarlson@llrlaw.com -- Lichten &
Liss-Riordan, P.C.

Abdi Mahammd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,, Mokhtar Talha, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,, Brian Morris, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,, Pedro Sanchez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,,
Antonio Oliveira, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, & Aaron Dulles, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,, Plaintiffs, represented by
Adelaide Pagano , Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C., pro hac vice &
Shannon Liss-Riordan , Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.

Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Debra Wong
Yang  -- dwongyang@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn Crutcher LLP,
Marcellus Antonio McRae -- mmcrae@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. --
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Attorney at Law Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, Dhananjay Saikrishna Manthripragada --
dmanthripragada@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher,
Joshua Seth Lipshutz -- jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn
and Crutcher LLP, Peter C. Squeri -- psqueri@gibsondunn.com --
Theane D. Evangelis, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Theane
Evangelis Kapur -- tevangelis@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP.
Travis Kalanick, Defendant, represented by Dhananjay Saikrishna
Manthripragada, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher, Joshua Seth Lipshutz ,
Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Peter C. Squeri ,Theane Evangelis
Kapur , Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. ,
Attorney at Law Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.


UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Needs Supplemental Briefs in "Rodriguez"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, directed
parties in the case captioned ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ, for himself
and on behalf of a class of similarly-situated individuals;
ABDIRIZAK ADEN FARAH, for himself and on behalf of a class of
similarly-situated individuals; JOSE FARIAS CORNEJO; YUSSUF
ABDIKADIR; ABEL PEREZ RUELAS, Petitioners-Appellees/Cross-
Appellants, and EFREN OROZCO, Petitioner, v. DAVID JENNINGS,
Field Office Director, Los Angeles District, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, Secretary, Homeland
Security; JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General; WESLEY
LEE, Assistant Field Office Director, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; RODNEY PENNER, Captain, Mira Loma Detention Center;
SANDRA HUTCHENS, Sheriff of Orange County; NGUYEN, Officer,
Officer-in-Charge, Theo Lacy Facility; DAVIS NIGHSWONGER,
Captain, Commander, Theo Lacy Facility; MIKE KREUGER, Captain,
Operations Manager, James A. Musick Facility; ARTHUR EDWARDS,
Officer-in-Charge, Santa Ana City Jail; RUSSELL DAVIS, Jail
Administrator, Santa Ana City Jail; JAMES MCHENRY, Director,
Executive Office for Immigration Review, Respondents-Appellants.
Nos. 13-56706, 13-56755. (9th Cir.), to File Supplemental Briefs
addressing the following procedural questions:

   (1) whether this Court has jurisdiction over petitioners'
constitutional claims despite 8 U.S.C. Sections 1252(f)(1), and
if not, whether the Court may nonetheless issue declaratory
relief for the Rule 23(b)(2) class;

   (2) whether a Rule 23(b)(2) class action continues to be the
appropriate vehicle for petitioners' claims in light of Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011); and

   (3) whether a Rule 23(b)(2) class action litigated on common
facts is an appropriate way to resolve petitioners' claims.

The supplemental briefs should also address the following
constitutional questions:

   (1) whether the Constitution requires that aliens seeking
admission to the United States who are subject to mandatory
detention under 8 U.S.C. Sections 1225(b) must be afforded bond
hearings, with the possibility of release into the United States,
if detention lasts more than six months;

   (2) whether the Constitution requires that criminal or
terrorist aliens who are subject to mandatory detention under
U.S.C. Section 1226(c) must be afforded bond hearings, with the
possibility of release, if detention lasts more than six months;
and

   (3) whether the Constitution requires that, in bond hearings
for aliens detained for more than six months under Sections
1225(b), 1226(c), or 1226(a), the alien is entitled to release
unless the government demonstrates by clear and convincing
evidence that the alien is a flight risk or a danger to the
community or rather whether the government's proof of flight risk
or danger could be by only a preponderance of the evidence,
whether the length of the alien's detention must be weighed in
favor of release, and whether new bond hearings must be afforded
automatically every six months.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's April 12, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yd5ryowt from Leagle.com.

Sarah Stevens Wilson (argued), Theodore William Atkinson, Hans
Harris Chen, Alisa Beth Klein, Robert I. Lester, Jaynie R.
Lilley, Benjamin C. Mizer, Nicole Prairie, and Erez Reuveni,
United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for
Respondents-Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

Ahilan Thevanesan Arulanantham, Michael Kaufman, Peter Jay
Eliasberg, ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Los Angeles,
California; Judy Rabinovitz -- jrabinovitz@aclu.org -- and
Michael K.T. Tan -- mtan@aclu.org -- ACLU Immigrants' Rights
Project, New York, New York; Cecillia D. Wang, ACLU Immigrants'
Rights Project, San Francisco, California; Jayashri Srikantiah,
Stanford Law School Mills Legal Clinic, 559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610, Sean Ashley Commons --
scommons@sidley.com -- and Wen Shen -- LSHEN@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley
Austin LLP, Los Angeles, California; Steven Andrew Ellis --
sellis@goodwinprocter.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, Los Angeles,
California, for Petitioners-Appellees/Cross-Appellants.


UNITED STATES: VA to Build Housing Units Following Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Rashidi, writing for Daily Bruin, reports that the
Department of Veterans Affairs plans to build more than 1,000
housing units at its West Los Angeles campus.

The VA held a public hearing on April 26 to gauge public opinion
for its plans to provide permanent supportive housing for
veterans who are homeless or at risk of being homeless.  James
Sullivan, director of the Office of Asset Enterprise Management,
said the proposed enhanced-use lease initiative would allow a
developer to finance, build and operate permanent supportive
housing and related services.

The VA first plans to renovate Building 207, located in the
northern portion of its West LA campus near Westwood, to provide
supportive housing for veterans in the area, Sullivan added.

Meghan Flanz, the executive director of the VA overseeing the
West LA campus Master Plan, said the department reached an
agreement with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern
California after the ACLU filed a class-action lawsuit alleging
the department was violating an agreement to provide more
services for homeless veterans with disabilities.

The VA agreed in 2014 to engage with local community members in
drafting its Master Plan for housing homeless veterans in the
future, Ms. Flanz said.  The department completed the Master
Plan, which outlines housing building proposals for 1,200 units
in 2016.

"The Master Plan . . . uses the campus for the purpose of housing
homeless and vulnerable veterans and meeting the needs of
underserved veteran populations to include women veterans, aging
veterans and those who are severely or mentally disabled,"
Ms. Flanz said.

The West Los Angeles Leasing Act of 2016 that Congress passed
enables the VA to enter into enhanced-use leases so vendors it
selects can build and operate on the campus, Ms. Flanz said.

"VA has no authority on its own to build or operate homeless
housing, but the enhanced-use lease authority allows us to
partner with others to get that done," he said.

Some students and community members who attended the panel said
they think the public hearing was important in bringing together
the directors and community members to make suggestions and have
their questions answered.

Jesse Flores, a graduate student studying urban planning, said he
supports the proposal because it will help address homelessness
in Los Angeles.

"I think it is important to address the large homelessness issue
that is in LA -- especially with veteran homelessness, where it
is nearly at 5,000," he said.  "We have this real estate here,
this land here at the West LA VA campus to actually do something
about it, so let's do something."

Bryan Dean, a fourth-year political science student who also
works at the UCLA Veteran Research Center, said he thinks the
campus could eventually expand its services to help student
veterans, including getting them into university housing.

"There are many student veterans that would need housing, so this
could fill that gap," he said.  "I am sure there are numerous
ways that student veterans can get involved."

Jerry Orlemann, a former veteran who served for 14 years in the
U.S. Army, said he thinks leasing part of the campus to a
developer will help get housing built faster.  He added he thinks
building projects can usually be slow and it is important to get
homeless veterans off the streets as quickly as possible.

"When you have got people literally out on the streets, you are
talking about sheltering them -- it is whatever you can do, the
sooner the better," he said. [GN]


UNIVERSAL TAX: Judge Rejects D&B's Attempt to Reopen Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Kidd, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a judge
has deleted a tax accounting firm's attempt to reopen a class
action lawsuit in Chicago federal court against a tax software
provider for claims of fraud, saying the accountant can't
demonstrate any of the alleged fraud actually took place in
Illinois.

U.S. District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer granted a motion for
summary judgment sought by defendant Universal Tax Systems, which
does business as CCH Small Firm Services, according to a
memorandum and order handed down March 31.

In the same order, Judge  Pallmeyer denied a motion by plaintiff
D&B II Enterprises, which does business as Bain Accounting Tax,
that fraud claims in the case should be reconsidered.
Additionally, she terminated as moot D&B Enterprises' motion for
class action certification.

"[D&B] has asked the court to reconsider Judge [James] Zagel's
decision to grant summary judgment for [Universal Tax Systems] on
[D&B]'s claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act," Judge Pallmeyer said in the order.

"[D&B]'s motion is denied because D&B has not presented any
evidence that any of the circumstances relating to its
allegations of fraud took place primarily and substantially in
Illinois."

D&B brought its putative class action against Universal Tax
Systems, asserting performance issues with Universal's tax
software for the 2012 tax year amounted to consumer fraud.

After fraud counts were dismissed earlier by Judge Zagel, D&B
added "several contract and quasi-contract claims," and then
filed a motion to certify a class to include people who purchased
Universal Tax Systems' software during the 2012 tax year.

Universal Tax Systems, however, objected to the claims, arguing
it had used a disclaimer allowed under Illinois state law,
according to Judge Pallmeyer's order.

"The Illinois Uniform Commercial Code allows merchants to
disclaim the implied warranty of merchantability, provided they
do so using 'conspicuous' language that 'mention[s]'
merchantability," Judge Pallmeyer wrote.  "The parties may
disclaim all implied warranties by expressions like 'as is,'
'with all faults' or other language which in common understanding
calls the buyer's attention to the exclusion of warranties and
makes plain that there is no implied warranty. [Universal Tax
Systems] contends it made such a disclaimer in this case, and
[D&B] does not argue that the disclaimer of warranties in the
2012 SSLA [standard software license agreement] is insufficient
as written."

D&B claimed the 2012 SSLA was unenforceable because it never
agreed to the 2012 SSLA, and that the deferred payment agreement
to which D&B did agree, did not include a reference to the 2012
SSLA.  D&B also claimed that enforcing the 2012 SSLA "would be
procedurally unconscionable."

D&B also argued the deferred payment agreement's description of
the SSLA as an 'other' agreement made it clear that the deferred
payment agreement did not incorporate any 'other' agreements by
reference.

"This argument is not persuasive," Judge Pallmeyer said.
"Language distinguishing one document from another does not
automatically preclude incorporation by reference.  If anything,
such language may be a prerequisite for incorporation by
reference, as the concept of incorporation by reference implies
the existence of an incorporating document that is
distinguishable from the document being incorporated.  In the
absence of an 'other' document, there would be nothing for 'this'
document to incorporate."

D&B is represented by attorneys Elizabeth A. Fegan, Daniel J.
Kurowski and Mark T. Vazquez, of the firm of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro Llp, of Chicago; and Don M Downing, Gretchen Garrison and
Jason D. Sapp, of the firm of Gray, Ritter & Graham, P.C., of St.
Louis.

Universal Tax System is represented by attorneys Craig C. Martin
-- cmartin@jenner.com -- Leah K. Casto -- LCasto@jenner.com --
Matthew R. Devine -- mdevine@jenner.com -- David E. Jimenez-Ekman
-- djimenez-ekman@jenner.com -- Brienne M. Letourneau --
bletourneau@jenner.com -- and Caroline L. Meneau, of the firm of
Jenner & Block, of Chicago. [GN]


UNO RESTAURANT: Court Won't Certify Class of Tipped Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Jose Santos Alvarez, the Plaintiff, v. Uno
Restaurant Associates, Inc. d/b/a Prime Italian and Myles
Chefetz, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-24452-RNS (S.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. entered an order on May 21,
2018, denying Alvarez's motions for conditional class
certification under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) and class certification
under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23:

   "all bussers and servers ("tipped employees") who worked for
   Defendants during the three (3) years preceding this lawsuit
   and who, as a result of Defendants' policy of requiring them
   to share their tips with non-tipped employees, earned less
   than the applicable minimum regular and overtime wage for one
   or more weeks during the Relevant Time Period."

The Court concludes that class certification is improper at this
time because Alvarez has failed to demonstrate that the
numerosity and commonality requirements have been met. As a
result, the Court need not evaluate the other Rule 23
requirements and must deny Alvarez's motion for class
certification.

Alvarez alleges that he and other tipped employees, and in
particular, other bussers and servers, were forced to share their
tips with non-tipped employees such as stockers and sweepers;
denied minimum and overtime wages, and forced to perform non-tip-
producing side work.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LZH6c6kw


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Aspen Law Firms File Emissions Scandal Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Carroll, writing for Aspen Times, reports that fallout from
the Volkswagen emissions scandal has veered into Aspen, where two
associated law firms have taken legal action against the Germany-
based parent company of Audi.

Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Aspen LLC and Wright Law
Aspen, which have adjacent office suites at 715 W. Main St.,
transferred their lawsuits from Garfield County District Court to
the U.S. District Court in Denver.

The three suits -- two from Attorneys Title, one from Wright Law
-- make a series of allegations against Volkswagen more than 21/2
years after the Environmental Protection Agency, in September
2015, said the automaker violated the Clean Air Act.

Volkswagen committed the violations with its so-called defeat
devices, software that manipulated emissions tests by falsely
issuing positive results that met federal emissions standards.

"By installing these 'defeat devices' and failing to disclose the
true nature of emissions from the clean diesel cars, defendant
willingly, knowingly and intentionally violated Colorado state
law, lied to and defrauded consumers," says one of the suits from
Attorneys Title.

The complaints from Attorneys Title and Wright Law, which are
both run by Aspen lawyer Gary Wright, allege that in August 2013,
the two firms entered a three-year lease for a 2014 Audi Q5 A3,
which was billed as a clean-diesel vehicle, from Audi Glenwood
Springs.

That Audi model is one of multiple Volkswagen products with
turbocharged direct injection (TDI) diesel engines snared by what
has been called "emissionsgate" and "dieselgate."

Neither Wright nor attorneys from the Glenwood Springs-based firm
Karp Neu Hanlon PC returned messages seeking comment.

The complaints, however, say the plaintiffs "had no way of
knowing about Audi of America's intentional and sophisticated
deception with respect to the TDI fraud 'defeat device' until
around the fall of 2016, when it became aware of the class action
litigation" in federal court in the Northern District of
California.

On April 27, attorneys for Volkswagen filed a motion to stay the
proceedings until a judicial panel's decision is made whether to
fold the Aspen suits into similar proceedings in federal court in
the Northern District of California, where a number of class
actions by car purchasers against Volkswagen have been
consolidated.

"More than 2,400 actions have been filed against (Volkswagen
Group of America Inc.) in courts across the United States based
on those allegations, including 64 lawsuits filed in Colorado
courts," wrote attorneys from the Denver firm Wheeler Trigg
O'Donnell LLP, on behalf of Volkswagen.

The motion also notes that both Attorneys Title and Wright Law
lagged behind the class action and there is no sense of urgency
to accelerate the litigation.

"The EPA's notice of violation, which set off the Volkswagen
controversy and constitutes the primary basis for plaintiff's
action, was issued more than two years before plaintiff filed its
complaint," the motion says.  "Plaintiff even admits that it
became aware of the resulting litigation -- and the MDL -- by
'the fall of 2016,' over a year before it eventually commenced
this action.  Plaintiff's delay clearly indicates that it would
not be prejudiced by the short stay."

The suits were originally filed in late March and early April in
Garfield County District Court, before being transferred to the
federal venue in Denver. [GN]



VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Class Action Over Defective Sunroofs Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
proposed class-action lawsuit that claims a Volkswagen sunroof
shattered because of defects has been dismissed by a federal
judge in New Jersey.

Plaintiff Jonathan David says he purchased a new 2014 Volkswagen
Touareg equipped with a panoramic sunroof with a movable front
panel and fixed back panel.

The plaintiff claims that before he bought the vehicle, he did
extensive research by reading magazine reviews, speaking with
owners and questioning VW service technicians.  In addition,
Mr. David says the panoramic sunroof was a "huge selling point"
in his decision to purchase the Touareg.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. David was driving on January 7,
2016, when he heard a sound he thought was a tire blowout or a
gunshot, causing him to swerve and allegedly almost hit the
highway barrier.  Finding himself covered in glass, the plaintiff
says he saw a hole in the sunroof (pictured above right) and
reduced his speed to drive back to his home.

Once back at home, the plaintiff says he noticed the sunroof
glass had blown upwards with some pieces of glass caught in the
rear section of the panoramic sunroof . Other pieces of glass had
fallen into the back seat, front seats and onto the center
console.

VW roadside support towed the vehicle to a dealer where the
plaintiff was informed the replacement sunroof would cost about
$1,400, a cost the automaker wouldn't cover.

Mr. David says he called Volkswagen and was told the decision by
the dealer was final.  The plaintiff says he paid an insurance
deductible of $500 and his insurance company paid the remaining
amount to replace the sunroof.

According to the plaintiff, VW should have told him the sunroof
could shatter because he wouldn't have paid what he did for the
Touareg if Volkswagen wouldn't have concealed the alleged defect.

The lawsuit references complaints made about shattered sunroofs
in VW vehicles and also references problems other automakers have
allegedly experienced with sunroofs that exploded.

The plaintiff also references a 2014 recall of VW Beetle cars to
replace sunroofs, although the recall was related to sunroofs
that could break when the cars hit potholes or other rough
surfaces.

The Volkswagen models included in the proposed class-action
lawsuit include the following vehicles equipped with factory-
installed panoramic sunroofs:

   -- 2013 Volkswagen Beetle
   -- 2009-2017 Volkswagen CC
   -- 2008-2014 Volkswagen Eos
   -- 2010-present Volkswagen Golf
   -- 2009-present Volkswagen Jetta
   -- 2009-present Volkswagen Passat
   -- 2011-present Volkswagen Tiguan

VW filed a motion to dismiss the entire lawsuit and the judge
agreed to toss the suit by finding every claim made by the
defendant couldn't be supported in court.

The judge ruled the new vehicle limited warranty covers only a
manufacturers defect in material or workmanship, but the lawsuit
focuses entirely on how the sunroof was designed, not how it was
manufactured.

Concerning the serious allegation that VW fraudulently concealed
information about the alleged sunroof defect, the court found the
lawsuit doesn't say "what acts of concealment were taken, by
whom, regarding which facts, and what, if any, information was
directly withheld from Plaintiff."

The judge determined the lawsuit contains only vague generalized
allegations that some type of information was withheld at some
point by someone, and weak allegations such as that aren't good
enough in court.

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff purchased his car in
February 2014 but did not file the lawsuit until November 2017,
leaving his claim time-barred because the statute of limitations
for a breach of express warranty claim is three years.

The lawsuit was also dismissed because the plaintiff claims he
discovered the sunroof problems in January 2016, giving him a
year to file a lawsuit before the three-year period expired. In
addition, the plaintiff never claims Volkswagen concealed facts
that prevented him from filing the lawsuit before he did.

As for the claim that VW violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
the judge dismissed that claim because to state a claim, the
plaintiff must first adequately plead a claim for breach of
express warranty.  This isn't possible because the judge
dismissed the express warranty claim.

The Volkswagen shattered sunroof lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey -- Jonathan David,
et al., vs. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.

The plaintiff is represented by Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC, and
Greg Coleman Law.


VOLVO CARS: Court Junks Suit Over Side Impact Protections Systems
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Second Amended Complaint in the case captioned ANA WEBB, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. VOLVO CARS OF N.A., LLC, VOLVO CAR CORPORATION,
and VOLVO CARS OF N.A., INC., Defendants, Civil Action. No. 13-
2394 (E.D. Pa.).

This putative class action asserts violations of the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL")
(Count I), unjust enrichment (Count II), breach of express
warranty and implied warranty of merchantability (Counts III and
IV), and negligent misrepresentation and fraud (Counts V and VI)
against Volvo Car Corporation ("VCC") and two of its
subsidiaries, Volvo Cars of North America, Inc. ("VCNA") and
Volvo Car UK Limited ("VCUK," and together with VCC and VCNA,
"Volvo").

The Plaintiff's claims are based on Defendants' alleged failure
to install a Side Impact Protection System (SIPS) equipped with
steel door bars in the rear passenger-side doors of Volvo 850
vehicles. The named plaintiff, Ana Webb, alleges that  she
purchased one of these used vehicles based on advertising that
touted Volvo as a leader in automobile safety and that claimed
Volvo vehicles contained SIPS on all passenger doors.

In their Motion to Dismiss, the Defendants contend that Counts I
(UTPCPL), V (Negligent Misrepresentation), and VI (Fraud) should
be dismissed because they lack allegations of justifiable
reliance on any statement or advertising by Volvo.

Moreover, the Defendants contend that Count II (Unjust
Enrichment) should be dismissed because the Plaintiffs have not
adequately alleged a benefit conferred on the Defendants by the
Plaintiffs, knowledge or appreciation of those benefits by the
Defendants, or inequitable acceptance and retention of these
benefits.

The Defendants also contend that Count III (Express Warranty)
should be dismissed. To the extent that the claim is based on
Volvo's 1997 New Car Limited Warranty (Volvo Limited Warranty),
the warranty included a time and mileage limitation that expired
long before Plaintiff Webb purchased her vehicle. To the extent
that the claim is not based on the Volvo Limited Warranty, the
Defendants assert, the Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged
reliance on a specific misleading advertisement or other
representation.

The Defendants contend that, to the extent the Plaintiffs rely on
a breach of express warranty for their UTPCPL claim (Count I),
that should also be dismissed for the same reasons that Count
III, mentioned immediately above, should be dismissed.

The Defendants urge the Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Implied
Warranty claim (Count IV) because the Volvo Limited Warranty
confined any implied warranties to four years from the time of
sale to the original retail purchaser, which expired long before
Plaintiff purchased the used vehicle and the four-year statute of
limitations expired.

In response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiffs
assert that they adequately pled justifiable reliance and thus
provided sufficient notice to the Defendants as to Counts I
(UTPCPL), V (Negligent Misrepresentation), and VI (Fraud).

The Plaintiffs similarly disagree that their Unjust Enrichment
(Count II) claim is inadequately pled, because they alleged that
the Plaintiffs conferred both direct and indirect benefits on the
Defendants, the Defendants knew that they obtained those
benefits, and the Defendants acted inequitably in accepting and
retaining such benefits.

With respect to their Implied Warranty (Count IV) claim, as well
as their Express Warranty (Count III) claim and the derivative
UTPCPL claim the Plaintiffs assert that they adequately highlight
the specific written warranties in Volvo's advertising and safety
materials that Volvo violated.

Fraudulent Misrepresentation/Inducement -- Count VI

Under Pennsylvania law, claims for fraudulent misrepresentation
or inducement have six elements: (1) a representation; (2) which
is material to the transaction at hand; (3) made falsely, with
knowledge of its falsity or recklessness as to whether it is true
or false; (4) with the intent of misleading another into relying
on it; (5) justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation; and (6)
the resulting injury was proximately caused by the reliance.

The Plaintiffs' original complaint also did not identify any
specific misleading representation that was seen, heard, and
relied upon to purchase the Volvo 850.  The Defendants
specifically moved for a more definite statement on this ground
and the Plaintiffs submitted an amended complaint that identified
an allegedly misleading representation, which specified a Volvo
brochure which did not, on its face, pertain to the same Volvo
model (850) which is the subject matter of this case.

However, the First Amended Complaint's identified representation
has been improperly altered by the Plaintiffs' prior counsel to
make it appear relevant to this case in ways that it was not.
This Court once again granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend, and
the Plaintiffs removed the misleading exhibit. However, this left
them again without any specific misleading representation
alleged. In sum, the Plaintiffs have had three opportunities to
properly allege fraudulent misrepresentation by the Defendants,
and have repeatedly failed. Permitting the Plaintiffs a fourth
opportunity would be futile.

Negligent Misrepresentation -- Count V

In Pennsylvania, a claim of negligent misrepresentation requires
proof of: (1) a misrepresentation of a material fact; (2) made
under circumstances in which the misrepresenter ought to have
known its falsity; (3) with an intent to induce another to act on
it; and (4) which results in injury to a party acting in
justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation.

As with the Plaintiffs' fraud claim, and for the same reasons
expressed above, their claim for negligent misrepresentation
fails under Rule 12(b)(6).  The Plaintiffs have failed to allege
a single specific misrepresentation by the Defendants that the
Plaintiffs justifiably relied upon.

Breach of Express Warranty -- Count III

A warranty is created by a seller through any affirmation of fact
or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the
goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain.'

Thus, to state a cognizable claim for breach of express warranty,
a plaintiff must allege both that the defendant made an actual
affirmation of fact or a promise, and that the affirmation of
fact or promise formed the basis of the bargain between the
defendant and the plaintiff.

There is no allegation whatsoever in the Plaintiffs' SAC as to
what express warranty was seen, heard, and believed by Plaintiff
Webb. Having had three opportunities over the past four years to
adequately plead such a warranty, the Plaintiffs will not have a
fourth. Amendment of this claim would also be futile.

Breach of Implied Warranty

The Plaintiffs contend that, irrespective of the statute of
limitations period, equitable estoppel serves as a bar to
dismissal of this claim because Volvo caused the plaintiff to
relax his vigilance or deviate from his right of inquiry into the
facts.

However, there is no allegation of unintentional deception,
fraud, or concealment that meets the Twombley/Iqbal standard. The
Webbs purchased the used 1997 Volvo in 2009. It is unclear how
Volvo could have lulled [the Webbs] into a sense of false
security as to timely institution of their action, because the
Plaintiffs did not even own their Volvo during the applicable
limitations period assuming, that is, that the 1997 car was
purchased "new" from Volvo sometime prior to 2005.

This is not a case where the Plaintiffs were deceived and
therefore failed to bring their case during the limitations
period. They never could have brought a case for breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, seeing as they bought the
1997 Volvo in 2009 with 159,000 miles. Regardless of this
particular assertion, the Plaintiffs do not allege any equitable
estoppel in their SAC, and have failed to demonstrate that this
is the rare case where the plaintiff in some extraordinary way
has been prevented from asserting his or her rights.

Because the Plaintiffs cannot overcome the statute of limitations
defense, and separately, because the implied warranty of
merchantability was no longer in effect at the time that the
Webbs took possession of the vehicle, this claim must be
dismissed.

Unjust Enrichment -- Count II

Under Pennsylvania law, the elements of unjust enrichment have
been defined as, (1) benefits conferred on defendant by
plaintiff; (2) appreciation of such benefits by defendant; (3)
acceptance and retention of such benefits under such
circumstances that it would be inequitable for defendant to
retain the benefit without payment of value.

What the Plaintiffs fail to address, however, is the fact that
the Defendants concede this point. The Defendants do not dispute
that, as a matter of law, indirect purchasers can establish
claims for unjust enrichment. However, the present case does not
present a legally cognizable benefit.

Moreover, irrespective of the Defendants' intent, or lack
thereof, in allegedly accepting and/or retaining such generalized
benefits. The Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate acceptance
and retention of such benefits under circumstances in which it
would be inequitable for defendant to retain the benefit without
payment of value. This unjust enrichment claim relies on the same
alleged conduct as the underlying fraud claim, which, for reasons
stated earlier, will be dismissed.

The unjust enrichment claim also fails.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 26, 2018
Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybry5xda from
Leagle.com.

MARK WEBB, Plaintiff, represented by ALFRED JOSEPH FLUEHR,
FRANCIS ALEXANDER LLC & FRANCIS MALOFIY, Francis Alexander, LLC,
280 N. Providence Road, Suite 1, Media, PA 19063

ANA WEBB, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by ALFRED JOSEPH FLUEHR, FRANCIS
ALEXANDER LLC.

VOLVO CARS OF N.A., LLC, VOLVO CAR CORPORATION & VOLVO CARS OF
N.A., INC., Defendants, represented by PETER W. HERZOG, III --
pherzog@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP & RICHARD B.
WICKERSHAM, Jr. -- rwickersham@postschell.com -- POST & SCHELL,
P.C.


WAL-MART STORES: Tye Moves to Certify Five Classes of Purchasers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled MATTHEW TYE, HARRY SCHMOLL,
MICHAEL WILCOX, CRAIG LAMSTER and TANYA THOMPSON MULLINS, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. WAL-
MART STORES, INC., and WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P., Case No. 8:15-
cv-01615-DOC-JCG (C.D. Cal.), seeks certification of these
classes of purchasers:

   (a) All persons who, within the applicable statute of
       limitations, purchased one or more containers of "Great
       Value Pork & Beans in Tomato Sauce" (the "Product") at a
       Wal-Mart store located in California;

   (b) All persons who, within the applicable statute of
       limitations, purchased one or more containers of the
       Product at a Wal-Mart store located in New Jersey;

   (c) All persons who, within the applicable statute of
       limitations, purchased one or more containers of the
       Product at a Wal-Mart store located in Pennsylvania;

   (d) All persons who, within the applicable statute of
       limitations, purchased one or more containers of the
       Product at a Wal-Mart store located in New York; and

   (e) All persons who, within the applicable statute of
       limitations, purchased one or more containers of the
       "Product" at a Wal-Mart store located in Illinois.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to designate them as
representatives of their respective Classes, and to appoint Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP and DeNittis Osefchen
Prince, P.C., as Co-Class Counsel and the Law Offices of Todd M.
Friedman, P.C., as Liaison Counsel, for each of the Classes.

The Court will commence a hearing on July 16, 2018, at 8:30 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gAwfn8BP

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
          DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
          5 Greentree Centre
          525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 797-9951
          Facsimile: (856) 797-9978
          E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com

               - and -

          Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
          E-mail: pollack@whafh.com


WALMART STORE: Judge Rejects Attempt to Dodge Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Walmart "does not have a leg to stand on," a federal judge said
on April 27 when he denied its motion to decertify a class of
employees accusing it of violating state labor law by failing to
provide them with chairs.

Walmart has litigated the case, which has been held up in appeals
court over the certification issue, for nine years. In 2012, U.S.
District Judge Edward Davila certified a class of 80,000
cashiers, but Walmart appealed the ruling. The Ninth Circuit
waited until 2016 to affirm, pending the outcome of another class
action involving seating for employees, Kilby v. CVS.

"[T]he proper question is whether Wal-Mart has identified a
subsequent development in the law or the evidence to justify
revisiting class certification on its merits," Davila wrote in
his April 27 ruling. "Under that standard, Wal-Mart does not have
a leg to stand on."

Calling Walmart's motion "an exercise in futility," Davila found
it did not present any new evidence to compel him to revisit his
2012 order, but merely rehashed its old argument that the work
cashiers perform varies too much by store for the class to meet
the typicality and commonality requirements for certification.

"[T]he court specifically addressed and rejected this exact
argument the first time around, explaining that Wal-Mart's
30(b)(6) witness Jackie Grube testified that all California
cashiers perform the same essential tasks, which do not vary
based on Wal-Mart's identified factors," Davila wrote. "To the
extent Wal-Mart seeks to escape this admission with new evidence,
the court's prior observation still stands: the testimony of Wal-
Mart's 30(b)(6) witnesses is binding on Wal-Mart."

He added, "Wal-Mart does not sufficiently describe how its newly
raised evidence is meaningfully different than what was presented
before."

Davila said Walmart's argument stood in direct conflict not only
with his prior order, but also with the California Supreme
Court's decision in Kilby v. CVS, in which the state's high court
unanimously ruled that employees are entitled to a seat when
their jobs permit it.

"If the tasks being performed at a given location reasonably
permit sitting, and provision of a seat would not interfere with
performance of any other tasks that may require standing, a seat
is called for," Justice Carol Corrigan wrote for the court in
2016.

In a separate order, Davila sanctioned Walmart by excluding parts
of reports from two of its expert witnesses.

The plaintiffs had argued that Walmart provided certain
information to three witnesses for help with their testimony, but
did not disclose that same information to the plaintiffs until a
week after the Feb. 28, 2018 deadline to file their opening
expert reports.

Davila found Walmart provided ergonomist Dr. Jeffrey Fernandez
with videos of cashiers performing their jobs and cashier
transaction data, but did not give the plaintiffs the same videos
and data until months later.

"The only way to restore both parties to equal footing with
respect to the videos and register pull data is to exclude them,"
Davila wrote in his sanctions order.

Walmart also provided 357,450 daily productivity reports (known
as SWAS reports) to economist Dr. Deborah Foster, who was
retained to give her opinion on the average productivity of
seated versus standing cashiers, but the plaintiffs only received
600 such reports from Walmart.

He ordered Fernandez's and Foster's reports stricken to the
extent that they relied on information not turned over to the
plaintiffs, and also precluded Walmart from using those videos
and register data.[GN]


WEINSTEIN CO: Six Women Plaintiffs in Class Action Seek Court Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn C. Chmielewski, writing for Deadline, reports that six women
who are pursuing a class-action lawsuit against Harvey Weinstein
and the studio that bears his name are seeking the bankruptcy
court's permission to resume their case.

Attorneys for the women on April 30 filed a request with U.S.
Bankruptcy Court in Delaware to lift an automatic stay and allow
the case to proceed in federal district court in New York.

The women filed suit in December, saying they -- and potentially
hundreds of other women like them -- found themselves with
Mr. Weinstein on the proverbial "casting couch" at offices, in
hotel rooms, in his homes or at industry functions.

"Under the guise of meetings ostensibly to help further their
careers, or to hire them, or to socialize at industry events,
Weinstein isolated [these women] in an attempt to engage in
unwanted sexual conduct that took many forms: flashing, groping,
fondling, harassing, battering, false imprisonment, sexual
assault, attempted rape and/or completed rape," the women allege
in court documents.

The women, whose suit followed the explosive allegations reported
last fall by The New York Times and New Yorker, say Mr. Weinstein
exploited his powerful position in the entertainment industry to
wield the threat of blacklisting against the women who rebuffed
his sexual advances.

The suit seeks to hold Mr. Weinstein, The Weinstein Co. and its
board of directors accountable for allegedly facilitating and
concealing this pattern of unwanted sexual conduct -- including
the destruction of incriminating documents, the suit claims.

Proceedings paused on April 17, federal district court Judge
Alvin Hellerstein stayed the case and instructed lawyers to get
the bankruptcy court's blessing to proceed.

In the April 30 court filing, lawyers for the accusers -- who
include Louisette Geiss, a member of the Unsecured Creditors
Committee in the bankruptcy proceedings -- say that allowing this
case to go forward would not interfere with the ongoing sale of
The Weinstein Co.'s assets.

The attorneys argue the case is an urgent issue for women who say
they endured Mr. Weinstein's unwanted sexual conduct.

"It is imperative that the Geiss litigation proceed expeditiously
in the district court so that [these women] can recover for
Weinstein and The Weinstein Co.'s conduct, which has caused
widespread damage, including personal injury and emotional
distress . . . and damage to their careers," the attorneys argue.

The lawyers say they're worried that evidence might not survive
the sale of the studio.  Although The Weinstein Co. has a duty to
preserve documents, they say it has ignored or refused requests
to describe the steps the company has taken to preserve evidence.

The women also believe they're likely to win in court. [GN]


WORTHINGTON PJ: Seeks Final OK of $35,250 Deal in "O'Connor" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit styled RONALD O'CONNOR, individually,
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. WORTHINGTON PJ,
INC., a Florida corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-00608-SPC-MRM (M.D.
Fla.), jointly move the Court for an order granting their Joint
Motion for Final Approval of Settlement, Appointment of Class
Representatives and Class Counsel, and Certification of Rule 23
Settlement Class.

The proposed Class in this case is defined as:

     all current and former pizza delivery drivers employed by
     Defendant from August 4, 2012 through the date the Court
     enters an order of preliminary approval on this settlement.
     This included approximately 201 individuals.

The settlement is comprised of a limited class-wide release of
claims and dismissal of the instant cause of action in exchange
for $35,250.  The fees and expenses in administrating the
Settlement are set at $3,000.

A copy of the Joint Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=G0hf4DNY

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: crash@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Bradley W. Butcher, Esq.
          BUTCHER & ASSOCIATES, P.L.
          6830 Porto Fino Circle, Suite 2
          Fort Myers, FL 33912
          Telephone: (239) 322-1650
          Facsimile: (239) 322-1663
          E-mail: bwb@b-a-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ignacio J. Garcia, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3600
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 289-1247
          Facsimile: (813) 289-6530
          E-mail: ignacio.garcia@ogletreedeakins.com

               - and -

          Patrick F. Hulla, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4520 Main Street, Suite 400
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 471-1301
          Facsimile: (816) 471-1303
          E-mail: patrick.hulla@ogletreedeakins.com
                  jennifer.oldvader@ogletreedeakins.com


WYNN RESORTS: Court Extends Deadlines in "Ferris"
-------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada
extended the Defendant's Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to
the Complaint and Continuing Case Management Conference and
Associated Deadlines in the case captioned JOHN V. FERRIS and
JOANN M. FERRIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. WYNN RESORTS LIMITED, STEPHEN
A. WYNN, CRAIG SCOTT BILLINGS, STEPHEN COOTEY, and MATTHEW O.
MADDOX, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-CV-00479-GMN-CWH (D. Nev.).

The Plaintiffs  situated, filed a putative class action captioned
Ferris v. Wynn, et al., No. 18-cv-00479-GMN-CWH against
Defendants Wynn Resorts Limited, Stephen A. Wynn, Craig Scott
Billings, Stephen Cootey, and Matthew O. Maddox, alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. 240 promulgated thereunder.

The Parties agree that in the interests of judicial economy,
conservation of time and resources, and orderly management of
this action, no response to any pleading in this action by any
the Defendant should occur until after (i) a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel are appointed by the Court, and (ii) the lead
plaintiff serves an operative complaint.

The Defendants will not be required to answer, move, or otherwise
substantively respond to the Complaint or any amended complaint
until the date agreed upon by the Parties, if approved by the
Court, or until other further order by the Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 2, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y96hnz3n from Leagle.com.

John V. Ferris, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated & JoAnn M. Ferris, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Andrew R. Muehlbauer -- andrew@mlolegal.com -- Muehlbauer Law
Office, Ltd., Joseph Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -
- Pomerantz LLP.
Wynn Resorts Limited, Craig Scott Billings, Stephen Cootey &
Matthew O. Maddox, Defendants, represented by Alex Fugazzi --
afugazzi@swlaw.com -- Snell & Wilmer.



* Australia's Mandatory NDB Legislation Takes Effect
----------------------------------------------------
Sara Barker, writing for Security Brief, reports that could your
organisation effectively navigate a class-action lawsuit in the
event of a data breach? That may now be a reality under
Australia's mandatory notifiable data breach (NDB) legislation
that is now in effect, according to Austbrokers.

The firm says that there is more attention than ever on the
impact data breaches have on organisations and individuals.
Breaches may lead to increased costs, reputational damage, loss
of customers, and even a class-action lawsuit.

Austbrokers divisional chief executive Nigel Thomas says the
United States is already facing class-action lawsuits as a result
of data breaches, and it may only be a matter of time before
Australian courts start seeing a similar pattern.

The NDB legislation is designed to protect individual's personal
information and minimise harm to people who have their personal
information involved in a data breach such as unauthorised access
or data theft.  The NDB legislation definition of 'serious harm'
to an individual not only includes financial loss but provides
for emotional distress and reputational damage.

"Organisations that fail to keep data secure and don't take the
prescribed steps under the NDB legislation can be fined up to
$2.1 million before an affected individual even considers taking
legal action.  The civil penalties could end up costing the
business much more," comments Mr. Thomas.

Organisations now have to report such eligible data breaches to
the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) and
the individuals whose information is involved in the breach.

As a result, people will have more information about what's
happened to their personal information, potentially giving them
ammunition to take legal action against companies that haven't
done enough to keep their information private and secure.

"While most businesses have cybersecurity measures in place to
mitigate the risk of a breach, the increasing sophistication and
determination of cybercriminals mean it's not possible to
guarantee that a breach won't occur.  It's therefore essential,
like any business risk, to mitigate it with the right risk
management and insurance," Mr. Thomas says.

According to the ASX, cyber insurance is a growing market in
Australia. 80% of ASX-surveyed companies expect an increase in
cyber risk over the next year.

Firms that buy cyber insurance are 'well ahead of the curve' in
mitigating business risk, Austbrokers says.  54% of surveyed ASX
companies either have a cyber insurance policy or plan to
implement one in the next 12 months.

"Rejecting cyber insurance is as risky as refusing to insure
business premises against fire.  Businesses hope they won't have
to deal with a data breach such as a cyberattack and smart
organisations will take all possible steps to prevent a
successful attack.  However, if the worst-case scenario happens,
the right cyber insurance policy can help businesses recoup the
losses associated with the fallout of an attack, including legal
action," Mr. Thomas adds.

"While cyber insurance is in its relative infancy in Australia at
the moment, it won't be long before it's considered as essential
as any other business insurance.  Businesses need to make sure
they're covered so they can operate with confidence," he
concludes.


* Carlton Fields Releases 2018 Class Action Survey
--------------------------------------------------
Julianna Thomas McCabe, Esq. -- jtmccabe@carltonfields.com -- of
Carlton Fields, reported that that the seventh annual Carlton
Fields Class Action Survey, released April 24, reveals important
issues and trends related to class action matters and management
based on interviews with general counsel or senior legal officers
at 385 companies of all sizes and business types.  The survey,
reflects their thoughts about class action exposure and best
practices for class action management.

A copy of the survey is available at https://is.gd/JJwAyP [GN]


* Citizen Petition for Regulation of Sugar May Lead to Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Lynn Webster, writing for The Hill, report that most people
are aware of the types of drugs that are federally classified as
substances with no medicinal benefit and high abuse potential:
heroin, LSD and marijuana are examples of these drugs and they
are indeed classified as illegal.  The Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
are the two government agencies responsible for classifying
drugs.

The FDA recently received a Citizen Petition for Stricter
Regulation of Added Sugar "to amend the Drug Schedules to include
added sugar to either Schedule I or Schedule II of the Controlled
Substances Act."  This idea is not new to many members of the
medical community who believe that sugar is a poison.

The implications of scheduling sugar may run deeper and command
more gravitas, than one might think.  According to the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. is
experiencing an obesity epidemic that results in premature deaths
and billions of added healthcare costs to manage diabetes, heart
disease and obesity-induced joint destruction.

Sugar unquestionably adds to the prevalence of obesity in
America.  Therefore, every food product that includes sugar may
be contributing to the scope and costs of the obesity epidemic
and is accelerating the volume of premature deaths among millions
of Americans.

Robert Lustig, a specialist on pediatric hormone disorders and a
leading expert in childhood obesity, popularized the claim that
sugar is a poison in his "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" lecture."

According to a New York Times Magazine article, "Is Sugar
Toxic?," Lustig has taken a leadership role in blaming sugar for
the increase in obesity and diabetes.

He holds sugar at least partly responsible for the prevalence of
many diseases, implicating high-fructose corn syrup (which is
actually fructose and glucose) as well sucrose (refined sugar).
Studies with laboratory rats, the results of which may also hold
true for humans, have convinced him that sugar is toxic.

Time sums up this research, "Lustig and his colleagues think
they've produced the 'hard and fast data that sugar is toxic
irrespective of its calories and irrespective of weight.' "

However, there has been controversy surrounding the toxicity of
sugar.  According to a EcoWatch article, for the past 50 years,
the sugar industry has manipulated the science to exonerate sugar
and shift the blame to fat for causing disease.  The article
contends academic scientists were complicit in persuading people
to get more of their calories from sugar rather than from fats.

Minimally, many people do seem to crave sugar. Dr. David Samadi,
writing for the Huffington Post, says that sugar affects the
brain in much the same way as heroin and cocaine. In that sense,
he says, sugar is an addictive drug.

In fact, sugar may be as addictive as other substances that are
scheduled 1 by the FDA and DEA.  Many of us experience great
pleasure from eating sweets and continue to ingest them despite
the harm they may cause.

This is the classic definition of an addiction.  For example,
some people claim they are addicted to chocolate; maybe, in fact,
they are.

It's likely that some of us who would refuse to misuse -- or even
use -- highly scheduled drugs continue to perceive the dangers of
sugar in a different light than other risky substances. Maybe our
perceptions should change.

The CDC has estimated the number of deaths that are attributable
to obesity each year to be between 112,000 and 365,000, depending
on the calculation.  Even if we conservatively take the lesser
number, that still represents 3-4 times more deaths than the
number of opioid-related deaths in the U.S.

What the FDA and DEA will do with the Citizen Petition for
Stricter Regulation of Added Sugar is unknown.  However, it is
possible that the petition may eventually lead to a class action
lawsuit against sugar manufacturers and soft drink producers and
their distributors.  Has industry been forthright with the
American public about the potential harm of sugar? Time will
tell.

Meanwhile, we know sugar is a rewarding substance that is abused
by millions of Americans every day and has contributed to more
than 1 million deaths in the past decade.  It will be interesting
to see how the debate will evolve and how political and social
forces will influence the outcome.

Fortunately, sugar affects all of us differently and for many
people it is neither addictive or deadly. Just like many other
substances that carry inherent risk, sugar can be safely used in
moderation by most people without wreaking havoc on their lives
or contributing to their premature deaths.

Lynn R. Webster, M,D. is a vice president of scientific affairs
for PRA Health Sciences and consults with Pharma.  He is a former
president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine.  Dr. Webster
is the author of "The Painful Truth: What Chronic Pain Is Really
Like and Why It Matters to Each of Us."






                            *********


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  * * *